The next chapter of the immigration battle is over the birthright of those babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States. For starters, we dislike the expression ‘anchor baby’ to be derogatory. It implies an intent that simply might not be there.
The first volleys lobbed in the birthright battle might be coming from Arizona. According to the New York Times:
Arizona — whose tough law granting the police the power to detain illegal immigrants is tied up in the courts — may again take the lead in what is essentially an effort to redefine what it means to be an American. This time, though, Arizona lawmakers intend to join with legislators from several other states to force the issue before the Supreme Court.
This coalition of lawmakers will unveil its exact plans on Wednesday in Washington, but people involved in drafting the legislation say they have decided against the painstaking process of amending the Constitution. Since the federal government decides who is to be deemed a citizen, the lawmakers are considering instead a move to create two kinds of birth certificates in their states, one for the children of citizens and another for the children of illegal immigrants.
The theory is that this could spark a flurry of lawsuits that might resolve the legal conflict in their favor.
“This is not a far-out, extremist position,” said John Kavanagh, one of the Arizona legislators who is leading an effort that has been called just that. “Only a handful of countries in the world grant citizenship based on the GPS location of the birth.”
Most scholars of the Constitution consider the states’ effort to restrict birth certificates patently unconstitutional. “This is political theater, not a serious effort to create a legal test,” said Gabriel J. Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona whose grandfather immigratedto the United States from China at a time when ethnic Chinese were excluded from the country. “It strikes me as unwise, un-American and unconstitutional.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, was a repudiation of the Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, that people of African descent could never be American citizens. The amendment said citizenship applied to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
In 1898, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the citizenship provision as applying to a child born in the United States to a Chinese immigrant couple.
The plan to issue 2 different kinds of birth certificates sounds rather devious. Apparently these activists are looking for activists judges to settle the issue rather than go through the legislative process. It seems to me that the only honest way to solve this issue is to amend the Constitution and change birth right by location (Jus Soli) to birthright based on parentage (Jus sanguinis). Of course the question remains–is it even possible to push through a Constitutional amendment? Probably not. (See The Christian Scientist Monitor)
Blended families in the United States are very much a reality. There are cases where one spouse is documented and the other is not. In other cases, there are undocumented parents with citizen children, or some citizen children.
A study released in August by the Pew Hispanic Center found that about 340,000 children were born to illegal immigrants in the United States in 2008 and became instant citizens.
In April, Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, one of those pushing for Congressional action on the issue, stirred controversy when he suggested that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants should be deported with their parents until the birthright citizenship policy was changed.
“And we’re not being mean,” Mr. Hunter told a Tea Party rally in Southern California. “We’re just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen. It’s what’s in our souls.”
Mr. Hunter seems to be taking a lot on himself to declare what it means to become an American citizen. Being born here sure has worked for me. As for what’s in people’s souls…how dare he! Such arrogance. Perhaps what he really fears is that one day, in the not too distant future, those ‘anchor babies’ will come of age, and at election time, kick his tale right out of office. Isn’t that what its really all about?
Further Reading: Christian Scientist Monitor
I have been told by previously undocumented immigrants that they know people from their countries that do cross over our border only to give birth to their children and then return to their homes in Central America. They also give their new babies Anglo names. On the other hand I personnally know previously undocumented aliens who came here to better themselves and to make permanent positive contributions to their new country and had babies here while doing so. I would not support any new legislation that affects the citizenship of babies born here while their parents are making a coninous contribution to this country. I’m less decided about folks who cross the borders for a day , have a kid, and go back. However, generally I believe that if one is born here then you are my countryman and have the same rights and responsibilities (taxes, draft, jury duty, etc.) as I have.
Thank You for daring, Mr. Hunter. It’s about time!
It looks to me like United States vs Wong Kim Ark does not quite fit the bill with regard to the current issue. From the way I read it the court predicated its decision on the fact that Wong’s parents were legally in the U.S. at the time of his birth, although they were not citizens and were subjects of the Emperor of China at the time. It also looks like Mom and Pop and the whole family, once legal residents, got ambushed by the Chinese Exclusion Acts during a visit to China, making them potentially illegal immigrants if they tried to get back in. Wong got the court’s nod to stay because of a legal birth in California. Ultimately so did his siblings who were born here when the parents were legal residents.
Maybe the court left a lot of wiggle room in this decision; but one has to ask what the outcome might have been if the parents had been found NOT to have been legal residents of the U.S. at the time Wong was born. That appears to be the contemporary issue. It seems to me that a major question is whether a government can have “jurisdiction” over someone who is not legally in the country and is here without the official knowledge (visa or permission to immigrate) of that government. Perhaps “jurisdiction” does not come until the government actually finds out that the individual is an illegal immigrant and, therefore, subject by law to deportation.
Not sure ‘legal’ had the same meaning in 1898 that it has now. What made them ‘legal?’
I would not want to have jurisdiction over anyone here in this country. Think how much problem diplomats have been with their questionable status.
BS, it seems there would be another way to attack the problem of the ‘one dayers.’ I read last night that people doing that is fairly rare. What would do we about visitors who give birth while here?
Moon: you made a great point: “I read last night that people doing that is fairly rare.”– We need to know the size of the problem before we go out a legislate. Most “immigration” issues are emotional ones and are not based on facts. But I expect that the emotional types will continue to bang drums, predict catastrophe, and waive the flag and we will come away with some new laws that hurt the very people this country needs to re-energize its economy and gene pool.
I’m begining to suspect that Mother Nature is about to throw a wrench into this political dance… Natural climate change may be generating another ice age for the northern hemisphere (Ice Ages come rapidly and can cause dramatic climate changes within 2 generations at worst).
With the sheer numbers of humans living in the Northern parts of America, there will not be enough resources to provide them with adequate food and shelter during the long winters, many would have to migrate to the southern parts of the U.S. making it close quarters and again, zapping up resources.
The question our Grandchildren may face is whether to invade Mexico and absorb it into the union as a resource to keep up our current consumption/ property holding trends.
Or to collectivly scale back our individual consumption trends and property holdings in an effort to not overcrowd eachother.
The will to survive will trumps the concept of Citizen, Race, Border and even Law when humans find their back against the wall… We need to look at the whole picture here and make sure we don’t get in that position ourselves. We need to work out how to deal with others who find themselves in that position.
If humans cannot work together to preserve an adequate abundance of resources, we’ll go back to the “Law of the Jungle.”
Let’s hope that the AGW crowd is right and that CO2 DOES promote global warming.
Everybody….on 3…. exhale! 1…., 2……. 😉
I think I’ll do my part and go for a drive.
My wife and I had a conversation about the 14th and she wanted to know my opinion. I think that the citizenship issue of the 14th should be debated.
I also think that these issues would get less traction if the populace felt that the federales were doing more to fix our immigration system than trying to ‘fix’ healthcare, or global warming, or grounding NASA, etc..
So, I’m interested to see the legislation that comes about and the lawsuits for and against.
Debated by whom? What do you want ‘the feds’ to do about fixing the immigration system? Every time someone introduces legislation there is a hue and cry and we all hear illegals and amnesty more than any other words.
Marin, there are people who want no Hispanics in this country. Trust me when I tell you this. They will continue to throw around excuses until they get their way. Another ploy is to scare people to death. Drug dealers, the ‘browning of America,’ Mexicans in hoods, high-lighting criminals are all concepts those who oppose immigration from the south employ to mislead others. To say go back and stand in line when there is NO line is pretty pointless but a lot of folks have bought into that conundrum.
@Moon-howler
I agree with you to a point Moon about the typical words you hear when someone introduces legislation but you forgot some of the most popular words like racist, nativism, xenophobe… along with a slew of other more colorful words.
Also, I take great exception to you saying “Another ploy is to scare people to death. Drug dealers, the ‘browning of America,’ Mexicans in hoods, high-lighting criminals are all concepts those who oppose immigration from the south employ to mislead others.”
I’ve asked you this a bunch of times and I’m not sure if you have ever answered the question. I live on rt.1 within walking distance from both rt.1 illegal day labor sites… I mean 7-11’s. How many people have been murdered within walking distance of your house? How many people have been stabbed during armed robberies within walking distance of your house? How many times do you see MS-13/18th street gang graffiti while taking a stroll around your neighborhood with your child and wife?
You are isolated from it all where you live. For some of us the “ploy”, as you so carelessly describe it, is all too real when your raising a 1 year old and have a beautiful young wife and are surrounded by it.
Moon — The definition of “legal.” There you may have hit on the fuzziness of the Wong Kim Ark decision with regard to the contemporary issue. Both parties to that case apparently agreed that, at the time of Wong’s birth in the U.S., his parents were “domiciled residents therein, this said mother and father were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.” It looks to me like an implication that the parents were here legally, apparently in the same situation as my own immigrant ancestors before they acquired naturalized citizenship.
Thus I posit that any further decision on the contemporary issue is going to have to define very clearly the exact meaning of “domiciled resident.” Rather than a change to Amendment XIV through constitutional amendment procedures, I suspect we may see a future attempt by Congress to utilize the enforcement powers granted to it in Section V of that amendment to define “domiciled resident” and that this is what will surely be challenged in the courts and possibly lead to a clearer judicial decision and definition.
Closer to home, did anyone take note of News & Messenger’s article on the first child born this new year at PWH? Healthy baby girl born to a 17 year old girl, who required a translator during labor & delivery. Child’s surname given was same as the mother’s, which would indicatel the mother is un-wed. Mother may or may not be in the country legally. This was not reported, and I will not speculate. Who paid for the labor and delivery costs was not reported either. What we do know is, Mom is still a minor, un-wed, and can’t speak english very well. Pretty grim economic prospects implied here. Definitely not a college graduate, and perhaps no HS diploma either. Whatever this little girl’s status is interpreted to be, life isn’t going to be easy for mother or child. I pray for them both.
I do feel we need to have a rational debate as a nation. I have read the 14th ammendment, and studied the history of its development. That it was originally intended to establish property rights and citizenship for the children of freed slaves is clear. Also clear is the intended purpose of the citizenship clause, as it was reasoned, written and debated by its author, Senator Howard, at the time it was written. Native Americans who claim tribal membership and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” I think the first part is declaritive. “Persons born in the United States who are foreigners” are excluded. If someone is born here, citizenship is not automatic. Certain other conditions must be present as well. The person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which I take to mean they have consented to the laws and governance of the United States. Therefore, someone who is in the country illegally, has not made themselves “subject to the jurisdiction”, cannot by their mere presence secure birthright citizenship on their children. We know the ammendment was written and passed to deal with a narrowly defined issue: what consititutional rights apply to former slaves, the children of slaves born into slavery, of those freed pre-abolition, and those born post-abolition.
But this is something we will have to debate and do our best to settle, because so many other issues are connected to it. I just hope we can do so without tearing ourselves apart over it.
I don’t have a wife. Not wired that way.
Apparently you think I live in the lap of luxury. I am laughing in your face and so are others who know my neighborhood.
What is it exactly that I am isolated from?
I am within walking distance of where murders have taken place. The last one, the perp wasn’t hispanic. I am within walking distance of places where there have been armed robberies. One can see grafitti on any given day. Usually it is cleaned up pretty fast due to the efforts of others.
Take all the exeption you want. I stand by the ploys comment. I am also willing to bet that I have been elbow to elbow with more hispanics in a week, some documented, some undocumented, than you have been in a lifetime–some of them were right out of your neighborhood. I used to work in that vicinity.
Steve, I am unclear on the Indians because back then, things were so fuzzy with regard to where they fit in to the world. I think any modern interpretation on that might just not be applicable.
I think any foreigner gets the option of claiming US citizenship for her child. I think that diplomats fall into a different category because of their declared immunity. I think they are the only ones who don’t fall under our jurisdiction.
Who are some other folks who have auto-citizenship? Puerto Ricans, Virgin Island, Guam, Marianas Is. ..I know there are more.
I just don’t like the sneaky way this is being proposed. If most americans want to change from birth soil to birth blood, amend the Constitution. Anything less is dishonest.
Perhaps Moon-howler we will eventuall amend the Constitution. Meanwhile we need to be talking about this issue on a national level.
Until such time as clear laws are passed that clarify the birthright citizenship issue, we certainly need a run through the courts on this.
“Who are some other folks who have auto-citizenship? Puerto Ricans, Virgin Island, Guam, Marianas Is. ..I know there are more.”
Children of citizens born abroad, such as those born to US Servicemen and their spouses while stationed overseas. This includes the children of spouses who were married to the serivcemen but not yet citizens themselves.
As far as Indians go, during that time the tribes were viewed as independent nations.
I think it will either take a SCOTUS decision to force the ammendment debate, which is what I believe some are trying to accomplish.
Understood that there are people who want no Hispanics in this country. There are also those that want free and open borders. But, that’s not really what I’m saying needs to be debated. I think Wolverine defined the issue very well. The definition of who exactly is legal or illegal and what lawful remedies exist should be debated.
Today was unique in that I drove up north for a meeting with 3 co-workers. Two of them are latinos and illegally entered the US, went to school, had jobs, joined the Marines and went through the process of becoming citizens. Both of them agreed that the process should be refined BUT that it’s “too easy” to become a citizen and that those wanting to become citizens should “earn” it through national service, volunteerism, etc.
I don’t see the term anchor baby as always derogatory. I’m an anchor baby (assuming I’ll sign off on my parents citizenship). If someone calls me an anchor baby to my face I’m not going to cry or hit the guy in the mouth or whatever. The best response is, “Yeah, and?” 🙂
I don’t see anything wrong or anything to fear with having a good civilized debate about immigration, immigration reform and the 14th.
Here are some other fine crimes that have happened within walking distance. Please, allow me to jog your memory Moon. There was critical stabbing, grandma got tazed, brothels, child molestation/rape, carjackings in broad day light. I could go on and on. I think I’ve made my point. I would hardly call “Ground Zero” crime free.
Lafayette, and my neighborhood -which doesn’t have a large immigrant population (legal or otherwise) – has had its share of druggies, drunks, wife beaters, wandering dogs, untagged cars, etc. My opinion, get involved in solving your neighborhood’s problems or move. Whining doesn’t do any good.
Censored, I sure hope you aren’t saying I’m whining. Please, don’t tell me we’ve gone back to our same arguments from years gone by. 😉 I’ve been quite involved in solving problems here, as have others. It’s much improved, and the efforts continue to this very day on many fronts. I was trying to point out we have a wide variety of crimes at GZ. I think someone thought Moon lived in a gated community or something. We have those same problems you do in your neck of the woods. Bottom line bad neighbors are EVERYWHERE.
Go ahead and issue different birth certificates, Arizona.
I doubt that the number of individuals born to illegal aliens is all that high. Statistics show the numbers to be insignificant. Arizona will prove me right! Bring it on!
Lafayette, no, you’re not one of the whiners but one of the problem solvers. It appears that most of the whiners are men. The women seem to be the problem-solvers. 😉
@marinm
I have no problem talking about it but how many times must we do it? It has been debated and discussed ad nauseum.
You do know that now your colleagues would not have been permitted to join the marines if they were not documented.
I don’t think it is too easy to become a citizen. All I did was get born. It was probably rough on my mother but I can’t complain. For naturalized citizens, there is quite a bit of material to learn. My hat is off to all lof them who gain citizenship for the right reasons.
Anchor baby is rarely said as a compliment. It is laden with political nuance.
Well rhetoric I Arizona waiting for? Do it. Start issuing two two sets of birth certificates. They will soon find out that this is very much of an insignificant issue.
Right you are. Women are the problem solvers and will get their hands dirty.
Posing a question here: Babies are born every day in America and the territories (who no longer have a vote on the floor of Congress). I am trying to distinguish the real concern. Is the concern that babies will grow up and allow parents and other relatives to enter the USA because of baby citizen?
1. the parents are here already
2. Why not make a law prohibiting that?
3. Would people be happier if the undocumented women just had abortions? Many already do.
Censored, I was accused of having no idea about being around immigrants. I believe the work ‘isolated’ was used. hmmmmmm…did I move and no one told me?
Did I not have a job the past many years?
@Moon-howler
I guess we’ll keep talking about it as long as threads go up about it. 🙂
Yes, I and they are aware of that. That’s more so important now that clearances are required for tasks that wouldn’t have required them just 10 years ago.
I’m looking at this as a centrist. Allow the debate to occur, argue one way or the other depending on the points raised and lets go with what’s best for the most people.
I can’t repeat this enough — if the feds had been doing the job correctly we wouldn’t be at a point where it’s a top 5 subject in the minds of voters/people.
Marin,
The problem is, everyone talking about is …well…voicing an opinion.
What is it you want the feds to have done correctly? I keep hearing that ..if the feds had just …. but no one ever says what they should have done.
I don’t think immigration is one of the top 5 subjects. If it were, Tom Tancredo would be president and Dan Stein would be secretary of state.
@Moon-howler
Moon, the places you listed are American Territories and so we have all that nice yellow parchment in the Library of Congress which says they are US Citizens from the time of the paper on forward. Of course, some of the issues in each of the Territories mimic issues we have in the Homeland with the various Tribal Nations.
An interesting twist on immigration is actually within the Tribal Nations now – last week, the Lakata Sioux tore up their treaty with the US Government, quoting the part about Sovereign Nation in the Constitution and how Washington is not abiding by it. The Tribal Council has been visiting various embassies around DC too.
That is going to put a real twist to immigration debate – the treaties made them US Citizens, and even with the action they have taken, on one hand you cannot say their Citizenship has been revoked by the US Gov’t…on the other, is how they view it does not matter.
Steve brought up about US births overseas, particularly when a foreign national gives birth to a “Gee-Eye Baby” (to use the old phrase). I can remember as a Personnel Sergeant in Germany filling out a crap load of Army and State Department forms so the parents could go to the Embassy and get the child legally declared as a US Citizen. Ton a paperwork, but somehow I always enjoyed that work.
@Raymond, I thought all citizens of the US territories were also citizens of the USA? Am I incorrect on this?
The Lakota can be real hotheads. I guess I don’t much blame them. I just don’t totally understand the tribal tribal nuances of being American. Its one of those things I can be told 15 times and it never totally sinks in.
The only sword I plan on falling on with this issue is that those who are citizens are citizens…no retroactive not a citizen stuff. I have no problem with a constitutional amendment clarifying birth right citizenship or going with a totally different kind of citizenship. I just want it done fairly and above-board.
I think I mentioned a few weeks ago that I would make the application/background check a shall issue process. Basically, if USCIS doesn’t have a reason to disqualify a person within a set time frame they are required to make the person a citizen.
Frontloading more requirements (like volunteering or some other civil service) would be something I would look for as well. The allowed groups would need to be kept on a short list to make sure fraud doesn’t seep in.
Now, this will create a larger pool of green card holders which presents a 14A challange and loophole. While being a green card holder and working the process if you have a kid that kid’s a citizen – who in 18 years could apply for that parents citizenship (assuming the adult gives up or takes just that long…). So, close the loop — unless at least one parent is a US citizen the offspring isn’t because he’s born of a non-citizen.
Just spitballing ideas…
This will be an interesting topic to watch for the next few years.
Moonhowler: I will have to disagree with you. Ask Elena about our conversation in terms of where I live now. She will be visiting and I will take her for a tour. There is no assimilation here unfortunately. I refuse to clump myself in with those on the right, but I am living in a part of the country where the impact of illegal immigration is profound. We are thinking of moving to CO. The schools are much better there too. Sorry.
However, I am a believer in the dream act and against making children of illegal immigrants illegal. I am stuck in the middle. Not the usual place for me. Very weird.
@Heidi
I am not sure what you are disagreeing with me about. The Constitution says what it says. If you want it changed, there is a process. Have at it. If enough people want it changed, it will happen.
I doubt that you will convince Elena of too much. She had quite an inside tour around here and I didn’t see her convictions changed. Our demographics are about 60-20-20 (W-H-B)with very few asians statistically so I didn’t include them. I can see yours are about 50-30-3-27. (W-H-B-A) I have a close relative living in Los Altos. His demographics are quite different from yours. That is 20 miles away?
I am not sure that a constitutional question should really be based on demographics or emotional issues like ‘assimiliation.’ I do accept that is what drives most of our thinking though. Perhaps all of us would be able to have more productive discussion if we didn’t try to pin on a labellike left or right before discussing immigration. I find it just muddles the works. I don’t necessarily think I am all ‘left’ or all ‘right’ on any side of the immigration issue.
Most first generation immigrants don’t assimilate well regardless of ethnicity. Most immigrants tend to live in clusters or communities. The little Italies and Chinatowns and the ‘Irish sector’ found in many major cities bear this out.
OUr hispanics tend to live in clusters and it is usually where there is affordable housing. Part of our cultural clash has been because of this fact. The established people in the older neighorhoods tended to be impacted hard and they fought back to preserve the standards of their neighborhoods. Many are still fighting.
I believe the clash has socio-economic rather than racial.
Being in the middle is never easy. Everyone hates you when you are there, dead center. I usually am so I speak from experience.
Additionally, when you are impacted by any issue, it often makes you separate from your ideals. Many of us would love to live out the “send us your huddled masses, learning to be free” dream in our heads…until our daily lives are on a collision course with the realities of immigration. Those realities can certainly jar us away from idealistic thinking very fast.
“get involved in solving your neighborhood’s problems or move”
That’s what Help Save Manassas was all about. And they got very involved in positive actions.
I thank Heidi for her honesty. Many more people move away from this problem than generally admit it. It happened all around me 3-4 years ago and I know some of the people still here were thinking about it but weren’t in the life position to pull the trigger (probably including my wife and I).
And I know people in Maryland who are leaving their neighborhood, moving “up” a step, motivated primarily by what is happening in their neighborhoods. High-earning people.
Let’s be clear here, Rick. It was NOT just those from HSM that made a difference in our community. There are quite a few I know of in WestGate that had a huge impact that have NEVER even heard of HSM. I’m not discounting HSM’s efforts as I was part of that group. Since your thankful for honesty from Heidi, I hope you appreciate my honesty regarding HSM. You make it sound as HSM was the sole savior to our problems. We still have some of the same problems, but not as glaring and every other house you pass at Ground Zero.
Rick, I think plenty of people did things to help their own neighborhoods and others who weren’t members of HSM.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think HSM actually did that helped communities?
What were the positive actions?
Rick, from what I saw on Greg’s blog, HSM painted over gang graffiti, took pictures of day laborers, organized political support for the Immigration Resolution, and cleaned up a site near the 7-11. Actual change within a neighborhood takes more than that. If every person who attended the HSM meetings actually got off his/her butt and worked in the neighborhood, you’d see a more marked difference. Some people who were/are members of HSM have actually done some hard work – getting NS involved in solving problems, starting a Neighborhood Watch, etc. Others just bitch on blogs.
@Moon-howler
” I am trying to distinguish the real concern.”
MH, I think the “real concern” differs from heart to heart. Some are concerned about children being born who will require additional services throught much of their young lives, in the form of birthing costs, WIC, ESL and other public assistance, further taxing already stressed public services. Some are concerned that these children’s citizenship will be used to keep their parents, subject to deportation, in the country. Some are concerned with “chain-migration”. Some the “dilution” of “American Culture”. Some the “browning” of America. Some the loss of primacy of English as our spoken language.
@Steve, and I think that cost should be a concern. In fact, I think it should be a concern for all children. That is one reason I have spent many years trying to make sure that people of child bearing age use contraception and that safe, reliable contraception is available to everyone. Sound unrelated, but it isn’t really. Any time the tax payer has to support someone else’s children…well…that’s not an ideal situation.
My concern probably runs more along the lines of poverty. All kids born in poverty have a rougher start in life and it takes most of them twice as long to catch up, if they ever do.
As you said, concerns differ from heart to heart. I don’t even mind if the Constitution is amended to either change from location to parentage as long as it isn’t retroactive. I would also not mind if there were restrictions place on citizenship to children with foreign parents. I just think we need to be up-front about our motivation.
Change is difficult. All new waves of immigrants have caused consternation for those already established. Changes in jim Crow laws caused many southerners to have apoplexy. ‘Dilution’ of American culture is probably strong motivation. What probably disturbs me the the most would be the people who really don’t like the dilution and the browning of America but who hide behind the illegal issue.
When I was a kid living briefly in NJ, there was a large Puerto Rican population. I heard similar talk except for the fact they were not ‘illegal.’
Anchors Away!!!
Big non-problem. A lot of nations have birthright citizenship. It works well because it’s clear. But if people don’t like the XIVth amendment, they should amend the Constitution to suit what they want from it.
To be honest, the current interpretation of the 14th IS beneficial. Since we are complete and utter failures at controlling illegal immigration, this interpretation prevents the country from having 2 classes of citizens. Now, if we actually enforced our laws and deported illegal aliens, then the alternative interpretation would work.
However, nothing prevents us from deporting the parents.