58% Say No to Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants

This is interesting, considering current law says these children are citizens at birth in the States. I don’t think the law should change, if a child is born here, he/she is an American. But, I do think we should enforce current immigration laws, which would, in theory, put the number of illegal immigrants in this country to a minimum.

"58% Say No to Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say a child born to an illegal immigrant in this country should not automatically become a citizen of the United States, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. "…

Entire article here: rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/58_say_no_to_citizenship_for_children_of_illegal_immigrants

The problem is that in enforcing immigration law families get split because of anchor babies. This creates a humanitarian crisis, and the only option is amnesty.

This is interesting:

Amendment XIV, ratified July 9, 1868:

Section I. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

It goes on to other matters.

But if a person born in the United States is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or is subject to the jurisdiction of some other country, then is that person NOT a citizen of the United States?

The usual understanding is that if you are in the United States, you are subject to its jurisdiction, and if you are born subject to the jurisdiction, you are a citizen, hence the anchor babies.

Other countries have a variety of ways to make you a citizen or keep you from becoming one. In some, there just isn’t any way to be naturalized. But, you don’t ever lose your American citizenship except by making a positive renunciation of it.

US Congress has already made exceptions to law. For example children of Diplomats and the staff they brought with them from their Country of origin and born in US are **not **US citizens.
Under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress has the right to make laws regarding naturalization.
Based on this Congress can pass law stating children of ILLEGAL immigrants (illegal aliens) are not US citizens but have not done so.

Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 punishes employers who hire illegal aliens/immigrants if they have more than 3 employees.
I think 1986 was the last time amensty was granted to illegals.

Fat chance of that happening. Look at all the reaction to just one’s state’s anti-immigrant law. Just try modifying the anchor baby law. No one except in the border states really cares, and there’d be solid opposition from every Democratic legislator in Congress.

I think most Americans would like border control, and a legal, organized way for immigration to take place. Most “American citizens” support Arizona.
Both parties have controlled Congress since 1986, and not taken control /protected our borders.
The Bush Administration got the border fence started, until the Dems pulled the plug on funding.


But, that’s different from modifying how one becomes an American citizen. That is not likely to happen.

I fail to see the problem. If I had a family, but I commit a crime such as robbery, should I not get taken to jail? I don’t think the “WHAT ABOUT MY BABIES?!?!?” argument would work there. The fact of the matter is that illegals break the law. Its hard to say, but I do not feel sorry if they have children in the U.S. Its the same reason I’m against abortion. You knew it would happen, and you did it anyway. A stupid idea on your part doesn’t require me to help or support you.

It is not the case of jail, but deportation that is a problem. The US cannot forcibly deport its own citizens (who are innocent of any crime). The result is that the parents can and will be deported but the children could be left here, in foster care. If we make the mother being here legally a requirement for natural born citizenship, then the children stay with the parents (and in this case get deported).

Breaking up the families is an objective evil that can only be prevented one of two ways, grant amnesty to the parents of anchor babies or deny the babies automatic US citizenship.

Well, I think you missed the target in terms of options. IMO heres the options
A. amnesty,
B. Deny Babies automatic U.S. Citizenship,


C. Make an exemption for children born in the United States illegally.

We already know that there can be exemptions in a law, so why not make one here?

Lets do some basic math.

IllegalIllegal=illegal. Why do we insist that Illegalillegal=legal?

My argument was for A&C, B creates too many unrelated difficulties to be realistic.

My original point (to the OP who supports current law) was that the status quo isn’t working (I support the change because it will keep families together).

Though I agree that we shouldn’t have illegal immigrants, nevertheless many of them do work on farms and do good work. You make them legal (through amnesty and/or document them) and you’ll have to raise their pay to minimum wage and food prices will be higher. Same for all those cutting grass and other such jobs. But then higher wage prices are also desired.

I’ve been rethinking the entire issue and I am torn. My conclusion in my first post was based on existing immigration law being enforced. Ideallly, people that are here, would be here legally and children born to them here would then be citizens. However, we all know that isn’t the reality. Yes, I’m inclined to embrace the idea that a person born here is a citizen. But, if mom and dad are not citizens and mom and dad are actually breaking the law to be here and then have a child here to give that child citizenship, is it really the best thing for the nation to allow that, especially considering the huge numbers involved and the fact that the law was broken each time?

This is truly complicated. So, now I admit that my original post and premise were faulty, though I still haven’t been able to come to a new conclusion.

Or, let the anchor babies be adopted by U.S. citizen families.

Or, let the parents return to their home country with their anchor babies and the anchor babies can return to the United States on their own, without their parents, when the anchor babies reach their majority age or become age 21.

The United States doesn’t actually need to deport anyone. As the illegal aliens watch television and learn about the Arizona law and the California law and the Oklahoma law and other state laws, they will just get on a bus and willingly return to Mexico or Guatemala or whatever is their home of origin using the ticket that they purchased themselves.

A child whose parents are both illegals is not a citizen in the first place, regardless of where he/she is born. It’s sad that this even has to be pointed out, but it has been discussed and demonstrated already here why the “14th Amendment gives anchor babies citizenship” argument is a complete farce. Read up here:


Anyway I lol’d at the mention of “anti-immigrant” laws. When you can’t defend your own position, I guess you have to distort the factual one.

The discussions and demonstrations and opinions of jawboning posters here isn’t controlling.

Past Administrations of both parties have recognized that a child born in the United States, save for the exception for diplomats from other countries, is a U.S. citizen. It’s settled law unless the Constitution is changed.

I see lots of that trademark liberal emotion but no actual debunking of the proof. :shrug:

Are you sure you’re reading the right thread?

The 14th Amendment makes children born in the U.S. citizens. Any effort to change the Constitution would almost certainly be doomed to failure. No emotion about that, just the facts.

If you want emotion, look to the conservatives who are running around in circles thinking that changing the law is simple and read the things they circulate on their websites about that.

Even Republicans aren’t as keen to mess with the Constitution as the far right is.

Despite the fact that the majority support the change in this law (see OP), few think it will happen (because it would not be easily changed).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.