How can we stop the anchor baby fiasco?

Question

Even Canada changed its law to prevent people from having their children in Canada to become Canadian citizens, but the US is still allowing anyone to have a baby here be a US Citizen. How can we stop this?

Answer 1

when did canada do this?Link,please LINK

Answer 2

Follow the law:

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

Answer 3

By buying regular anchors instead of using babies. Why would one use a baby to begin with?  

Answer 4

Canada has no change of law recently except to give citizenship to more people, not take it away.  Everybody who is born in Canada is still automatically a citizen except if they are the child of a diplomat or UN staff and their other parent is not a citizen or PR either.

I would not have a problem with it if babies of illegal immigrants were not granted citizenship.  Many countries in Europe do not grant you citizenship for being born there, only if you have at least one parent who is a citizen.

Answer 5

Never going to happen. The number of citizens in favor of keeping our long-held tradition of jus soli intact is much higher and raising with every new born anchor baby than racist modern-day Know-Nothings. Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Answer 6

The U.S. Supreme Court has NEVER RULED that illegals who birth their children on U.S. soil are or get automatic citizenship.  Yet there is this misnomer that has been going on for years that they had.

You and others want this challenged, and clarified clearly.. then file a petition, and lawsuit to have it heard in the courts. That way it can be taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to be clarified when the other courts rule on it, and it gets appealed if the lower courts disagree with the lawsuit.

edit:  Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.”

Sen. Trumbull felt the words, “That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens” would be more than sufficient to fulfill this goal. However, after investigation it was found the United States had no authority to make citizens of those temporarily residing in the United States who owed only a “temporary allegiance.”

Many make the silly mistake of confusing temporary allegiance to a countries laws under the law of nations with that of allegiance to a nation. In school we pledge allegiance to the flag and the “Republic for which it stands,” not pledge our allegiance to local traffic laws. No one during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries confused owing allegiance to the laws with that of owing allegiance to a nation.

This is why it was later demanded that a complete and immediate allegiance - that is, “not owing allegiance to anyone else” - be established under a constitutional amendment and not merely a temporary allegiance.

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

In other words, there is no such thing as an American who holds dual allegiance between two nations. Why make citizens of those who owe no allegiance to the nation, who might join the forces of another country against you, align themselves with foreign interests, or those who carry none of the burdens of citizenship (such as taxes, military service, juries, etc.)?

*************

To understand how an alien might not owe allegiance to some other sovereignty upon arrival to this country, one need to look no further then the naturalization laws of the United States. Under United States law, an alien was required to make a declaration of his intention to become a citizen, and renounce all allegiance to his former government two years before he could make a final application.

Therefore, it does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first compiled with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” He could only be referring to the laws of naturalization and consent to expatriation by the immigrant in order for him to come completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws, i.e., he cannot be a subject of another nation.

On July 18, 1868 Sen. Howard explained expatriation to mean “the emigration of the foreigner from his native land to some other land non animo revertendi; that is, with the intention of changing his domicile and making his permanent home in the country to which he emigrates.” Sen. Howard explained that expatriation could only be complete through law alone, and not through any act of the immigrant acting on his own outside of the law.

John Bingham said in April of 1872 that no one could be considered a citizen of the United States until they first surrender their allegiance to the country of their origin:

************

What changed after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment? Not much really. States adopted laws that excluded either “transient aliens” or those not resident of the State. New York had already a 1857 code that read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls…”

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted identical language as New York. Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, said “children born on our soil to temporary sojourners” could not be citizens of the United States.

**************

If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both Howard and Trumbull were lawyers). Instead, there were classes of persons no one desired to make citizens, while also being classes of persons national law prohibited from becoming citizens.

Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.

***********

More in the link provided.  Which is where the U.S. Supreme Court derives their rulings from on matters.

Answer 7

Vote people with brains into congress?

Answer 8

offer free birth control.

by the way, it's too late now. their children are now citizens and will be the future of America.

Answer 9

Lobby your congressmen and senators to change the laws in the U.S. too.  They'll have to have the backbone to stand up to groups like laraza but it can be done.