Why does the government consider anchor babies citizens? ?

Question

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.”

So why does our government allow anchor babies to be citizens?

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisit...

http://idexer.com/?id=12175#87978

Answer 1

Well, my great-great-great-great-grandfather was born in Switzerland.

Under your plan, when my great-great-great-grandfather was born here, he'd still be Swiss.  And when my great-great-grandfather was born here, he'd have been Swiss, too.  Etc. etc. down through me.

So...where do you propose drawing the line?  "Anchor-grandbabies"?

I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm just saying you have to draw a line somewhere, and I certainly consider myself to be American, not Swiss, and it's pretty unlikely that everybody is ever going to come to a perfect agreement on where to draw the line.

Update:  You are correct - I was not considering legal immigration versus illegal.  Duh.  I'll go think about that for a while.

Answer 2

There are two traditional theories of citizenship; Jus Soli and Jus Sanginuis.  These are latin legal terms that roughly translate Right of Soil and Right of blood.

The prevalent differences between the tow became apparent in the 19th century when transatlantic steamships made being born at sea far more likely.  Various conventions solved this problem by determining that a vessel was the "soil" of the nation who flag it sailed under.

Many European nations were actually split on the question of which method offered the best means of conferring citizenship.  Jus Soli goes back to time unknown simply because it was the easiest to prove.  Despite human obsession with bloodlines, (ex. royalty) issues become messy when paternity is in question, whether citizenship can be inherited from both parents, whether the parents can confer citizenship upon a child if the parents aren't married, etc.  It was in Bronze-era times simply easier to accord citizenship to all who were born in the immediate grasp of the state's geographical boundaries.

Jus Sanguinis developed as powers got more sophisticated and wished to restrict the defintion of citizenship.  The most noted example is the Roman Empire, and if you believe anecdotes, St. Paul.

Many of the framer's were well read in legal thinking; and when writing the constitution they decided on both; law of blood and law of soil.  After all, they themselves were not "Americans" they were previously English Subjects.  Of the few principles that the founders did write into the constitution, a strong sense of equal citizenship, as opposed to the Roman idea, was foremost.

The Founders refused to deal some of the harder issues in the document.  In fact, they refused to either condemn or condone slavery.  However, one of the lessons they learned from the English was the Citizenship was a precious thing which defined the character of each nation.   India has recently abolish Jus Soli within their land, as has Malta.  Most countries are now actually somewhere in the middle between the two; accepting modified versions of both.

The US has not really modified either principle, we still fully accept both, only attaching some procedures too claiming citizenship.

Answer 3

The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[4] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment,[5] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[6] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)[7] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).[8] Nevertheless, some claim that the Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation.[5]

Answer 4

"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."

The XIV amendment is the defining statement. No opinion of congress can change this except through the amendment process.

The only individuals in the US and not subject to US jurisdiction are ambassadors and embassy employees, including UN representatives. No part of the constitution excludes illegal immigrants from US jurisdiction. Thus children born in the US are citizens regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

A seemingly far-fetched example: While the Panama canal zone was considered US territory, a child was born to foreign parents on a foreign ship. That child had US citizenship with all the rights.