Another approach to the anchor baby problem

A debate is currently in progress about the 14th Amendment, its real meaning, and the anchor baby problem.  Some say a constitutional amendment is required, while others say that a proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment is all that is required.

There is, however, a way to finesse the problem without even addressing the constitutional issue.  The trick is in realizing that anchor babies themselves are not the real problem.  The real problem is that the relatives that the anchor babies "anchor" or bring into the country as they grow up.  While the 14th Amendment may protect the anchor babies themselves, it does nothing to protect these relatives.

All we have to do is pass laws that make it clear that relatives of anchor babies will derive no benefits from their relationship to the anchor babies.  No constitutional amendment is required – just changes to our immigration policies. 

Obviously, such laws would have to be carefully written to pass constitutional muster in other respects.  I am not really qualified to say what form such laws might take, but one possibility that comes to mind is to pass a law stating that if a person is born in the United States, and neither of his or her parents was an American citizen, then his or her sponsorship of anyone to come to the United States or to remain in the United States if they were here would have no weight with respect to their ability to come here or remain here. 

While such a law would not stop all women from coming into the U.S. to have their babies, it would certainly reduce the number substantially, since the baby would no longer be an "anchor" or be able to bring relatives into the country when grown.

The obvious question that detractors will ask goes as follows: a woman comes into the country illegally, has a baby, and wants to stay in the country to be with her child.  I would give her two choices: leave the country with your child, or leave the country without your child.  If you choose the former, the child is certainly free to return, but he cannot help you or anyone else to come to the U.S.

A debate is currently in progress about the 14th Amendment, its real meaning, and the anchor baby problem.  Some say a constitutional amendment is required, while others say that a proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment is all that is required.

There is, however, a way to finesse the problem without even addressing the constitutional issue.  The trick is in realizing that anchor babies themselves are not the real problem.  The real problem is that the relatives that the anchor babies "anchor" or bring into the country as they grow up.  While the 14th Amendment may protect the anchor babies themselves, it does nothing to protect these relatives.

All we have to do is pass laws that make it clear that relatives of anchor babies will derive no benefits from their relationship to the anchor babies.  No constitutional amendment is required – just changes to our immigration policies. 

Obviously, such laws would have to be carefully written to pass constitutional muster in other respects.  I am not really qualified to say what form such laws might take, but one possibility that comes to mind is to pass a law stating that if a person is born in the United States, and neither of his or her parents was an American citizen, then his or her sponsorship of anyone to come to the United States or to remain in the United States if they were here would have no weight with respect to their ability to come here or remain here. 

While such a law would not stop all women from coming into the U.S. to have their babies, it would certainly reduce the number substantially, since the baby would no longer be an "anchor" or be able to bring relatives into the country when grown.

The obvious question that detractors will ask goes as follows: a woman comes into the country illegally, has a baby, and wants to stay in the country to be with her child.  I would give her two choices: leave the country with your child, or leave the country without your child.  If you choose the former, the child is certainly free to return, but he cannot help you or anyone else to come to the U.S.