Should we continue to preserve the fictions around 'anchor babies'?
My son and his wife went to a Boston hospital last weekend to induce labor. They were joined in a room by five other couples going through the same process. My son said one couple was Asian, where the man spoke English and the woman did not. A nurse asked the man for the name of their pediatrician, and he said they didn't have one and didn't need one if the baby was healthy. The nurse said they needed one before they left the hospital. My son said the man did not seem very interested in the mother or the baby. Instead, he was very interested in getting the birth certificate and Social Security card. He said it was absolutely unacceptable that it would take six weeks to get those items.
Does it sound as though these two are contributing to our economic growth, or does it sound as though they are using us? They didn't have a pediatrician, and they couldn't afford to wait six weeks for documentation. Does anyone think they had insurance?
We use the term "anchor babies" to describe babies who are born here to parents who are not citizens. The open-borders lobby objects to the term as dehumanizing. But make no mistake: I've seen instances where the baby is just a pawn for the parents to get an anchor in the United States so they don't have to go through the normal legal naturalization process.
There are only around thirty other countries that allow birthright citizenship (anchor babies) and, under the IMF definition, only two developed countries: the United States and Canada.
We always hear that Europe is so forward-thinking, but no matter how oppressed people from Syria, Asia, Africa, Mexico, and South America are, a child born to illegals in Europe is not a citizen. Why don't we hear Germans and the French referred to as xenophobes for their limiting policies?
The United States is joined by Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, along with nearly every country in Central and South America. The United States and Canada are the only two "developed" countries, as defined by the International Monetary Fund, that still have unrestricted birthright citizenship laws.
A closer look at the list shows an interesting trend: Countries that offer birthright citizenship are located almost exclusively in the Western Hemisphere. No country in Europe or East Asia, for example, has a similar citizenship policy.
We hear that the Constitution of the United States and a judge's ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment requires anchor babies to receive citizenship. But look what the language of the 1898 judge's ruling actually says:
... that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.
I believe that few of the illegal aliens who come across our borders to give birth could meet those requirements of having permanent domicile status and being engaged in business.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "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 Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.
Statistics show that a significant, and rising, number of illegal aliens are having children in the United States, but there is mixed evidence that acquiring citizenship for the parents is their goal.
I do not believe there is any evidence that our founding fathers envisioned illegal immigrants crossing our borders at will. (Yes, there were always borders. We had to buy Manhattan Island and make the Louisiana Purchase.) They also created our Constitution to be a nation of laws, and they would not have envisioned a president and politicians from throughout the United States flagrantly ignoring their oath and laws by having sanctuary cities and states.
We hear all sorts of supposedly well meaning people saying we shouldn't break up families. I agree. People should not break our laws by coming across the borders illegally. Kids should stay with their parents where they are legally allowed to reside. People should not be rewarded for breaking our laws. Whenever I moved, my children moved. It is an easy concept.
On a personal note: The older I get, the more amazed I am with all aspects of nature and life on Earth. I am especially impressed with conception, pregnancy, and the miracle of childbirth. Think of how that sperm and egg got together, and in a few short months, we see fully developed human beings with over two hundred bones, DNA, and all the organs working together to make everything work so well. To think that my three beautiful children and three beautiful granddaughters were generously given to us is astonishing. Their human life and development obviously scientifically began at conception, not three or six months after conception, and certainly not when they are just ever so efficiently born.
There are only seven countries that allow abortions after twenty weeks, including the U.S., China, and North Korea. The Democrats call themselves the progressive party, but there certainly is nothing progressive about abortion itself and especially abortion after twenty weeks. Yet Democrats do everything they can to block any limitations on what is clearly the taking of a human life.