July 29, 2010
-
The issue of “Anchor Babies”
Anchor babies don’t exist. This has been covered by the Supreme Court multiple times since 1884. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
In 1889, United States v. Wong Kim Ark extsblished that an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). This extended citizenship to the children of legal immigrants who had legal permanent residence. Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents.
The Citizens Act of 1924 lists two separate categories of people born in the United States as citizens (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe. (The original ruling did not include Indians, since they were not completely subject to the US Gov’t. at the time)
