Is the U.S. practice of birthright citizenship outdated?

In its Spring 2005 edition, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons reported that "between 300,000 and 350,000 anchor babies annually become citizens… In 2003 in Stockton, California, 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in San Joaquin General Hospital's maternity ward were anchor babies…" These staggering figures tell only part of the story. Birthright citizenship incentivizes illegal immigration by making anchor babies eligible to sponsor their illegal alien mothers and other relatives once they turn 21. In addition, at present, there is no formal policy that forbids DHS from deporting the illegal alien parents of a child born in the U.S. Yet in most cases, immigration officials habitually choose not to initiate removal proceedings, allowing the parents to remain in the U.S. illegally. Perhaps most starkly, anchor babies additionally draw benefits and services from taxpayer dollars. As the Journal article notes, "Anchor babies are citizens, and instantly qualify for public welfare aid…In 1994, 74,987 anchor babies in California hospital maternity units cost $215 million and constituted 36 percent of all Medi-Cal births. Now they account for substantially more than half." Not only can the baby serve as an "anchor" to pull a large number of extended family members into the country, but they also can rely on the public services and benefits of the United States.

HR 1868, currently in the House would put an end to this practice at the federal level.


HR 1868 is the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009

We don't need a test for citizenship-- a child born to a U.S. citizen or legalized immigrant is an American.

Yes, I'm a Mom-- that's WHY I'm a population control advocate. Do you have any idea what unbridled births and immigration will make our society by 2050? Ever seen a bee hive?

14 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Well since they have been misinterpreting it since 1965, I'd say yes. On the other hand, our fore fathers never practiced the British rule of jus soli there by introducing the exact interpretation of what people had to do for or to obtain U.S. citizenship.

    The 14th Amendment

    Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

    Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment currently is being interpreted to grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents (called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency). This clearly is contrary to the original intent of Congress and the States in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith have noted1 that:

    "The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens can one more incentive to illegal migration and violation by non immigrant aliens already here [.] When this attraction is combined with the powerful lure of the expanded entitlements conferred upon citizen children and their families by the modern welfare state, the total incentive effect of birthright citizenship may well become significant."

    Indeed, the consequences of this deliberate misinterpretation are significant. Read more about the consequences.

    Consequences of misinterpreting the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

    The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster


    1. "The bill did not end discrimination based on what President John F. Kennedy called "the accident of birth." (This of course begs the question of whether birth within the nation, the basis of common national community, is just an accident, but let that pass for now.) It de facto grossly discriminates in favor of Mexicans and certain other groups.

    Not only has the bill failed in its stated purpose, it has realized many of its critics' worst nightmares. Concern mounted that this bill would radically change the ethnic composition of the United States. Such things were still considered legitimate concerns in 1965, in the same Congress that had just passed the key civil rights legislation of the 1960's.

    Specific influx predictions that were made seem tragicomic today. Senator Robert Kennedy predicted a total of 5,000 immigrants from India; his successor as Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, foresaw a meager 8,000. Actual immigration from India has exceeded by 1,000-times Robert Kennedy's prediction.

    Senator Hiram Fong, R-Hawaii, calculated that "the people from [Asia] will never reach 1 percent of the population." Even in 1965, people were willing to admit that we have a reasonable interest in not being inundated by culturally alien foreigners, and it was considered acceptable to say so on the floor of the Senate. Try that today, even as a supposed conservative! (Asians currently account for three percent of the population, and will swell to near 10 percent by 2050 if present trends continue.)

    The only remaining Congressman who had voted on the 1920s quotas, Representative Emanuel Celler, D-New York, insisted, "There will not be, comparatively speaking, many Asians or Africans entering this country." Today, the number of Asians and Africans entering this country each year exceeds the annual average total number of immigrants during the 1960s.

    Yet the largest ethnic shift has occurred within the ranks of Hispanics. Despite Robert Kennedy's promise that, "Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total," Mexico sent 20 percent of last year's immigrants. Hispanics have made up nearly half of all immigrants since 1968. After a 30-year experiment with open borders, whites no longer constitute a majority of Californians or residents of New York City."

    2. "Thirty-plus years of immigration at historic levels have also had an economic impact on America. In 1965, Ted Kennedy confidently predicted, "No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge." However, political refugees qualify for public assistance upon setting foot on U.S. soil. The exploding Somali refugee population of Lewiston, Maine, (pop. 36,000) is largely welfare-dependent. Likewise, 2,900 of Wausau, Wisconsin's 4,200 Hmong refugees receive public assistance. In all, 21 percent of immigrants receive public assistance, whereas 14 percent of natives do so. Immigrants are 50 percent more likely than natives to live in poverty.

    Ted Kennedy also claimed the 1965 amendments "will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." Teddy cannot have it both ways: either the immigrant will remain unemployed and become a public charge, or he will take a job that otherwise could have gone to a native American. What is presently undisputed - except by the same economic analysts at Wired magazine and the Wall Street Journal who gave us dot-com stocks - is that immigrant participation lowers wages.

    Despite the overwhelming assurances of the bill's supporters, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act has remade society into the image its critics most feared. Immigration levels topping a million a year will increase U.S. population to 400 million within 50 years. Meanwhile, exponents of multiculturalism insist new arrivals make no effort to assimilate; to do so would be "genocidal," a notion that makes a mockery of real genocides. Instead, long-forgotten grudges are nursed against the white populace. Native citizens take to flight as the neighborhoods around them, the norms in their hometowns, are debased for the convenience of low-paid immigrants and well-heeled businessmen. All the while, indigenous paychecks drop through lower wages and higher taxes collected to provide social services for immigrants. And this only takes into account legal immigration.

    These results were unforeseen by liberals easily led about by their emotions. Others were not so blind. Jewish organizations had labored since 1924 to unweave national origins quotas by admitting family members on non-quota visas. The B'nai B'rith Women and the American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund, among other Jewish organizations, supported this reform legislation while it was yet in subcommittee in the winter of 1965. Roman Catholics had the twin motivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potential windfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. Other organized minorities pressured for increased immigration to benefit relatives in their homelands. The ultra-liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild joined the chorus. Further, the Communist Party USA supported higher immigration on the grounds that it destabilizes working Americans.

    Americans must realize demographic trends are not inevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today's population is the result of yesterday's immigration policy, and that policy is as clearly broken as its backers' assurances were facetious. A rational policy will only come about when native Americans place the national interest above liberal howls of "prejudice" and "tribalism."

    For tbshmkr - You can't seem to look up a bill properly can you?


    Title: To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

    Sponsor: Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] (introduced 4/2/2009) Cosponsors (46)

    Latest Major Action: 4/2/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, the 14th amendment is being used by flaunting an flawed, misinterpretation. If we removed the ability to drop anchor, took away jobs, housing and any other government freebies, we could work to reduce the illegal population. However, much more work would be nec. as 45% of all illegals over stay their visas and those illegals who have already stolen an identity or are using fraudulent IDs, will require a system and time to root them out! Deport ALL illegal aliens invading this nation!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No.. it is not outdated. The Mexican Mafia has, in the past, gotten their girl friends pregnant and sent them to the United States to gain entry to this country. As that 'vulnerability' was discovered in Mexico, the Mexican People have used it often and seriously. I have not seen HR 1868 but there are very powerful forces in Congress who won't want that bill because it is written English, and they used periods. OR some such foolishness. You need to understand that both parties feel the ONLY way to prosperity in this country is through an ever expanding economy. The idea that prosperity can be had with good government is alien to the Government.

    Good luck.


    I went to Thomas and found this. Tell your friends.. tell everyone. I think we have a doozy going strong.

    Tell your congress person.. tell your state representatives and ask them to support

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes. Illegal aliens should not be able to come into our country and have babies to create a path to citizenship.

    Most other European Countries do not recognize the children of illegal aliens as citizens.

    We should not recognize the children of illegal aliens as citizens.

    We need to get much more aggressive about deporting illegal aliens.

    We also need to be much more aggressive about enforcing many other laws as well.

    I live in San Jose, California. We have many illegal aliens in San Jose.

    Many of those illegal aliens also drive cars illegally.

    The illegal aliens do not have Drivers Licenses or insurance. these illegal aliens drive anyway and get into accidents and kill and injure people.

    Because these illegal aliens do not have insurance, they have no money to pay the damages.

    In fact the illegal aliens often disappear after the accident leaving the rest of us to foot. the bill.

    I am getting fed up with these deadbeat illegal aliens.

    At the very least these illegal aliens who are driving cars without having drivers licenses or insurance should have their cars taken away from them.

    Also if anyone permits one of these illegal aliens to use their car, the owner of the car chould be arrested and should lose the car because they were so irresponsible as to permit an illegal alien to use the car.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    SCOTUS wandered way of the reservation on this one. The 14th Amendment never granted birth right citizenship. The US is is one of the few nations that allows this dysfunctional form of citizenship by birth.

  • Blah
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I think the practice of anchor babies is horrible, but there's something good and "American" about being an American citizen if you're born on American soil.

    Healthcare, social programs, and immigration are big topics needing drastic solutions, but changing the policy on jus soli isn't the solution.

  • 1 decade ago

    HR 1868 (Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007) had nothing to do with birthrights.


  • 1 decade ago

    No, it is not. The solution is to get rid of the anchor baby loophole.

  • TJ9
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Not it isn't because what would define citizenship without it as a birthright. We have a test that allows people to become citizens.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes I agree

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.