Should US citizenship be restricted to those born in the US to legal residents of the United States ("subject to the laws thereof")?

As opposed to aliens crossing the border just long enough to give birth to a "US citizen"?

Update:

I'm not asking about US citizens having babies elsewhere, only the practice of creating "anchor bsbies."

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago

    No.

    1. The U.S. needs more foreigners; anything that reduces the incentive for them to come would be a disaster for the country.

    2. "Subject to the laws" means that someone is required to obey the laws, not that they are obeying the law or that they are residents.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    IT SHOULD BUT THAT WOULD TAKE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND THAT IS NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    it should be restricted to illegal aliens

    if it was restricted the less babies illegal aliens would have and the free government programs would increase not cutback

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    That's the question people have been debating for decades. Doesn't really matter what we the people think when Congress has flatly refused to even consider tinkering with the 14th.

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

    That's the key to the debate. The "Subject to the laws thereof" clause has been ignored. Those who are "subject to the laws thereof" are citizens, and legal permanent residents. Not those on any temporary visa, not any visa violator (e.g. overstayer), not any person not legally present. Along with those on diplomatic passports or diplomatic visas & their dependents, which is already defined under that clause.

    • random_man
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      Noncitizens in the US are also subject to US laws. 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    The current policy of anyone being born in the United States is included in the Constitution and cannot be altered without it being amended and ratified by the states. Unfortunately, with he situation being what it was in the 1700's, I don't believe that the writers had any idea of what the changes of time could do. We're stuck with it. President Trump wants to stop the policy of women coming to the U.S., who are about to give birth, and are coming only to take advantage of this policy. Hopefully this stops the hundreds of Chinese ladies and others who come here annually just to have American babies.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    You mean like the people the Trump-Kushner family has rented to for years?

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-tr...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    At least one parent being a legal citizen,would be fine.

    The Idea of Anchor Babies, at its extreme would be to sneak onto an  Embassy Compound to have the child.

    Theoretically, Just having the child in Puerto Rico, or Guam, Midway, etc., would do.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    No. What if two Americans move overseas and have a baby? Shouldn't that child be a US citizen even if it wasn't born in the US?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Had that been done earlier, than neither John McCain nor Ted Cruz could have run for President...

    Oops.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.