See this article for precedents regarding denial of birthright citizenship for “Anchor Babies”:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={62ABC9F7-4274-4E09-87A4-5BDC94D65700}
“The Fourteenth Amendment Mess”
By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/9/2002
“The key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means:
The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))
The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” requires “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, not just physical presence. (Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))
There is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))
The Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))
There are other cases referring to minor details of the question.
In essence, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, at the time the amendment was written, a person having a reciprocal relationship of allegiance and protection with the United States government. It was thus understood not to apply to persons whose presence in this country is transitory or illegal. For details of the evolution of this phrase and its interpretation by the courts, see this page on FILE’s web site. The key question that those who favor the contemporary misinterpretation of this phrase cannot answer is, why is the phrase there, if it means nothing, which is what their interpretation implies. Logic implies that it would only have been inserted if it modified the meaning of the amendment, which it does: by limiting the scope of persons to which it applies. The debate — adequately settled, in my view, by the precedents named above — can at most be over who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” not over whether this phrase means anything.
That the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant automatic birthright citizenship is also made clear by the fact that it took an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, which would obviously not have been necessary if they had it automatically just by being born here. The courts have also long recognized an exception for the children of foreign diplomats, which exception would be unconstitutional if the Fourteenth Amendment granted automatic birthright citizenship to everyone.”
see post four.
Anchor babies are not birthright citizens.
those are two 100% different concepts.
please do not confuse the two because it clouds the debate.
a birth right citzen minor is deported with the illegal alien parents.
It is a very important distiction before the immigration service and courts.
As for those thousands of illegal babies being born at Parkland Hospital and elsewhere, are all those families remaining in the US?