Hey, I was recently told on FR that there is no Anchor baby issue because of a 1996 ruling. That doesn’t feel true, but I can’t prove it’s not.
There was an attempt made, during Senate debate on the 1996 immigration bill, to eliminate the “chain migration” provision that Senator Kennedy had slipped into the 1965 immigration bill. Total annual legal immigration had increased from less than 300,000 in 1965 to more than a million a year primarily because of the ‘65 bill’s provisions allowing immigrants to send for all of their adult relatives. Then each of those relatives can send for their and their spouse’s adult relatives, creating an endless chain with fractel-like growth. An anchor baby, born on American soil and with American citizenship, serves as the first link in the chain (the ruling giving citizenship to children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents legal status here goes back to 1898.) But Senator Simpson’s attempt to stem chain migration failed, to a great extent thanks to Spencer Abraham, who lost his bid for re-election partially as a result of the role he played in getting some of the strongest provisions removed from the 1996 bill and partially because Michigan in the meantime was overrun by Middle East immigrants who voted Democrat in that election. Hoist on his own open-border petard.
It’s a misreading of the 14th amendment, originally introduced to grant citizenship to the former slave population. If they were born in the US, they’re a citizen.
It’s been corrupted by liberal judges to include anyone who sneaks in illegally to have a baby.
The SC needs to revisit the precedent or the 14th needs to be repealed.