Replies

If we’re going to change the principle that children born on American soil are entitled to American citizenship with very few exceptions (basically foreign diplomats and foreign military personnel sent here on official business by their governments), it would change American immigration law dating back at least to the late 1800s and probably earlier. It may require a change in the Constitution.

Chinese “anchor babies” are nothing new. This was happening a century ago on the West Coast and was part of the reason for the Chinese Exclusion Act, which also excluded almost anyone else of Asian ancestry. I think virtually everybody today would agree the Chinese Exclusion Act was little more than anti-Asian bigotry, and there was no legitimate purpose for it. Let’s just say that while there are bad people in all races, Asians as a whole, by any demographic standards, are far from being a seriously problematic ethnic group.

I wish the worst thing we had to worry about was wealthy pregnant Chinese women coming to the United States so their children could become American citizens and allow them to flee China if their country returns to its Maoist past. I’d take several million of those women, plus their families, if we could send an equal number of our Maoist Democrats over to China as a fair trade.

“If we’re going to change the principle that children born on American soil are entitled to American citizenship with very few exceptions (basically foreign diplomats and foreign military personnel sent here on official business by their governments), it would change American immigration law dating back at least to the late 1800s and probably earlier. It may require a change in the Constitution.”

The 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” An amendment intended to establish civil rights for slaves was perverted by the Supreme Court in Wong Ark into establishing jus soli in the U.S. so that cheap Chinese labor couldn’t be exported. A Constitutional change shouldn’t be necessary—but of course, you’re ultimately right that it is, if only because the SCOTUS has ignored the clear restricting language and history of the law.