[a fool in paradise]

The 14th Amendment is not part of the “basic” Constitution as the author of the blog claimed.

I’m not saying toss the Amendment out, but he acted as if being born here even when your parents have no claims to citizenship still makes you a full blooded American (and legally able to petition to have your parents establish citizenship) which is a stretch.

[cvq3842]

Thanks. I know if few, if any, other countries who presently have “automatic birthright citizenship.” And I think the drafters of even the 14th Amendment would be shocked to know it was being read that way.

[Lurking Libertarian]

as if being born here even when your parents have no claims to citizenship still makes you a full blooded American (and legally able to petition to have your parents establish citizenship) which is a stretch.

The second part (being able to petition to have your parents admitted legally) is no longer the law; it was abolished during the Clinton(!) administration. So, technically, there are no longer any "anchor babies"; current law says that a child under 18 cannot sponsor any relatives for admission, so, if the parents are deported, they must either give up the child for adoption or take it with them (though the child is entitled to a U.S. passport and to return at age 18).

The first part (anyone born here is a citizen) is required by the Constitution, at least as the 14th Amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case.