![I'm sure it won't matter. [625x758 - 107KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/Zgvee6.jpg){kind=link}
There is no law that says that anchor babies are citizens and the last time scotus looked at it the opposite conclusion was drawn.
I didn't say that anchor babies are citizens. Only that people who believe in the concept do.
Source? My understanding is that there was precedent from the 14th amendment (constitution.congress.gov) that gave citizenship to the invaders.
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.
The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of another country, which anchor babies definitely are (their parents' country/countries).
Also true, they are not natural born citizens.
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does NOT mean "not subject to any other jurisdictions".
Is English a 2nd language for you?
But the claim isn’t that the parents become citizens when an anchor baby is born, only that the anchor baby becomes a citizen. And the baby would not automatically be a citizen of the home(s) of its parents and so would only be subject to the jurisdiction of they are, which is the United States.
Sauce needed. Bullshit called.
(post is archived)