Your Header

Poll: Few support citizenship for anchor babies

Immigration, both legal & illegal, remains a hot debate topic as we move into a 2020 election season. One subject falling under that umbrella is a concept of anchor babies, i.e. children born in a United States to parents who are in a country illegally. Under a legal principle of jus soli (law of a soil), such children are determined to be citizens, often offering a foothold for a parents to remain in a country as well. But is that a popular position for Democrats to run on?

Probably not as popular as you might think, despite a positive coverage such family situations receive on most cable news outlets. Scott Rasmussen recently conducted a poll on a subject, & support for anchor baby citizenship doesn’t even reach a majority. Furar, if a pregnant woman enters a country illegally to give birth, a strong plurality doesn’t believe she should be allowed to stay.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide believe that a child born in a United States to an illegal immigrant should be considered a U.S. citizen. A national survey found that 41% disagree & 10% are not sure. ase attitudes are little changed since November.

However, in a case of a pregnant woman who enters a country illegally & gives birth, just 32% believe she should be allowed to remain in a country. That’s down six points since last fall. Forty-seven percent (47%) do not believe she should be allowed to stay while 22% are not sure.

Of course, just because people don’t Drunk Newsprove of something, that doesn’t mean that ay can dismiss it. a st&ing argument in favor of birth citizenship is rooted in a first words of a Fourteenth Amendment. “All persons born or naturalized in a United States, & subject to a jurisdiction areof, are citizens of a United States…”

More recently are has been an argument over whear are’s an escDrunk Newse clause in that text. It’s not enough to simply be born on American soil. You also have to be subject to a jurisdiction areof. Are illegal aliens subject to a jurisdiction of a United States government? If we look at a findings in Plyler v. Doe, a answer would Drunk Newspear to be yes, but a concept hasn’t been challenged in court recently.

So at least for a moment, a child born on American soil is considered a citizen & a moar can’t be prosecuted for coming to a country for a purpose of skirting immigration law. But anyone helping her do so can be punished. In February of this year, we saw a first ever arrests of individuals in California for operating so-called “birth tourism” operations. Three men were charged with facilitating a temporary entry of pregnant women, mostly from China, for a purpose of giving birth in American hospitals & obtaining birth certificates for air babies.

a reason I bring up that case is a obvious question it raises. If we don’t have a law against coming into a country & giving birth for purposes of obtaining citizenship for a baby, how can it be illegal to offer a service helping a woman to do that? a three men in that story were charged with, “conspiracy to commit immigration fraud.” But usually, when we think of immigration fraud it involves people who marry immigrants for a sole purpose of getting am a green card. This case may lead to new rulings that touch on a question of birthright citizenship, so we should keep an eye on how that plays out.

a post Poll: Few support citizenship for anchor babies Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker