Trump Can and Should End the Anchor Baby Scam

President Trump has announced that he is readying an executive order to end the anchor baby scam, which is often falsely called “birthright citizenship.” The response from Democrats, the media and the open-borders cuckservatives in the GOP establishment has made us remember that age-old question: Why are so many people so uninformed about this issue?

Here’s a really simple experiment you can do to understand the anchor baby scam in a nutshell. Step 1: Get pregnant. Step 2: Fly to Tokyo right before your due date and deliver the baby in a Japanese hospital. Step 3: Immediately declare your baby to be “Japanese” and demand cradle-to-grave welfare benefits and a right to stay in Japan with your little Japanese bundle of joy for the rest of your life. Refer to anyone who objects as a racist who is trying to tear your family apart. Step 4: Report back to us with results.

We don’t have magic dirt in America (HT: Vox Day). Being born on American soil should not confer automatic citizenship to the babies of foreign criminals. Period.

No American citizen and no member of Congress ever voted on this policy. The 14th Amendment to the Bill of Rights was written after the Civil War to prevent Democrats from deporting the babies of newly-freed slaves to Africa. If you don’t think that Democrats would ever do such a thing, keep in mind that Hillary Clinton stated this week that black people “all look alike” – and the crowd of Democrats who had paid to listen to her all howled with laughter when she said it.

The 14th Amendment didn’t even confer citizenship on Native American babies when it was written, because they were still under tribal jurisdiction at the time.

The 14th Amendment was written by Republican Senator Jacob Howard from Michigan. Here’s what he said about his amendment to protect black babies from being deported by Democrats: “[The 14th Amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

The amendment was never intended to be applied to people who sneak into the country just in time to squeeze out a baby (and then stick the taxpayers with the hospital bill).

The media swiftly pointed out that “30 countries, most in the Western hemisphere,” also provide birthright citizenship. So what? What’s the argument they’re trying to make? The island nation of Tuvalu, population 11,000, offers birthright citizenship so America should too? A bunch of dysfunctional countries are doing this, so we should copy them?

If 30 countries in the world offer birthright citizenship, that means 165 other countries don’t. Can’t we do it like England, France or Germany, where at least one parent of the baby has to be a citizen by blood? It’s funny how no one seems to think it’s racist that you have to have at least one Chinese parent to be considered Chinese.

The vast majority of countries have laws in place that say at least one parent has to be a citizen for their babies to be citizens. That seems much simpler and saner than having a situation where a baby is a citizen but both parents are criminal invaders. We have a policy – not a law – that essentially gives away the nation reserved for our own posterity to nations whose citizens are crafty enough to evade the Border Patrol.

As for where the anchor baby scam came from, it didn’t originate in Congress. No president signed an executive order. No one got to vote on it.

Justice William Brennan slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court decision which reads, “No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

Uh… how about, in one case, the parents are from Mexico, don’t speak English and have no paperwork explaining why they are allowed in the country, and in another case, the parents have a legal right to be here and can prove it? Would that be a “plausible distinction” that could meet a liberal Supreme Court Justice’s standard?

That footnote in Plyler v. Doe in 1982 is why we confer citizenship on illegal alien babies after their criminal parents violate the sanctity of our borders. It’s an unofficial policy – and President Trump absolutely can and should eliminate it with an executive order. Our only criticism of his decision is that he should have done it on Jan. 21st, 2017.


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More



Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More