Closing An Illegal Immigration Loophole: Should Anchor Babies Be Deported?

The establishment media this week is awash in stories about the Trump Administrations „frightening” deportations of at least three young children from the US, even though they are considered „American citizens”. The narrative follows a typical strategy of generating outrage using omission of the facts. The goal is to anger the public by pumping out hysterical headlines, knowing many people won’t investigate further.

The news reports insinuate that Trump has hijacked three American children and shipped them across the border, but they gloss over the fact that the parents of all of the children involved are illegal immigrants. The children’s parents were deported, and of course, the children went with the parents.

„Three U.S. citizens ages four, seven and two were not deported,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said. „Their mothers, who were illegally in this country, were deported. The children went with their mothers.”

„If those children are U.S. citizens, they can come back into the United States if their father or someone here wants to assume them,” he added.

In other words, the media has fabricated a tragedy tale out of some illegals being deported and taking their children with them. But the propaganda does bring up a vital issue in the immigration debate – The anchor baby loophole that has been exploited by migrants for decades as a way to stay in the US on a technicality while never having legitimate citizenship.

The media narrative is similar to the claim that deportations are supposed to only target „migrant criminals” (people who committed crimes after entering the US) – This was never promised by Trump. In fact, Trump has consistently stated that all illegal migrants are default criminals and all are subject to deportation. Sweeping deportations can include migrants with families, not just the migrants without families.

That said, when progressive journalists refer to the deported children as „US citizens”, this is an unfortunate reality under the 14th Amendment. Even though their parents are illegals the law still applies. It creates a Catch-22 for Trump or any president trying to keep borders secure: Deport the parents and keep the children in the US and you’re a monster separating families. Deport the parents and send the children with them, and you’re accused of violating the constitution.

This is the problem that needs to be clarified: Should foreign invaders be allowed to cross the border, drop babies and become de facto US residents because their children are citizens?

The Trump Administration clearly doesn’t think so, but the American public is conflicted. It all depends on how the question is presented to them. When asked generally if children born in the US should have automatic birthright citizenship, the majority (around 51%) say yes. However, when asked if children born to illegal migrant parents should have birthright citizenship, the polling becomes more complex and more Americans say no.

It’s a nuance that the media seeks to ignore but it matters tremendously. The 14th Amendment was designed to ensure citizenship for freed slaves after the Civil War, not make it easy for illegal immigrants to game the system and force the government to keep them in the US based on bad optics. The legal precedence for migrants was set in 1898 in US vs Wong Kim Ark, when the Supreme Court decided that Wong, born to Chinese immigrants in the US, was allowed to visit China and come back as a citizen.

Again, nuance matters here. Chinese immigrants were initially welcomed to the US in the 1850s as laborers for building railways in the west. Thus, the migrants did not enter the country illegally. The question here is whether or not illegals (people who come to the US without going through proper channels uninvited) should be able to have kids that then tie them to US soil?

The practicality of our era requires some new ground rules. Perhaps a law requiring that at least one parent is a US citizen, either through birth or by legal application? Or a rule requiring that migrants be in the US for a certain period of time (five years or more?) before they can give birth to children that are counted as legal citizens? How about citizenship for the children only if the parents are also able to pass a naturalization test and speak adequate English?

Obviously, this is an attempt to find a middle ground with progressives that probably doesn’t exist. They don’t want to negotiate this issue, they want open borders and migrant access to American systems without rules or restrictions, and they want to socially cancel anyone that complains about it. This totalitarian attitude has inspired an equally immovable position by conservatives.

Where there might have been some compromise in the past, now most people on the right want a total shutdown of all immigration, including work visas and student visas. There was perhaps a time when conservatives would be more inclined to give ground on the anchor baby issue, but the abusive exploitation of immigration as a political weapon by Democrats has made half the country far less sympathetic.