Traditionally, it has been a great honor to become an instant American citizen by being born here. Seems perfectly logical, too. Thousands upon thousands of immigrant families were proud to see the birth of the first of their children upon this soil.

Unfortunately, like so many "rights" in this Nation, this one has been abused. The concept of "anchor babies" has turned a joy into a con. And it seems that the only way to address this is to rewrite the rules. Citizenship comes automatically only if one or both of the child's parents are themselves legal citizens of the United States (by birth, or by naturalization).

Of course, children born to parents who have already begun the legal process of becoming citizens would be given dispensation, earning their citizenship at the same time their parents did.

I was born in England, so I got that one the easy way.

When I was 14, my parents became Canadian citizens, and I floated in with them.

Then, in 1988, after having lived in this country the prerequisite number of years, I became an American citizen. (In full. I do not hold dual citizenship. I do not hyphenate myself.)

All three were the proper, legal means of gaining citizenship, and while I had the obvious advantage of being White and Middle Class, I really don't think it's too much to ask people entering this country to do so legally.

Now, I know that my son (for various reasons) is unlikely to grow up to be President, but should an accident of birth and the place where he spent 5 months of his life truly limit his destiny?

•••

It has long struck me as odd that a "nation of immigrants" will not let an immigrant hold the highest office.

"Anchor babies" has indeed become a popular "concept" in certain quarters of the immigration debate. But if amending the Constitution is required to address the supposed problem, the concept's legitimacy has to be carefully scrutinized. 

This data is a few years old, but it suggests "anchor baby" is about as legitimate a concern as abuse of the system by "welfare queens."

•••

It's not really a good idea to address a problem by saying "Well, it's only a SMALL problem."

That data very carefully parses the problem into people who deliberately have children to stay here.  Obviously the vast bulk of illegal immigration is done out of a desperate desire for jobs.  If Mexico (or other places) were fully developed first-world countries (as should be the goal) then no one would bother sneaking anywhere.

The problem becomes that anyone who comes here illegally, whether they meant to or not gets residency rights because of their baby that someone who went through the system (as my Dad did) did not.

Babies happen.  Should that grant automatic residency to those that have them because their baby is by law a citizen?  I can't see it being popular to say, "well, the kid can stay but you have to go."

The problem with rules is this:  if they don't apply to everyone equally, why bother having them at all?  Likewise, if it is impossible to apply them equally (for whatever reason), they require modification.

If the US were better at Imperialism, they would adopt a stance more like the UK had, where they could use the concept of dual citizenship to gain control over other countries.  Recall Horatio Nelson himself gained a Dukedom in Italy.

We may find such practices to be a little too "Game of Thrones" for the modern day, but still.  Citizenship can be used as a weapon the other way, and the US chooses to not do that.