Anchor babies in America

Professor Peter Schuck of Yale Law school creates an argument for birthright citizenship in his op-ed to the NY Times on 13 August 2010, that uses a legal foundation,  and offers a pragmatic solution to the question of ‘anchor babies’. He begins by quoting the 14th amendment, acknowledging that the amendment is usually interpreted to give citizenship to anyone born on US soil. He then delves into the history of the amendment, from Dred Scott and Native Americans, to 1898, where the Supreme Court made a decision affecting the son of a Chinese couple. His solution to the ‘anchor babies’ crisis is pragmatic.  To solve the problem, Schuck presents a solution that he claims has worked for the United Kingdom.  He suggest that the US make “anchor babies” stay in the nation for ten years before being allowed to apply for citizenship. At that point, they could be made citizens “retroactively, regardless of their parents’ status.”