<p>When I was in college, I had quite a few would-be “foreign” classmates - very, very wealthy ones - who were actually born in the U.S. (This seemed to be especially true among Iranians where I was). Their parents would fly here for a “junket”, have the baby here, and then leave. It was their insurance policy against the inevitable fall of the Shah. The anchor baby (plus their wealth) made it much easier for them to immigrate if/when needed - “jumping the line” as it were (legally, of course.)</p>
<p>I think this is still a common practice among the international jet set, especially those from countries that recognize dual citizenship.</p>
<p>Mini, in the 1970s I always wondered why there were many Iranian nationals on U.S. campuses (undergraduates), because Iran seemed so far away and they outnumbered many other groups of international students on campus. You’re right, they were invariably middle class if not wealthy.</p>
<p>I agree with Hops. He broke the law to come here. In fact, in my opinion, anchor babies should not be given citizenship status. The kids should be sent with the dad, but have their citizenship revoked. Unless the dad himself was proven unfit already. Merely being from a different country and of lessor means is not an excuse to keep a child from a father.</p>
<p>I don’t know how to quote others, but I do agree this could easily just be a manipulation to try to get back in to the country and free citizenship.</p>
This case isn’t really one of ‘anchor babies’. That term usually implies that the babies are born to foreign people who happen to be on USA soil at the time the baby is born and therefore is a USA citizen. In this case the mother is a USA citizen so these aren’t ‘anchor babies’ and wouldn’t be even if the law was changed to not automatically designate USA citizenship on people born on USA soil to non-citizens.</p>
<p>The kids aren’t the issue here. The parents are both a hot mess. While I understand that governmental bureaucrats can make serious mistakes (right in my neighborhood they lost a 7-year old boy in city custody and haven’t been able to find him in two years), but I wouldn’t be surprised if the kids at issue here aren’t better off away from their parents.</p>
<p>Sure they are… without them there’d be no issue.</p>
<p>That said, I think that if the dad wants them and the courts decide he has more “rights” to his kids than the mom then send them! If the courts decide the kids belong in state custody, then do it! But the dad should not be allowed back in the country…</p>
Right. what I meant was that they are US citizens and are entitled to every protection under the law and if they are better off out of the custody of their parents, so be it. Just because Dad is an illegal doesn’t mean that their state should disavow any responsibility for them.</p>
<p>The father has a right to petition for his children. If he is not criminal in a way that would make him ineligible to be custodial parent, then he gets the children. End of the matter.</p>
<p>I never said it should be. I said it was a public relation nightmare for the US government. Two very different things. The reality is, no matter what the outcome, it is going to cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.</p>