Ramaswamy calls for DEPORTATION of all illegals, including ANCHOR BABIES

 Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has proposed the deportation of all illegal aliens, including anchor babies.

Selwyn Duke of the New American magazine expounded on the entrepreneur and presidential hopeful's proposal in an Oct. 17 op-ed. He remarked that Ramaswamy has "a simple remedy" for the influx of illegal immigration the Biden administration intentionally leaves unchecked: "Build the wall, deport them all – including U.S. born children of illegal aliens."

It is worth noting that the U.S. follows the principle of "jus soli," in which someone's citizenship is determined based on territory where they were born. Children of illegal aliens born on American soil are often called "anchor babies," as they serve as "the link or 'anchor' for assisting [their] parents and other extended family members in legally immigrating to the United States."

Duke cited an op-ed that also touched on Ramaswamy's immigration proposal. The piece stated that the candidate's plan "includes unapologetic deportations, ensuring that the family unit is deported together. This approach is in line with his commitment to enforcing immigration laws while also prioritizing family unity."

"Ramaswamy's family immigrated to the U.S. legally, and he has first-hand experience with the immigration process. His frustration with the current administration's approach to border control and illegal immigration is palpable."

The piece noted how the candidate's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to individuals born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, differs from the prevailing interpretation. Ramaswamy said being born in the U.S. "should not automatically grant citizenship if the child's parents were in the country illegally at the time of birth." 

According to Duke, Ramaswamy is essentially calling for "unapologetic deportations." The writer with the New American remarked: "Why are we apologetic in the first place about enforcing just laws and blunting a type of foreign invasion?

"Birthright citizenship" a misunderstanding of the Fourteenth Amendment

"In reality, Ramaswamy's position is not unique, but reflects a long-standing conclusion of scholars who've actually studied the issue," continued Duke. He also cited an October 2018 piece by the Heritage Foundation (HF) think tank about how the concept of jus soli is a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Critics claim that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically [an American] citizen, even if their parents are here illegally," wrote HF's Hans von Spakovsky. "But that ignores the text and legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children."

Spakovsky noted that under the amendment, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. But he clarified that the second conditional phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," pertains to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. According to him, this language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act that said "all persons born in the U.S., and not subject to any foreign power" are counted as citizens.

Spakovsky also noted that in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in American territory could only be deemed a U.S. citizen if the parents were lawful permanent residents. "That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen," he continued.

Duke ended his piece by warning of dire consequences if Ramaswamy's proposal isn't taken seriously. He said that failing to do so "undermines the rule of law" and "creates righteous-citizen law-breakers." Duke also noted that "rewarding illegality by letting illegal migration pay off encourages more illegal migration."