Some Cons say we should retroactively revoke citizenship to "anchor babies". Do you agree?

What future does the anchor baby have when real citizens already cannot find job despite having strong degrees?

These guys are fighting for path to citizenship as if it will land them a lottery jackpot or would make them a millionaire overnight.

Citizen or Non-citizen, they will continue staying poor and left behind in society. As it has been seen much of the hispanic or african american groups lack behind asian and whites in income and educational attainment. Citizenship doesn't address those issues.

I don't have much of a position on this issue because to me it makes no difference. But they are poor in their homeland and poor in America too. So then what exactly is the use or benefit of immigrating?

I would not immigrate to any country to remain poor for life. So I don't agree, nor do I disagree

Well I've got my great grandfather's immigration papers granted by a state with an official charter, I don't care what your anthropology textbook says a group of hunter gatherers is not a nation, and that makes the U.S. descendant from the British colonies the first nation of this land. Oh and it's not a racial thing either, the West African kingdoms or the Chinese would laugh at the idea of considering native Americans any more than a band of roving savages. Anyways I've got no problem with Mexicans coming here, but I expect them to make an attempt to assimilate into the dominant culture, Mexicans hate Mexico, they shouldn't try to turn their new home into their old one.

I'll go slow

Citizenship is based on the social contract of said country.

Said country didn't exist till it was created

The social contract requires taxation and constraints on actions constituting costs to the individual

The social contract then provides security and resources for said pains for the individual

Breaking the social contract yet expecting gains has potential to upset those who went through the costs.

The social contract currently endorses anchor babies, there are those in the social contract who wish to amend the rule to prevent future abuses from those who wish to break the social contract yet utilize the resource pool (the parents).

Some liberals aren't thrilled about anchor babies either. I've no problem with legal immigrants but if a child is born to parents that came to America for the sole purpose of having their child be a citizen and to circumvent our citizenship laws, I would support laws that stop it. Retroactive enforcement would be impossible. But making one parent be a citizen as a pretext for citizenship would be something I would support.

Just make Mexico a state so we can at least use their oil to pay for all this in my opinion

The idea of the amendment was to grant citizenship to the children of former slaves. It has accomplished the objective.

I haven't given it much thought or examination.

No.

I don't think that "anchor babies" are that big a problem.

As if the law would actually make you date your lineage...it's about the illegal immigrant's CHILDREN.

No, and neither do Eric Cantor and John Boehner.