The legal v illegal part of immigration is irrelevant to Trump’s EO.
If a woman on a work visa or tourist visa has a child in this country and her husband is not a citizen, then that child does not get citizenship anymore. (I am not sure about the husband vs partner part, i.e. if marriage comes into play.)
Previously, the whole “anchor baby” concept involved women coming on visas and having babies here and, thus, attaining citizenship for the child.
Usha’s parents were not citizens when she was born. They were on some kind of visa status…work or education.
The 14th Amendment gave her citizenship due to her birth here—similar to the original idea that children born of non-citizen slaves would be granted citizenship.
Usha would not get citizenship if born under Trump’s EO because it effectively nullifies the 14th amendment and does not consider legal v illegal status of immigrants.
A child born under her exact situation will be deported. It doesn’t apply to her only because it is not retroactive.
Her birth fell under the second direct quote from the EO as per below:
The privilege of U.S. citizenship "does not automatically extend" to children born in the U.S. when the mother was "unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth" or when the "mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary."
These policies are just fig leaves to cover actual intent. Goebbels screeched about Aryan superiority while being physically infirm and disabled, himself. Goebbels 2.0 carries on about how “America is for Americans only” even though he is the offspring of Belarusian Jewish immigrants. The “policies” are meant for “people we don’t like,” not for our friends and allies
There are entire articles written to detail the small distinction of why Usha Vance should technically not be subject to deportation.
It’s really breathtaking. Her husband should be asked if she plans to self-deport for national security concerns.
Is she illegal?
She is legal. Trump’s EO on birthright citizenship (thus, essentially nullifying the 14th Amendment) is not retroactive.
If Usha had been born a month from now, she would not get citizenship because neither one of her parents were citizens when she was born.
By all definition, she is an “anchor baby” that Republicans have maligned for years.
It’s a distinction without a difference that I hope she thinks about every time her husband rails against immigrants.
tell me more about her parents being illegal. I don’t know that story.
The legal v illegal part of immigration is irrelevant to Trump’s EO.
If a woman on a work visa or tourist visa has a child in this country and her husband is not a citizen, then that child does not get citizenship anymore. (I am not sure about the husband vs partner part, i.e. if marriage comes into play.)
Previously, the whole “anchor baby” concept involved women coming on visas and having babies here and, thus, attaining citizenship for the child.
Usha’s parents were not citizens when she was born. They were on some kind of visa status…work or education.
The 14th Amendment gave her citizenship due to her birth here—similar to the original idea that children born of non-citizen slaves would be granted citizenship.
Usha would not get citizenship if born under Trump’s EO because it effectively nullifies the 14th amendment and does not consider legal v illegal status of immigrants.
The EO won't apply to her. He seeks taking citizenship away from children with parents who are in the US illegally. That's not her.
A child born under her exact situation will be deported. It doesn’t apply to her only because it is not retroactive.
Her birth fell under the second direct quote from the EO as per below:
The privilege of U.S. citizenship "does not automatically extend" to children born in the U.S. when the mother was "unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth" or when the "mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary."
she was born in the us and her mother was illegal at the time?
These policies are just fig leaves to cover actual intent. Goebbels screeched about Aryan superiority while being physically infirm and disabled, himself. Goebbels 2.0 carries on about how “America is for Americans only” even though he is the offspring of Belarusian Jewish immigrants. The “policies” are meant for “people we don’t like,” not for our friends and allies