The Canadian Mother problem.

About a month ago I had a discussion on Facebook about a statement my father used to argue against illegal immigration and “anchor babies”. He gave an example of a Canadian woman who came to the US pregnant and gave birth in this country and then goes back to Canada. Should her child become a citizen? I posted on Facebook (you think I would disagree with him to his face?) that I thought it would be dumb to cross international borders if you were that pregnant and you wanted your child born in your country. A friend disagreed with me stating that her pregnancy shouldn’t have to interfere with her travel plans. After all, emergencies come up and funerals and weddings occur that you can’t miss. I didn’t think of that and she gave some good points. However, I still disagree with some of what she said.

There are three things I want to discuss about these arguments.

One, I still think it is stupid for a woman to cross an international border nine months pregnant for a silly reason. I can accept emergencies and funerals. I think people might understand why you can’t travel to these occasions, but if it is that important to you, I guess you can go. I don’t agree on frivolous things like vacations. If you did plan a vacation before getting pregnant and you become pregnant, cancel it. Travel locally. From what I got from my father’s example is that this woman has no intention of living in this country and she really wants her son born in her native land. Why would she risk that by going on an unnecessary vacation so far along in her pregnancy?

Plus, traveling while pregnant looks like a hassle. Also the health of the mother does come into play.

Point is, don’t cross international borders if you want your kid born in your country.

Two, there is a simple fix to this problem. All the mother needs to do is bring her child back to Canada and have them become a citizen. According to the official Canadian Government Website, a child under 18 can apply to become a citizen; if it is done by a parent or legal guardian, the child is a permanent resident, and one parent is a Canadian citizen. On the US side, I believe the child will lose their citizenship when they turn 18 and declare no intention of keeping their American citizenship. All the US has is a birth certificate on file and an unused Social Security number (which they can probably reuse). The child is not draining any resources from the government.

Finally, this argument has nothing to do with illegal immigration or “anchor babies”. Like I said before, this woman has no intention of living in this country. Immigrants DO want to live in this country and contribute. This woman will take her child back to Canada and will not drain resources from the US Government. An “anchor baby” is a child born in this country to immigrants with the intention of “anchoring” the family down in this country and make it harder to deport them. Again, this woman has no intention of living in this country, the child will not be a drain on resources, and the child will eventually lose their citizenship.

I don’t mind a debate on the 14^th Amendment and if we should make exceptions to the “natural born citizenship” (to the example above). But don’t use the Canadian mother as an example of an anchor baby. It’s not.