Talk about Anchor Babies!

Here’s something to mull over.  Say anti-abortion folks succeed in having legal personhood extended to all forms of pre-born human life.  Right now, you become a U.S. citizen if you’re born in the United States.  But if we’re going to extend personhood and legal protections to pre-born folks, isn’t one implication of that, if you have constitutional protections from the moment you’re conceived, that you are a U.S. citizen from the moment you’re conceived?

The larger implication being that, then, if you can show that your parents were here around the time you were conceived, even if they went back to their homeland to have you, could you claim U.S. citizenship?

God, that would be rich.

13 thoughts on “Talk about Anchor Babies!

  1. Nope. I mean, yes, it would be rich, but it’s not going to fly. Citizenship and personhood are two different concepts under the Fourteenth Amendment.—Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.—

  2. Right, but I’m assuming that for legal personhood to be extended to the "pre-born," Roe and its "progeny" such as Casey would have to be rendered inapplicable. Is there any other way it could happen?

  3. You people are thinking too much, simply because you are thinking at all. Who says these right-wing crusades have to make any sense? As long as they mobilize the faithful to the polls, they are successful.

  4. B, it’s not so much that you’d get 9 more months of deductions. The IRS just collects what the tax code says is due, and if the tax code gave 9 months longer, that would be that. No, it’s the problem of telling just when a woman got pregnant. Say it’s April 15, and you’re about 13 weeks pregnant: were you pregnant on December 31? Or not until January 1? There is no way to tell. So a law saying that a blastocyst is a deduction will be unenforceable in practical terms. And that doesn’t even get into the question of what happens with a miscarriage: deduction or not? The IRS is all about enforcing tax collections based on clearcut distinctions (which is why they and artists of all kinds have a mutual hate going). They will not like something like this proposal.

  5. I don’t think the IRS would be a big problem – the Commissioner would just decide that only liveborn babies count for deductions, it might get litigated a bit, and that would be that. The immigration aspect would be much more interesting, honestly – just right off the bat, you couldn’t deport a pregnant woman because then you’d be deporting a US citizen. Like I said, though, I’m pretty sure it’s impossible to get there (personhood for the pre-born) without an amendment, though I’d love to hear thoughts.

  6. I’d imagine. Won’t that be fun for those of us who like to get drunk and screw. One minute, you’re having a good time, the next minute, you’re supplying alcohol to a minor without even knowing it.

Comments are closed.