TY - JOUR PY - 2011 TI - ANCHORS AWEIGH: REDEFINING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY JF - Journal of Law and Family Studies; Vol 13 No 1 (2011) KW - N2 - Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} The purpose of this Note is to assert that while the judiciary may have historically misinterpreted the Citizenship Clause, there is still potential for reconciling past precedent with a modern solution to the "anchor baby" problem. One solution is to use a hybrid theory of domicile. This would use an "intent to stay" in conjunction with the traditional standard of the Citizenship Clause. Applying a hybrid theory of domicile as the standard for birthright citizenship would narrow the Citizenship Clause enough to remedy the "anchor baby" problem without requiring a constitutional amendment. Part II of this Note details the history of the 14th Amendment and the case law that has defined "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; Part III discusses the relevant theories concerning birthright citizenship; and lastly, Part IV discusses potential remedies to the problem of abuse of birthright citizenship. UR - https://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/jlfs/article/view/497