What gets me is the way they try to somewhat justify this by saying, "...Contrary to popular belief here, their care is not paid for through local taxes. Under a 2002 amendment to federal regulations, the births are covered by federal taxes through Medicaid because their children automatically become American citizens."

Sometimes people forget that we the people pay money for those programs whether it is on the local, state or federal level. The federal government doesn't produce anything to earn that money.

And why don't Medicaid patients have to provide proof of citizenship?

My understanding of the "anchor babies" controversy not only includes
the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship, but the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This is where the "family reunifications" language comes in and puts the families' of "birthright citizenship" babies on a fast track to green cards and citizenship in the quotas system that allows a certain number and type of immigrant into the US.

The language of the 14th amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States (NEXT IS THE PART PEOPLE LEAVE OUT IN DISCUSSIONS) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof....." has been a matter of interpretation of the intent by the founders for years.

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.

BTW, did you hear about the MSNBC poll asking this: In July, Arizona will begin enforcing a new law that requires law enforcement officers to check someone’s immigration status if they have reason to suspect that he or she is in the country illegally. Do you think this is a good idea? Yes or No

So far, the results are Out of a total of 2,234,619 votes –

95.8% YES (2,140,709 votes)

4.2% NO (93,910 votes)

I imagine MSNBC won't be making a big deal out of the results.