How do you challenge the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment? Even an amendment to the constitution would have marginal probabilities of passage and ratification. I guess the question is, is the constitution constitutional. It is a constitutional law and as a citizen we should uphold the constitution. There is no public option to pick and chose which part of the constitution is valid

Salt Grass, you're correct. the law is the law now. It would require a Constitutional amendment to change it. but, the provisions to amend are available. And, it has been amended many times.

I consider myself a Progressive, but I agree that the 14th Amendment should be altered. There is plenty of contemporaneous documentation of the debate when the 14th was ratified by the states. At that time there were two issues that were pulling at this that are not currently in play.

1) There were a number of different things going on with southern states wanting to use "citizenship" issues for the purpose of denying rights to newly-free slaves. The easy way to handle it and leave no way around it was to say "if you are born on American soil, you are an American citizen." And that's what they did --- the idea of saying simply "everyone" eliminated virtually all the issues that the South was implementing with one word.

2) Immigration was viewed very differently then as today. Then, immigration was desperately needed to alleviate the massive shortage of manpower to be used to build this country. It acted as a kind of guarantee to immigrants that if they came here, even if they did not succeed, any child born here would have access to all the country could provide in the way of opportunity.

I would like to see the Amendment changed to state that a baby would automatically be an American citizen if:

1) This was the child of at least American citizen. The child could have been born in any other country as long as the U.S. State Department was supplied with the appropriate affidavits within 90 days of birth.

2) The child was the product of the union of two legal residents of the country who were already both seeking long-term residency status, work permits, amnesty, or citizenship before the birth.

3) Any child of a service member in "honorable" status. This is a much bigger issue than you would think.

This would clear up cases like Obama, where he would only have to prove that his mother was an American citizen, McCain, whose parents failed to register him at birth as required, and "Bobby" Jindal whose parents were here legally, but were not seeking citizenship, only long-term work.

I agree, but politicians can state any kind of nonsense, rally the base and know that there is no possibility of their having any actions or commitments. While I am not a tea bag trooper, I think we let our so call leaders treat us like mushrooms.

If you really want to get in the weeds, I guess now days the term natural born citizen could exclude people born from medically assisted reproduction.

Salt Grass

It's not a question of the constitutionality of the Constitution, it's a question of interpretation of the Amendment.

"The five words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were the basis of Supreme Court case in 1898 that guaranteed U.S. citizenship to children of foreign citizens born in the United States."

In that case, both parents were legal residents of the United States, so it was reasonable that they were "subject to the jurusdiction thereof".

The question of whether people who are here ILLEGALLY and citizens of a foreign country are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has not been adequately addressed. Also, there are exceptions to the rule - for example, a child born in the U S of diplomatic personel of a foreign country are NOT automatic citizens.

Roy, one way of looking at it is that even people who are here illegally are subject to jurisdiction of US law... certainly the wording is vague. Are you aware of any cases where both parents were illegal residents and a ruling has been issued to clarify this? Hard to believe this issue is still hanging around without a definitive ruling.

Chris-537131 "This would clear up cases like Obama, where he would only have to prove that his mother was an American citizen"
This has already been decided, and his mother was an American and Obama was born in Hawaii.
I suspect that the "Birthers" are really just trying to get a copy of the original birth certificate to embarrass Obama - perhaps it says something like "Father unknown", or his religion was "Islam".

joe mota "Roy, one way of looking at it is that even people who are here illegally are subject to jurisdiction of US law... certainly the wording is vague."

That's the whole point - it is vague and open to interpretation, and the Supreme Court's record on "interpretation" is anybody's guess. For example, how do you rule that abortions are legal under the guise of "privacy" when the issue of privacy is not even addressed in the Constitution? By the way, the 14th Amendment doesn't say "subject to jurisdiction of U S LAW", it merely says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - whatever that means.

And no, I don't believe any cases on both parents being illegal immigrants has been addressed by the courts. It needs to be done.

Memo to Sen. Kyl:

The Senate does not hold hearings on the constitutionality of the laws of this nation. That is clearly within the province of the U.S. Supreme Court. Come on Jon. You really should brush up on your civics.

It seems the Alinsky play book works for right-wing fearmongers too, doesn't it?

It's not hard to see a copy of Obama's birth certificate. The birther's are just ignoring it, because it says Obama can be president.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

what he has shown is the short form that has been identified as a forgery,we want the long form that the hospital issued, ifs its legitimate how come he has spent millions on lawyers to hide his long form birth certificate and eductation records???????????????????????????????

I think this should be discussed as part of Immigration reform. If we streamline the Immigration process and the parents are in the country LEGALLY then I have no problem with their child being born a citizen. If they're not, then I do. Pretty simple. I'm part of the middle of the battle in that I don't believe blanket amnesty is a good idea nor do I think blanket deportation will work, either. Some sort of limited recognition of status with the provisions that taxes are payed (state and federal, no need for SSI at this phase) as well as services rendered (i.e. healthcare) would suit me fine.

Bunk-1091323

What you posted as a source doesn't work. But I would guess that it's an abstract of a birth certificate, not a copy of the original birth certificate. The original would state the name of the Father, and the parent's marital status at the time of the birth. The "abstract" does not include this information. I'm sure Obama was born to an American Mother in Hawaii. I think the real reason for "Birthers" wanting to see a copy of the original certificate is that it probably contains some information that might contradict some of Obama's statements, such as listing the name of the Father, or whether his parents were married when he was born.

This is really a non-issue, yet foolish people keep pushing it, and I suspect that the Obama Administration enjoys labeling his opponents as "wingnuts", even though you could probably count the real "birthers" on a few dozen people's hands and feet.

I am sorry for jumping up this high, But lets look in the past to look in the future, "how did a democratic republic allow this to happen" fill in the blanks and watch history channel and quit watching Beck the U surper. With a diverse 350mil society how many can we dispose of to cleanse this country?

I don't know, 50M or so? Whaddya think?

I do not agree with this "Debate over birthright citizenship"! Anyone born in the USA is an American!!

Stop the rascism already! I am a Conservative Republican and I strongly disagree that the innocent,blameless (victims) children of illegal aliens "should not be considered Americans"!! They are Americans! It is NOT their fault that their parents wanted a better life in a better country!? A better future for them?!

Here is the handbook "illegal aliens" are given when sneaking in:

http://www.dallas.org/node/108

This is a well planned takeover sponsored by La Raza which is funded with US tax dollars. Go figure....

Johnny92078

Interesting Booklet, but it only provides information on dangers and rights. It does not seem to encourage illegal immigration to the U S.

It seems the second amendment is the only part of the constitution that Republicans like

Roy, if it (BHO's original birth certificate) is irrelevant or a non-issue, then why has he spent so much money trying to keep it hidden? Obviously, he doesn't think it is irrelevant or he would have produced it by now. What is really strange is why so many people calling themselves Amercans don't care.

And the only part the ACLU and liberals can't be bothered to defend!

It's very sad that people think in the way you do, a child that is born in America is American citizen regardless of what the parents are, you ignorance is very much noted. once you start changing the constitution to promote an political agenda America will turn to be just like any other country in the rest of the continent, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Guatemala and many other had play with the constitution

yes, let's ammend the 14th ammendment, that will make every single person born in the american soil since the 1500's illegal, you idiots...just because you got here first and beat the crap out of all the native americans doesn't make you the absolute owner of this land...people come here to have a better life, the same than your ancestors were looking for...to provide a better life to you nazy-kkk bastards

Where did your parents come from? Other than the native born indians everyone else came from some other country. People from all over the world have entered the USA for generations everyone talks about Mexican people all the time what about the Asians-Europeans-Russians even Canadians who cross over without papers. All this political talk comes out of ignorance and hate. We should be talking about getting our jobs back from 3rd world countries (they took my job and left me struggling to support my family) and getting on employers who hire the illegal help here in the USA. Don't knock people for wanting a better life, what are all you natural born citizens doing to make the USA better? Where are the jobs? Where is the food that wont give you salmanella? Where is the education, lots of natural born citezens can't read or do basic math. Maybe before you talk about others take alook at yourself and where you came from.

To allow yourself to be taken advantage of is foolish, to argue for other people to let people take advantage of them is ridiculous. A country that does not stand up for itself will eventually cease to stand at all, this is common sense amongst most of the world.

"Israel to deport native-born children of immigrants"

"Israeli lawmakers voted to expel about 400 children of migrant workers along with their families on Sunday."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100802/wl_yblog_upshot/israel-to-deport-native-born-children-of-immigrants

Isn't Obama going to tell them how misguided and racist they are??? Or maybe he should sue them? Oh, that's right he can only receive votes from illegals in THIS country, I guess illegals elsewhere are left to deal with leaders who actually represent their voters rather than selling them out for potential votes.

the main reason the Roman Empire grew as great as any other nation in the history of the world was because they, unlike their neighbor states cities, allowed foreigners to become citizens of their city, and grew up so imnmense to the extent of dominate the whole world as known, same happen to this great nation being so widely open to the whole globe and now leader of world. Politicians seek every election time this issue in order to get some adepts, actually, the benefits of having illegal immigrants is much greater than the so called sucking blood illegal aliens from the system as they work and pay taxes that will never will receive any refund or unemployment benefits. Besides, you can not name me any illegal alien that is working in a so called "decent job", we have to say it, their activities are in the lowest and lesser levels, jobs that not any US citizen would take. Despite the fact that you may found that some of them may have some ascendants born in El Paso, Texas, Mexico. If you can tell me who Austin was you will find this guy acquired loans from banks (name a bank that can approve this now) in order to settle outside US and one of the reason this people did look for independence was that the then mexican government in one of their three points tried to enforce the slavery abolishment. and that my friends is verifiable

Jon Kyl does a disservice to the United States of America and the Constitution thereof in his efforts to prevent the newest Americans from gaining the right to vote.

Once upon a time ago in Mexico I worked for an offshore boat company and was Port Captain. I was asked one day by one of the local company officers what I saw in the future? My reply (and I had been cautioned any statement would be taken literally) " Estados Unitas de los Norte. Estados Unitas de Mexico, Estados Unitas(us) y Canada.". Then along came NAFTA and now we have CAFTA. When are we going to get to AAFTA and make the EU tremble in their boots? The exstream comments of some are laughable, oh well it's guranteed by the Constitution.

It came from the same place as the "Right to Privacy"

This change to the constitution is not going to happen presently. Too many of us (hispanics/latinos/rational thinkers) vote now. Maybe he was just thinking out loud. How come Americans who have children abroad get to call that child a US citizen. Why can't that country call dibs on those kids?

My daughter was born overseas in Australia. She cannot apply for dual citizenship because one of her parents has to be Australian - neither of us are. Many countries have this policy of not allowing children to be born overseas to be citizens when the parents are citizens of a different country, why should we be any different?

deedee, you are incorrect. We're the only country that allows for automatic citizneship.

the 14th amendment was never intended as it is used today.

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

http://www.ccir.net/COLUMNISTS/CRAWFORD-BRUCE/Confusion14th070716BC_.html

it is time for a change to the 14th amendment.

we should adopt the policy of japan I have a niece and nephew born there while parents were in the navy stationed there. they held dual citizenship until 18th b-day then they had to decide which to hold on to. they couldnot stay in japan without parents and parents were not allowed to stay in japan unless they applied for and were approved for citzenship if not approved then they and childern had to leave japan .

RE: deedee

You unknowingly put your foot in your mouth. You are correct, Americans who have a child abroad get to call them American citizens.

Therefore, shouldn't Mexicans who have children abroad call them Mexican citizens?

@dirt-303813 #2.4: No, you are incorrect. There are more than 30 countries that allow birthright citizenship (jus soli). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

LouisJ

If someone is born in the United States, then they are an American of the United States. That's the United States of America. Debate that.

American Indians were excluded from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 on the grounds that even though they were partially subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Government, their ALLIGENCE was to their separate tribes and under this reasoning were considered of DIVIDED ALLIGENCE which applies equally to exclude the children of RESIDENT aliens, legal as well as illegal, from BIRTHRIGHT citizenship. Today's regulations issued by Homeland Security AND The Justice Department stipulate: " A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not (can NOT be) a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment."
In 1866 Senator Trumbull of Illinois, one of the principal authors of the citizenship clauses in the 1866 Act and the 14th Amendment said that " subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its COMPLETE jurisdiction, meaning " NOT owing allegiance to anyone else (another country)." So people of Indian parents had TRIBAL allegiances and were excluded from birthright citizenship. In 1884 the U.S. Supreme Court held that children born to Indian Parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because "That person could not change his status by his own will WITHOUT THE ACTION OR CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES." and " NO ONE CAN BECOME A CITIZEN OF A NATION WITHOUT ITS CONSENT." There can not be a more forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the country ILLEGAL.
It is estimated (through U.S. Congress testimony) that upwards of TEN PERCENT of all births in resent years are to illegal immigrant mothers. Birthright citizenship, therefore, is not only without our governments consent, but it is in violation of U.S. Law.
Our Congress needs to fix this "Free Citizenship" free-for-all. It's LONG overdue.

Here's the problem, this country was founded on racism. The backs of slaves built this nation and yet according to many people, white people built it. However to make amends, the 14th Amendment became law. But since another race is using the short comings of a faulted law and (the rest are perfect as long as we don't have to address race) system based on false assumptions, we need to alter it to sooth some anxieties on the basis of fear.

Fear is the tool for which the Right operate from. They are against anything that is of cultural impacts. The immigration issue has not impacted the spirit of America, matter of fact, immigration is a powerful tool of capitalism that the nation has benefitted from. But to attack the babies, goes a bit far.

People are looking at illegal immigration as a 'haves' v 'have nots'. We have money and you have issues. We don't like you because you are different. We don't need you because you aren't intelligent enough. If it's not racism, then what is it? And don't tell me it's about the Constitution, because that's not the issue.

LouisJ

Here's the problem, this country was founded on racism

wrong.................

louie,

If it's not racism, then what is it?

i gave you several examples of why so many are opposed to illegal immigration. do you remember your response? it consisted of an insult and nothing more. why ask questions when it's clear you have no intention of debating legitimate points that oppose your views? why ask questions when it's clear your only intention is to accuse posters who oppose your view of racism?

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - This 5 word passage means that anchor babies would be subject to the laws of the state in which they were born. Therefore, each state should be allowed to claim jurisdiction over this issue and pass laws to either accept or reject the notion of implied citizenship to babies born of illegal immigrants. Of course, the feds will claim they have priority over individual states (not unlike Arizona). The more research I do, the more I believe the states have jurisdiction over the authority to grant citizenship.

Well if Obama is not a 'natural born citizen' of the United States even though his mother is clearly born in Kansas, which I think is still part the of the United States, then these babies born from non-American citizens should not be American citizens.

oops, it was founded on the desire for opposite races to get along with no whips, killings, slavery, forced labor of Chinese, Blacks, Indians... I forgot about that being part of the grand scheme of harmonious living. I may need to go back to my books.

Louis, take your race card and go find another place to play it. this is about LEGAL vs. ILLEGAL, regardless of race/ethnicity.

Thanks for the info, Katie. I shoudl have looked for myself!

Something as miniscule as an "anchor baby's" citizenship being controlled by the individual states would pale in comparison to the death penalty. Each state can dictate whether an individual lives or dies, without the input of the federal government. Therefore, each state controlling citizenship rights of babies born to illegal immigrants is a cake walk!

I'm all for immigrants' babies being legal citizens if they are LEGAL immigrants. The birthright citizenship should apply to people who are in the country legally which is all the more reason for immigration reform !!

Hey chief, it's only not about race when people don't want it to be about race. When people want black people to be racist for sheer idiocy they doctor tapes only to make fools of themselves. When a certain governor doesn't like a certain people simply because they don't meet her standards, then it's about race especially since people would have been questioned based on their ethnicity.

Police officer: Sir, you're hispanic, therefore, you can't be American.

Hey Dert, I have a piece of Alaskan soil to sell ya. The eskimoes won't need it anymore since they'll likely be next on the chopping block because they lack stuff.

I don't give a flip if you are simply born in America...that DOES NOT make one a citizen of the United States of America if not even ONE of your parents is an American citizen...PERIOD!!

I am SICK and TIRED of literally giving my fair share away to people who are here illegally by way of government assisted programs simply because they gave birth on American soil. If that is going to be the case then only the child (who is the American citizen) is entitled to free medical care, food stamps, and daycare. Sorry, none for mom or dad because they can't prove their citizenship. Tough s@*^t...enough of the BS.

Have you gone to your local office of the Department of Health and Human Services lately? The higher ratio of spanish ONLY speaking people (get this...their english speaking disability is assisted by an interpreter) to english speaking people is alarming. Recently when my son was having his first baby they couldn't afford a car seat. We went down to the local ambulance station that gives out free car seats once a month to get one for them. HaHa...the entire line was literally vans full of hispanics with at least three babies in each one. Needless to say we DID NOT get a car seat, they ran out. This scenario is repeated every month. I bought them a car seat...simply ridiculous and I am fed up!!

louis,

ok, here's your chance at credibility. with the exception of your example of the shirley sherrod debacle, to which i agree, back up the other examples you give with credible proof. i know you won't. you know you won't.

keep, playing your pathetic race card, it's all you have and it's weak.

You guys are stressing for nothing, Immigration Reform is not going to happen on this level. Taxes have been reduced... and based on your situation, you're not in the top 2%.

So stop whining about your taxes helping people. It's not going to change just because someone is attempting to usurp the federal authority.

The president is still black and the country is still operating under corporate interests, which, by the way, are the true entitlement holders that are pillaging your paycheck and bank accounts.

And I gave you your example. You just refuse to acknowledge it. If you want a gotcha moment or I'm superior to you comments, then get in front of the mirror and talk to yourself. I don't play your little games of Republicanism. There's nothing independent about your rhetoric.

If you want to truly distance yourself from being a Republican based on how bad Bush messed up, then change your attitude of entitlements based on your race.

You can try to pass the blame all you want on immigration, but at the end of the day, the only issue you need to address is you since issue begins with 'I'. Get over your anger and rage that has been amped up by Rush, Bush and Dick followers.

Many countries have this policy of not allowing children to be born overseas to be citizens when the parents are citizens of a different country, why should we be any different?

Simple. We are different because IT'S THE LAW. The U.S. is different because of the hope and freedom it offers. Having said that, I don't favor illegal immigration, but I do feel our rules for LEGAL immigration and LEGAL work status should be loosened. As it is, this is the CONSTITUTION. That is the LAW.

And I gave you your example.

where, is it this one?

When a certain governor doesn't like a certain people simply because they don't meet her standards, then it's about race especially since people would have been questioned based on their ethnicity.

or this one?

Police officer: Sir, you're hispanic, therefore, you can't be American.

those are your opinions and have nothing at all to do with the az law. it's obvious as hell you haven't even read the bill.

since you are uncapable of backing your claims with proof, and you continue to throw the race card, you lost your chance at credibility.

Sure thing chief, I'm shaken.

Is uncapable a word? We can agree to disagree, I don't attack you based on your credibility. But it sounds like you are all about suppressing a voice by attacking 'credibility'. Typical Republican tactic. See it on Faux News.

one more thing, louie,

I don't play your little games of Republicanism. There's nothing independent about your rhetoric.

lol, now i'm a right wing republican? it's funny, i get accused by liberals of being right wing and i've been accused by conservatives of being a liberal.

maybe you're right. maybe i am conservative. afterall,

i am very pro gun. in fact, my wife and i have 10 firearms, 3 of which are ar-15's.

i believe in small government. i also want our government to be fiscally responsible. neither party even comes close to satisfying those needs.

i want us to stop ALL foreign aid. we cannot afford it.

i want us out of the UN.

i'd like to see us drill our own oil, use our own resources while working toward energy independence.

i want corporate influence taken out of government. let the only voice heard to be the peoples voice.

i drive a gas guzzling truck and i love it.

i always buy American products when i have that option, even if i have to spend a little more to do it.

i want a strong military.

i want illegals out of this country. no amnesty!

My only problem with the death penalty is that it's not used often enough.

hmmm, that sounds pretty conservative doesn't it?

but wait, there is more.

i think marijuana should be legalized, though i do not use it.

i think we should close most US military bases on foreign soil.

i think gays should be able to get married. it doesn't affect or hurt me in anyway. if it makes somebody elses life better, hey, that's great.

i am anti-organized religion. i believe in God, i just don't believe in the people that claim to preach his word.

i am all for stem cell research.

i want us out of iraq and afghanistan, now! the last war we fought that was worth fighting was ww2.

i am pro-choice.

i think we should be going gangbusters on renewable energy technology.

uh oh, that sounds pretty liberal, doesn't it?

is your little racist slanted brain going into overload because somebody doesn't fit into your nifty little preconceived notions of what a liberal and a conservative is? is your small-minded world so black and white that a person has to be one or the other? and if you deem them to be the other then they be damned? what if you wrongly label somebody as a racist? you make claims of racism and refuse to back them up. does that matter to you? do you have any idea how that makes you look? take your labels and stick them up your ass.

Oh man, sorry for getting under your skin... you are very sensitive. But wait, you're a TEA partier. Of course you're emotional.

lol, yep, tea partiers are all for allowing gay marriage, pro-choice, legalizing marijuana, ending the wars, smaller military. yep, you nailed it louie.

your knowledge of the tea party is as extensive as your ability to back up your claims.

Simple. We are different because IT'S THE LAW. The U.S. is different because of the hope and freedom it offers. Having said that, I don't favor illegal immigration, but I do feel our rules for LEGAL immigration and LEGAL work status should be loosened. As it is, this is the CONSTITUTION. That is the LAW.

If we actually enforced existing immigration laws and deported those who overstayed their VISAs (or had none to begin with), we would probably be able to grant more VISAS to those currently waiting for one to come here.

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

Does this sound like the designers/framers were not aware of the 14th Amendment's capability of being abused by foreigners, and aliens? However, since that specific issue has never been addressed by the Supreme Court, it has been, and is being abused. Interpretation of the Constitution weighs heavily upon the historical intent of the original designers/framers, and that will be the tipping point that the court will rely on.

svensk,

haven't you heard? laws have been reduced to mere suggestions by our federal government.

pedro,

you are absolutely correct about the intent of the 14th amendment. i'm surprised so few know this. it's easy to find.

Hey Independent: I enjoyed reading your comments, especially about your views (skewing libertarian). The only things I would say is that: 1) You prove the point that labels (conservative/liberal, etc.) are useless and generally used to divide; and 2) You libertarians tend to be simplistic (e.g. strong military presence but no foreign aid). But, hey, why not want it all? We're Americans right? P.S. If you think Michelle Bachmann supports gay marriage and pro choice, then you're in an entirely different party. Kind of makes you wonder what the Tea Party CAN really agree is its platform. Seems it means something different to every supporter I talk to! Rock on!

All you have to do is stick your crotch across the border and slip one out. Tada!!! American citizen!! Bring on the welfare!!

We should figure out a way to make only liberals pay for their welfare. :-)

@Independent: Who the hell needs 3 AR15's? They aren't even that great of a firearm. I could see having one if you are currently or were recently serving in a military or paramilitary capacity: having something to practice with at home helps scores out.

If you wanted an automatic to protect the home I'd have just gone with a Tec-9. Short barrel, agile, large magazine. Or buy a Hunting with an AR-15 is OK I guess, but they aren't extremely accurate nor are they particularly reliable in inclimate weather even if you keep it clean. You can get a lot more mileage out of an automatic H&K or StG.

If we actually enforced existing immigration laws and deported those who overstayed their VISAs (or had none to begin with), we would probably be able to grant more VISAS to those currently waiting for one to come here.

I agree entirely. Also, what I think is interesting is that there are MANY, MANY more illegals in the US who have entered the country legally and overstayed their visa than came over the border. But everyone is screaming "close the border"!!!! That's the problem I have with the Arizona law. Not that they are trying to stem illegal immigration, but it's racist slant -- and racist it is!

Louisj-- I'm on your side, pal. The most important point you made, in my judgment, is the one about this country being founded on racism. This is a part of these debates that rarely comes up because most white Americans-- even most moderate and some liberal white Americans-- refuse to take part in it, because there isn't any real answer to it; history happened and it's not changeable. Also, a huge part of American conservatism today is based on the notion that white people are the real victims of U.S. History and that it's non white Americans who are the real villains. Obviously, these two positions cannot be reconciled.

I don't wanna defend these conservatives first, because I find so little common intellectual ground with them, and second, I find they fall into two basic types-- those who are mostly followers, a group I dislike but don't attach much moral responsibility to, and those who have the wherewithal to act upon the basic values of justice and egalitarianism but find it inconvenient to do so; mostly, I think, because they think doing so means they will lose some of what they have. However, there is one problem with us saying "America was founded on racism," even though it is true-- when it is said or written like this, it implies that racism is the only identifiable trait or characteristic attributable to early American history and those who founded the republic. The problem with that is that there was more to early American history than just the racism, and the founders of the republic had many virtues that existed alongside their enormous capacity for evil.

Now mind you-- racism was an enormous portion of the foundation of this country, and the American refusal to acknowledge this fact is both a huge source of the country's ongoing social unrest, and for me, it's a big part of why I can't get very interested in this whole "secure the border and throw out the illegals" stuff. It's pretty clear to me that the right wing has no interest in ever taking seriously the need for our country to engage in something like a process of reconciliation, at least, if not reparation, with/to the descendants of Native Americans, the descendants of black American slaves, and black Americans who have endured ongoing marginalization within their own lifetimes, and then the country of Mexico for the Treaty of Guadalupe/Hidalgo. The right wing has a strong emotional need to consider itself and the history of this country pure and faultless, and then, also, it doesn't want to pay for anything, either.

The problem, though, is that when we say and write things like "America was founded on racism" we alienate many who would listen to us if we presented a more balanced view of our history, because when we say that, we essentially tell anyone who is proud of those who fought our revolution and who created the U.S. Constitution, that all of what they've been proud of their entire lives has been nothing but a cabal of racists and evildoers. They were that cabal, but there was more to them than that.

Now, the right wing won't accept anything but a view of our history as pristine and morally perfect. My view, then, is that we accept them and their position and instead work to run out the clock on them. We do this by working to aid the continued influx of undocumented aliens into this country, we work to expand the number of people allowed to emigrate to the U.S. legally, and also the number allowed to become citizens, and we then work with them to breed the right wing into the corner. There are conservative minority people, of course, but for the most part, conservative Americans are white. 2050 is the year whites are expected to shrink to mere plurality status. Though I'm white myself, I believe white Americans, at least so long as they're a majority, are the biggest problem we face. Maybe this wasn't always true, but today, at least, these are people who are from generations that for the most part have not participated in any of the great moments or accomplishments of previous Americans, and perhaps that's why there are so many who are so selfish and so quick to deny all that's great about America-- though not them-- to others.

Thus, the thing to do is not try to work them anymore, but rather to end them. Forget the amend the 14th amendment thing-- it'll never happen. Americans today are essentially not a racist society, and they know, or will know if forced to watch a debate on the issue, that this whole effort has got little to do with legal/illegal but is rather the right wing's current strategy to try to put off the inevitable march towards a yet more multi-cultural society. The most right wing America could do vis a vis this initiative-- and they'd have to do it soon, because even if 2050 is the actual date, they're still losing political clout every ten years-- would be to get the SCOTUS to determine that the 14th amendment does not actually allow for the children of illegal immigrants to be considered citizens, yet even doing this would be difficult because it would require the overturning of the long settled understanding of what the 14th amendment means. But if they achieved that, they'd succeed only in making activists of so much of the Hispanic and left wing community that a Democratic congress and executive would be returned to power and would probably remain in power for quite a long time-- long enough that the Republican Party, for reasons alluded to earlier, would either have to begin nominating more moderate leaders for most elections in this country or risk being permanently unelectable.

Seriously, let's not think the elimination of the right wing is some fantasy. A few centuries ago, what we today call the "right wing" was the entire body politic of a nation that condoned slavery. The abolitionists won the big battle of the 19th century. Left wing liberals won the civil rights battles of the last century, and by the end of the 1900's, people of the racism and bigotry that had once characterized all Americans were a mere part of the American body politic-- the right wing. Today, the racists are only a part of the right wing; note that the civil rights movement took place only forty to fifty years ago, and now, that part of the south that kept all power in the hands of its white citizenry is out-- gone. Forty years from now, it will exist only in small pockets scattered about the country.

So I think the thing for us to do is to support and nurture the political aspirations of the Latinos currently here, work towards the next amnesty, push for increases in the amount of legal Latino immigration and naturalization, and keep our own eyes on our objective-- an America that looks the way WE want it to look-- more diversity, a weaker and eventually inconsequential right wing, and an American populace which believes in unity and in standing up for and promoting the best of the virtues of our founders. They did much that was right even if they were racists and slave profiteers-- I say let's keep what was good about them-- which includes their vision of a truly fair and just society of equals-- or if this was not actually their vision, let's pull from their writings and documents the parts from which we can make this our vision.

Amen D.

I truly believe that the time that has passed has deep scars that affect the debates we have today. Are there hints of slavery left today? Of course. Do we move forward and act like there are people that are still suffering and refuse to help them? We probably will.

By replacing problems (racism) with other problems (immigration) all we end up with is a confounded message. And certain people (not saying any names) will take advantage of that.

This is a cultural war that will always take place. There's no getting around that. But to sweep it under the doorstep of fear is a mistake that many will ultimately pay for.

Why, is it "flawed"?

Yes, but they couldn't even get the 38 states needed to ratify the ERA back in the '80's.

Good point Paul, and timely considering Phyllis Shlafly's reappearance on the political stage.

Why, is it "flawed"?

it must have been, it was amended 27 times.

And yet in the last electoral cycle millions of people were all bent out of shape because Barack Obama pointed that out. http://belowthebeltway.com/2008/10/28/barack-obama-says-the-constitution-is-flawed-and-hes-right/

independent by choice:

The fact that the Consititution has been amended 27 times does NOT mean it was flawed, with at least 27 "mistakes". It means that it was a starter document, valid for the point of time at which it was approved and implemented. Since that time, society, technology and the country itself have changed radically, and many of those changes made were made necessary by circumstances and issues the original framers could not have imagined, even on the best weed available to them.

Given the size of the United States when it was 13 colonies and even into the mid-1820s when more states had been added and the Lewis and Clark expedition had demonstrated the vastness of the continent, a fair amount of them were still alive. I'm fairly certain they could not in their wildest dreams imagine a time that this nation's thirst for a growing workforce would have been slaked or turned sour.

This is why I have great disagreement with those who consider who insist on interpreting the Constitution as literally as possible or, my favorite phrase, "as the framers intended". Unless they contacted the spirits of the framers in periodic seances, I don't see how the framers' intent could possibly be divined with reliability on most of the issues the Consititution is being asked to deal with today.

Though I don't agree with much of Thomas Jefferson's philosophies beyond the Declaration of Independence, I do think that he might have had some vision of what was to come and has told us that he was cool with the Constitution being adapted to keep up with the evolution of society. "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

the constitution was ratified in 1787. the first ten amendments were added in 1791. in that time, how much did society, technology, and the country itself change? did things change radically?

I agree completely BlackHillsLaura. I do so love playing innocent and watching people run headlong down a dead end argument, however.

Amending the Constitution is nearly impossible. This "change the 14th Amendment" stuff is strictly a red herring. The GOP will use it to stir up the base, but nothing will ever come of it. Reminds me of how they always get the base excited about banning abortion, and then never do anything when they get elected.

You hope, wrong. the Constitution does not need to be amended, it just needs to be interpreted by the intent of the designer/framers.

Pedro, even the Founding Fathers didn't agree on every aspect of how the new constitution should be interpreted and implemented. Trying to psychoanalyze people who've been dead 200 years through their writings is a fools errand.

It doesn't work that way, the court goes by all the historical records available. I studied Constitutional law for 8 years. The problem is the Supreme Court can not answer a question if it has not been properly raised and presented to the court. And so far, no one has. I can tell you though, anchor babies Citizenship is unconstitutional bases on my extensive research on the subject pertaining to the 14th Amendment.

That's not where the twist generally resides, CA. ;)

Because that is what we do as people. We do things that reaffirm our own beliefs. If you change your mind your considered a "flip flopper" and are subject to the taunting as such. Besides its easier than listening to reason.

CA - I believe the Fourteenth Amendment was added in 1868 to give former slaves citizenship for the first time. Now that amendment is 142 years ago. Things change. This Fourteenth Amendment intent is the most basic civil rights amendment to define who is a citizen and what every citizen's rights are.

Unfortunately, we have people who are abusing this amendment. They are planning their trip illegally to Texas and Arizona just before they are due. Now they have the baby and magically their child is a citizen. They know this and it should be against the law. I don't believe for one minute that the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted for that purpose. It needs to be modified and updated.

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

Does this sound like the designers/framers were not aware of the 14th Amendment's capacity of being abused by foreigners, and aliens? However, since that specific issue has never been addressed by the Supreme Court, it has been, and is being abused. Interpretation of the Constitution weighs heavily upon the historical intent of the original designers/framers, and that will be the tipping point that the court will rely on.

Hey Pedro: Unfortunately, you can't just pull one quote (even assuming its accurate and not taken out of context) and divine that "The intent of the framers is express and clear..." Presumably others took part in that long ago debate, and their comments are recorded. Have you looked at those? Moreover, Congress will often make an affirmative statement of their intent to guide the people and future court's of their intent when the judiciary is charged with interpreting the law. In this case, we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment, ratified by the states. The PEOPLE's intent (i.e. the debate in each state leading to ratification in the several states) is also relevant here. This is one of the problems with the so-called "original intent doctrine"; it depends on your sources what the intent was, and most points of view can find support for their particular view of the original intent. Nothing's easy, is it?

First, the 14th Amendment was ratified in the year 1868. Two, this United States of America had Citizens before 1868. Three, were those pre 1868 Citizens Federal? Answer, No! Prior to 1868 the Constitution did not provide for a Federal Citizenship status. All Citizens prior to 1868 were state Citizens. Now here is the rub, you may then ask what happened to our state Citizenship, and the answer is you still have it, but since you volunteered (Federal SSI for one) to be a Federal Citizen, that took precedence over your state Citizenship status. The Federal level always needs your consent, and they do not have to tell you when you give it. You are ultimately responsible for knowing the law.

The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with immigration. It was a means for former slave to acquire Federal Citizenship status because, prior to the Civil War the Supreme Court in the famous Dred Scott case said that slaves had the status of merchandise, since they were bought and sold. And that being the case were not eligible for state Citizenship

Jody:

Now there is a thought. Those who discovered the Americas were born in other countries and any children they had were born by parents from other countries. Makes sense to me if the American Indians wanted to remove all birth right privileges of any man, woman or child whose lineage includes those who first entered on to this land illegally. Oh, that is silly some will say. There were no laws in place or papers required back then to keep people from moving and remaining in the Americas. Maybe, maybe not. I suppose we would have to study the laws of the Indian nations at that time. I'm sure they had some kind of code that made it ilegal and wrong to take their lands from them. Especially by those not born in America and their children.

Judy, your assertion that this is a new low because someone is challenging the 14th amendment is rather boorish of you, if not downright ignorant. The issue is the following: "Is it moral for persons on American soil illegally to let their children born here be American citizens?" I can assure you that no such law exists anywhere else in the world. For example, if American citizens have children in a foreign country, their children are American. They must apply for citizenship in the country of birth and it will not always be granted. Just look at the Palestinians. The 14th amendment was to ensure that prior slaves and American Indians born on American soil be deemed American. The law not intended to allow a non citizen Frenchman, Englishman, German or other nationalitiy, who happened to be here when they give birth, that their children be American.

WHy not? We already "allow by law" abortions....if we as a society can't protect a developing human (even woman have to acknowledge that they KNOW it is a baby since why else would they need to terminate it if it wasn't anything mroe than feces, a wart or cyst?).

The American Indians do not have sovereignty over the either North American or South America. Do you actually believe that Mexico is going to allow it indigenous residents to control its immigration policy.

I'll go one more. Most of us probably can't prove that our ancestors came here legally. Our only claim to citizenship is that we were born here. That has always been the one thing you could count on.

It would be interesting to see if that could be applied to any of these nitwit challengers. Would they volunteer to leave? Not likely. They'd probably be forced to go back to some socialist country in Europe where they offer universal health care, guaranteed vacations, and all sorts of degenerate lifestyle choices, like brie and Pinot Noir.

All children under the age of 18 whose (parent(s) are ILLEGAL should be deported to their parent(s) home country with their ILLEGAL parent(s). They can return when they are adults.

I support this even more if a woman comes here ILLEGALLY when she knows she is pregnant.

Children, for the most part, should be raised by their parent(s).

Sounds just like the Elian Gonzalez rule to me. Where did you stand on that one?

Aaron:

"The American Indidians don't have sovereigntry over North Amercian or South America".

Says who? Under whose laws?

I'm not sure why Palestine OR Mexico have any impact on this debate. It's about one think and one thing only--the Constitution of the United States, and the advisability of throwing out over 110 years of settled law because there are people who are uncomfortable around brown people.

And why wouldn't American Indian law trump US law? They were here first.

Way to stay on topic gemmeabreakoradrink!

The unintended circumstance of this 'inquiry' is that IF we are successful in taking away/amending the 14th Amendment of the Constitution from pregnant women having babies in the US, then every one of us who was born in the United States is in jeopardy of LOSING THEIR CITIZENSHIP.

Here is my thought process:

We go after the illegal immigrant woman and are successful in repealing or amending the 14th Amendment. If an immigrant has a child here in the States, that child's citizenship COULD BE CHALLENGED. That child may LOSE their citizenship in a legal battle.

Now - let's fast forward a bit. Let's say that we get a person elected that really does not like people with BLONDE hair. Using the repeal/amended 14th Amendment (and all legal processes leading up to that Constitution being amended or repealed), that elected person COULD use this a precedent to go after ALL Blonde people in America and get the deported. That person would be successful too.

Why?

Because all Blonde people Born in the United States would NOT be citizens, as their citizenship would be 'taken away' by this person, and they would all be rounded up and deported.

Hmmm... rounded up and deported. That sounds a LOT like 1930's Germany, doesn't it?

I am using a dramatic example to make a point. The point is this - you start stripping people's citizenship - even if they are born on US soil - and you start down a slippery slope of LOSING YOUR citizenship.

Is that what we REALLY want to do?

What we should be doing is calling out all of those politicians that want to repeal/amend the 14th Amendment and run them out of town on a rail. Americans should be OUTRAGED at someone trying to take away their rights as a citizen. Americans should be stomping Sen. Kyl's guts out right now, as what he is proposing should be viewed as SEDITION.

But no - he is spewing this drivel to cheering crowds. They have NO IDEA of the hole they are digging for themselves.

Americans need to wake up. FREEdom is NOT free, and when you have your freedom, you need to PROTECT it.

Jody, you speak as if you have a vested interest in the illegal population in the U.S.. Did you stop and think that when the government enacted the current policy which allows for people born in this country citizenship they weren't dealing with people having babies in border town emergency rooms on a regular basis. The country was focused on westward expansion and wanted citizens to populate the country. These illegal aliens are using our own laws against us. Why is it that a US citizen needs to pay for the birth of someone that is not from this country, and at the same time has to pay either out of pocket if maternity is not covered, or through insurance if it is, when it comes to their own children?

Pietro

You are ASSuming that a law or amendment can be enforced retroactively. It can not. That would be like passing a new law to increase the fines for speeding and going back 100 years and take everyone who has ever had a speeding ticket and sending them a bill for what would now be the amount of the fine if they were caught after the law went into effect.

Anyone born in the USA up to the second before the law or amendment went into effect would be automatic citizens under existing interpretation of the law.

Just like in states where the death penalty has been overturned there are still people on death row convicted before the new law went into effect that can and have been executed under the old law.

well jody if you would like to continue to pay for their medical bills, their education, and to feed them why don't you send a generous contribution every month to Mexico

Interesting that some use the "innocent children" line when they support abortion (I support abortion, but I don't agree with the notion that by eliminating birthright citizenship, you are "punishing innocent children." How are you punishing them? By requiring them to be citizens of the same country as their parents?)...

Also, it should be predictable that there would be some who would say that this arises from *gasp* fear of brown-skinned people, i.e., racism. Please. I was interning at a refugee clinic in Ireland when their law eliminating jus soli citizenship went into effect. I suppose that the Irish, along with pretty much all of Europe, are just a bunch of racists, too.

How can denial of citizenship to a BABY...yes, I typed BABY, to illegal aliens be considered a punishment? You need help!

Listen up Pietro! This government can do whatever they they feel like doing. If taxes can be retroactive...so can you and your big illegal family!

Jody - because the people have seen what change Obama is doing.

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

Does this sound like the designers/framers were not aware of the 14th Amendment's capacity of being abused by foreigners, and aliens? However, since that specific issue has never been addressed by the Supreme Court, it has been, and is being abused. Interpretation of the Constitution weighs heavily upon the historical intent of the original designers/framers, and that will be the tipping point that the court will rely on.

I don't see how any child is being punished. Look, both my parents were visiting France when I was born, then they took me back to America with their return. Was I being punished for being born in France? What would of happened to me if my parents decided and got permission from France to stay and live there permanently, would that be a punishment for me because, I was born an American Citizen in France?

Hey Pedro: See my comment, above. You're a LONG way from proving the original intent of the 14th Amendment. No matter how often you repeat it, cherry-picking one obscure quote hardly establishes the intent of a Constitutional Amendment.

Well, I see my comment stoked some engines. I do not have a vested interest in illegals. I am not ignorant. I prefer they come here legally. That said, it is WE who hire them. Do not blame them for coming to a country which will give them jobs, a better income than they had, a chance for more. If we did not hire them, they would not come here. As for medical care, there are 45 million American citizens without health care--don't pin that on illegals. They pay sales taxes, they buy food, clothes, they spend their money helping fuel the economy. They don't come here purposely to have babies born as US citizens, they come here for a better life, they come here for the American dream. Are you honestly foolish enough to think illegals won't come here if their children won't be citizens?

If we really want to do something about illegals crossing into the country, then demand your legislators do something. The republicans make a big stink about illegals every two years like clock work. After re-election they settle at their desks and do nothing about it until the next campaign at which time, they demonize illegals--it's the GOP game.

When the economy tanks, it's the illegals fault that a citizen can't find a job; if crimes goes up, it's the illegals fault; if Mexican drug cartels cross the border to deliver drugs, it's the illegals fault--even though it is American citizens who buy the drugs. How many American citizens are picking tomatoes or harvesting fruit? How many white people do you see working at turkey processing plants?

The American Indians were here first, they considered their tribes sovereign nations--Apache Nation, Cherokee Nation, Navajo Nation.

jody, first yes the natives were here first. but not the specific tribes or 'nations' that would lay claim to it now. And they were never above 'migrating' to other tribes lands when the need arose. they had no problem with taking land and property from their neighbors. raiding, war, kidnapping and murder were a big part of their lives long before europeans got here. so dont blame whitey. we were just a stronger force.

illegals aliens are using laws passed to guarantee citizenship to slaves and the children of slaves in the us, back in the carpet bagging post war south. illegals claim these rights that they have never earned nor deserve. it may be true that their ancestors were also treated as slaves in their southern home countries, but that would be a matter they would need to take up with spain and portugal, maybe even the catholic church.

california is proof that yes, illegals are causing state economys to tank. welfare, free hospital visits, food stamps, overcrowding schools. overloading all the social systems. all on our dime.

on the other hand, i will note that politicians, of both flavors, have at least their share of the blame for the tanking economy. dems want to redistribute the wealth, that means my taxes go to support poor people, black, white brown, citizens or not. home loans went to people who really didnt qualify, letting them buy houses they couldnt possibly afford. more freebies and welfare and special racial statuses bennies and perks. all on my dime. the iraq war and that awful banking bail out that put our children and grandchildren into bondage to china forever. the repubes are no better, they sit comfortably in the back pocket of big business and the more people out of work, the less big business has to pay in wages. greedy corporate bastids.

face it till we reform our out of control, over spending, overly legisalting, best politicians corporate american can buy, government there will be no other reformations that will actually benefit tax paying us citizens. the revolution is at hand. please play nice and watch for children crossing.

aunty

Pietro

You are ASSuming that a law or amendment can be enforced retroactively. It can not. That would be like passing a new law to increase the fines for speeding and going back 100 years and take everyone who has ever had a speeding ticket and sending them a bill for what would now be the amount of the fine if they were caught after the law went into effect.

Anyone born in the USA up to the second before the law or amendment went into effect would be automatic citizens under existing interpretation of the law.

Just like in states where the death penalty has been overturned there are still people on death row convicted before the new law went into effect that can and have been executed under the old law.

1wizard - I must disagree with you on your premise. The current law that was passed for Unemployment Benefits was passed and RETROACTIVELY enforced (in this case, the law was passed 1 month AFTER the benefits ran out, and the people who are on UI will get the money for the month that the Congress was 'dithering' on UI benefits).

There is no precedent (that I know if anyway) that says a Constitutional amendment CANNOT be retroactively enforced. if the person changing/amending the 14th Amendment is successful in getting retoractive enforcement in the language and is successful in getting their Amendment passed, then yes, it CAN happen.

You STILL don't want to go there with Amending the 14th Amendment. You will be shooting yourself in the foot if you do.

Jody, et al

You are forgetting something. The main reason the US law applies and all LEGAL citizens are legal based on US law is that this is the US. Fair or not, the Native Americans were the losers of an invasion. Yes, the europeans invaded this land. They successfully took over. It was a war. We were not the first to do it, nor the last. Again, it is not really fair, but those were crude times. If you don't like that, sorry. It is what it is. If you want to undo this history, start with homo sapiens disloging nethanderals.

Now, since the law of the land is US law, the US controls its immigration methods. Current methods does allow "anchor babies". This could change without an amendment. If the supreme court rules on an interpretation, than that is the accepted law. As someone said, those granted citizenship previously would not (could not) have that stripped away.

Oh come on - if you are going to resort to name calling do us all the favor of taking it all the way and just call them Nazis.

But other than that, great argument. Captain of the debate team?

a non-issue? Read the post below and see howmuch these "anchor" babies cost us. why do you feel the need to reward criminal behavior? Why aren't you for removing one of the incentives to illegally enter here?

How concerned are you about running stop signs, jaywalking, or littering, dirt? Those are also misdemeanors.

jomama72, I've read enough of your posts to know that what you posted is very true, at least the last part of the last sentence.

I have to agree with conservatives on this one. People break the law to use this law. We're going to end up over-populated like China if this keeps going. There are not enough jobs in this country as it is to keep everyone working.

Illegal immigration is highly unfair to people who wait decades to get here and these abuses of our system have to stop.

The issue isn't the CURRENT EFFECT of the law. The PEOPLE'S RIGHTS under our Constitution don't get interpreted out of existence by the judicial branch. They are our rights--all of ours--and can only be taken by the will of the people by REPEAL. So, all the arguments about the effect of the 14th Amendment, especially those of so-called conservatives on this blog, smack of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, i.e. identifying a desired result and reasoning backward from there. I thought that was what conservatives DID NOT want in judges (at least those appointed by a Democrat). LEAVE THE ISSUE TO THE PEOPLE.

What do you suggest then nresq? Sending the child back to Mexico and have him/her come back and apply for citizenship when they're 18?

I would prefer that over stripping the Constitution but something does need to be done about this. We have a law that encourages others to break our laws so they can take advantage of it. That is a valid point (pulling my hair out) made by people on the "conservative" side.

I am all for legal immigration to this country. I absolutely love getting to know others from other countries but illegal immigration is hampering our entire system. I certainly don't see how so many can think it is unfair to be kicked out for breaking a law. I do understand the economic enormity of trying to do so but it infuriates me that people who have waited to get here legally will still be waiting while the people allowed to stay, broke the law the second they touched foot on this soil.

I can easily understand why so many are angry about this and why they get even angrier at the unjustified outrage of people who aren't here legally because they aren't wanted here because they thumbed their nose at our laws.

The longer congress waits to do something about this the more angry people are going to get.

DIRT posted: a non-issue? Read the post below and see howmuch these "anchor" babies cost us. why do you feel the need to reward criminal behavior? Why aren't you for removing one of the incentives to illegally enter here?

Dirt, do we REALLY want to go down this path?

I'll tell you what - go talk to Gov. Bobby Jinal - you know, the Republican Governor of Louisiana - and tell him how you feel. You see, Gov. Jinal was an 'anchor baby'... and it seems to me that he turned out all right!

It also looks like Gov. Jindal was not a drain on our economy, either.

You CANNOT - I repeat CANNOT - associate 'anchor Babies' with JUST Hispanic or illegal people. We have non-hispanic anchor babies all the time!!

Does this mean you would be so HEARTLESS as to strip a small innocent baby of their CITIZENSHIP because you don't like the parents?

Does this mean that you are so SELFISH as to deny a small innocent baby any help that is needed because you don't like their parents?

Well, Dirt, what say you?

Casca, please who wants to read paragraph after paragraph of stuff you've copied and pasted into your comment. Not me.

Frankly I'm more worried about accused felons like John Ensign http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/04/why-sen-ensign-should-be-worried-about-possible-in/ than I am about misdemeanors committed by people who have value to the US economy http://illuminate.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/12/4664778-even-fox-business-says-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-economy .

You might want to read that last article before reflexively accusing me of quoting the liberal media.

I wanted to read it. Perhaps the big words like "applauded" and "Liberal" confused and bored you but I'm sure many others here appreciated Casca's post. You can go back to your Dr. Seuss books now BooHoo.

Senor or Senora Casca: Blah...Blah...Blah...and good bye!

Casca - great post. I don't care if you did paste, it takes time to do the research and when those who don't agree, well we can't fix stupid.

I would love for all who are in denial to work at the hospital in the OB and the accounting department. Maybe they would see the light.

I will say this again because, it is a vital point of contention:

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

Does this sound like the designers/framers were not aware of the 14th Amendment's capacity of being abused by foreigners, and aliens? However, since that specific issue has never been addressed by the Supreme Court, it has been, and is being abused. Interpretation of the Constitution weighs heavily upon the historical intent of the original designers/framers, and that will be the tipping point that the court will rely on.

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

Does this sound like the designers/framers were not aware of the 14th Amendment's capacity of being abused by foreigners, and aliens? However, since that specific issue has never been addressed by the Supreme Court, it has been, and is being abused. Interpretation of the Constitution weighs heavily upon the historical intent of the original designers/framers, and that will be the tipping point that the court will rely on.

Assuming you agree with the 'original intent doctrine' Pedro, it IS a vital point. And your "proof" doesn't cut it on this vital point. Cherry-picking one obscure quote hardly establishes the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. No matter how many times you repeat that one quote.

Just want to keep adding this comment so those who read your repeated post don't think you know what you're talking about.

So Pedro, how have the COURTS defined it since 1898? That's the real issue here. Hint: they've consistently held that anyone born on US soil is a citizen of the US.

We don't need immigration reform, we need enforcement of immigration law. And for the Supreme Court to properly interpret the intention of the original designer of the 14the Amendment.

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

Does this sound like the designers/framers were not aware of the 14th Amendment's capacity of being abused by foreigners, and aliens? However, since that specific issue has never been addressed by the Supreme Court, it has been, and is being abused. Interpretation of the Constitution weighs heavily upon the historical intent of the original designers/framers, and that will be the tipping point that the court will rely on.

Assuming you agree with the 'original intent doctrine' Pedro, it IS a vital point. And your "proof" doesn't cut it on this vital point. Cherry-picking one obscure quote hardly establishes the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. No matter how many times you repeat that one quote.

Just want to keep adding this comment so those who read your repeated post don't think you know what you're talking about.

I was not aware that those children born to parents illegallly in this country were to be defined as criminals. It would be kind of a shocker on your day of birth to have the Feds waiting in the delivery room to put handcuffs on you. I mean that is what we do with criminals is it not, handcuff them and take them to jail. Do we have enough jail space and nannys available to care for all those criminal babies as the Feds haul them in?

No the poor kids are not the criminals. But it'd be really nice if the hospitals would at least make the parents pay for the services before releasing the birth cirtificate. Guess how much California tax money goes to paying for all those anchor baby births. It is astounding.

Anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of needing medical care in Mexico knows - if you don't pay first, you get turned away. Positively barbarian!

Good post. The best stuff I've read in a long time.

CA, it's clear dirt was calling the parents criminals--you know, them being illegal and all. Most states have a law saying no one should benefit from their ilegal/criminal acts. In fact, if I recall correctly, California passed its version when a would-be thief sued a school when he broke his leg while trying to rob the place. The basic fact is, someone (the parents) should not break the law in order to gain a benefit (using the child to stay here).

I got to ask you, do you support using a child to break the law? Do these parents love their child or is the child merely a tool to get what they want? Is this not the same thing as a sham marriage to get into this country? That is illegal, so does this count as another type of fraud?

You are obviously not taking the discussion seriously. You know better than your lame "criminal child" excuse. You'd rather try (lamely) to rally those that will agree with you no matter the merit (or its lack). There are ditto heads on both sides. Are you trying to be one, or do you just support crime?

I'll bet you'd mostly like to have them all pay taxes so you don't have to.

Nationality law is based either on the legal principle of “jus soli” or “jus sanguinis” or some combination of these two legal principles. “Jus soli” is the principle by which a child born in a country acquires that country's nationality. “Jus sanguinis” means that either the father or mother or both must be a citizen of the country in order for the child to be a national of that country.

Most European countries require that a child have at least one parent who is a citizen of the country for the child to have citizenship. The concept that a child need only be born in a country to be a citizen is not a common thing. The US and Argentina have that tradition but most countries do not.

Very scholarly, Carnelian, and absolutely correct.

However, since this right is enshrined in our Constitution, the issue is how to deal with this right if you are among those who want that right taken from the people. Litigate in the courts? That's judicial activism, something anathema to conservatives, or so I thought. The only correct course is to REPEAL all or parts of the 14th Amendment. LEAVE THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE!

Not true Rick. Their interpretation of the 2nd amendment is also kooky.

Rick - you are describing yourself. A genuine racist.

Read this and weep!

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

Does this sound like the designers/framers were not aware of the 14th Amendment's capacity of being abused by foreigners, and aliens? However, since that specific issue has never been addressed by the Supreme Court, it has been, and is being abused. Interpretation of the Constitution weighs heavily upon the historical intent of the original designers/framers, and that will be the tipping point that the court will rely on.

Hey Pedro, you're the one who should be weeping: Your "proof" doesn't cut it on this vital point. Cherry-picking one obscure quote hardly establishes the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. No matter how many times you repeat that one quote.

Just want to keep adding this comment so those who read your repeated post don't think you know what you're talking about.

Pedro You need to get a new post man

Pedro You need to get a new post man

Brian, interesting point, but the issue is interpretation of the meaning of the 14th ammendment

Interpretation is the issue, and the Supreme Court has made such interpretations numerous times. Familiar examples would be the "right to bear arms" clause of the 2nd Amendment, or the meaning of "cruel and unsual punishments" in the 8th Amendment

The Senate, and even you and me can debate, hold hearing, gather facts and records to see if the Constitution is being misinterpreted, abused, or misapplied. But the Supreme Court has the final word on intention/interpretation of anything about the Constitution.

You sound like a TRUE JUDICIAL ACTIVIST, Pedro!

Actually, nresq, Pedro sounds like he knows something about the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has the responsibility to interpret the Constitution since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Try reading a book once in a while before attacking someone who is using facts that most people already know.

That pathway that Geo W Bush had in his immigration bill? BOTH sides of the aisle have to own responsibility for this debacle.

dirt, that very pathway, the one John McCain also supported. But today's republicans are unwilling to compromise and so nothing is going to change. Not until the right wing republicans back down from their dream of mass deportation. But they're so tightly wound up by right wing rhetoric that it won't happen. Just a lot of anger and yelling and demonstrations. Maybe even some violence. But no solution until they're willing to compromise. They'll have to choose pragmatism over dogma. Fat chance.

No, the achor baby issue of Citizenship will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

Does this sound like the designers/framers were not aware of the 14th Amendment's capacity of being abused by foreigners, and aliens? However, since that specific issue has never been addressed by the Supreme Court, it has been, and is being abused. Interpretation of the Constitution weighs heavily upon the historical intent of the original designers/framers, and that will be the tipping point that the court will rely on.

You're wrong Pedro: Your "proof" doesn't cut it on this vital point. Cherry-picking one obscure quote hardly establishes the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. No matter how many times you repeat that one quote.

Just want to keep adding this comment so those who read your repeated post don't think you know what you're talking about.

The correct way to remove one of the PEOPLE'S RIGHTS under the Constitution is for the PEOPLE TO DECIDE if that right gets taken from them! The REPEAL process is the correct manner to deal with a Constitutional Amendment if you don't like its results. Unless you're a JUDICIAL ACTIVIST, of course.

Where do I go to get my bazooka, sawdavid? How about my mortar? I want a tank, really really want a tank. I have a right to those things under the 2nd amendment. It's not open to interpretation.

Not so;

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

Does this sound like the designers/framers were not aware of the 14th Amendment's capacity of being abused by foreigners, and aliens? However, since that specific issue has never been addressed by the Supreme Court, it has been, and is being abused. Interpretation of the Constitution weighs heavily upon the historical intent of the original designers/framers, and that will be the tipping point that the court will rely on.

Hey Pedro: Your "proof" doesn't cut it on this vital point. Cherry-picking one obscure quote hardly establishes the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. No matter how many times you repeat that one quote.

Just want to keep adding this comment so those who read your repeated post don't think you know what you're talking about.

Very astute comment, Tim!

This is another thing that is sad about the current state of the "mainstream" media. They're only interest in how effectively the Republicans can exploit some manufactured controversy to damage President Obama; the media just doesn't care if there's any truth to what the Republicans are saying. The media obviously hasn't learned any lessons from their gullible acceptance of the far right's Sherrod smear.

Houston. I think this excerpt clearly shows that the idea of an anchor baby, in that it gives the parents a path to citizenship, is wrong.

However, there is still a lot of incentive for an illegal alien to have there children here. I would imagine a lot of people would be willing to make the sacrifice of living in the shadows when they know that their child will have a better life.

It also seams to me that these children may have a positive overall impact on our economy in the long run. If they grow to be productive citizens as adults and help offset the low birth rates of more established American families. I'd like to see the numbers on that.

Charles Arlington Heights, IL:

However, there is still a lot of incentive for an illegal alien to have there children here. I would imagine a lot of people would be willing to make the sacrifice of living in the shadows when they know that their child will have a better life.

I'd be inclined to agree that the 14th Amendment provides some incentive, but I don't know that it provides a lot. Most illegal immigrants come here to find jobs to support themselves and the families they already have. But in any case, that's not what the Republicans are claiming. They're trying to inflame voters against illegal immigrants with the phony charge that illegal immigrants are coming here in droves to have "anchor babies" in order to selfishly acquire legal status for themselves by some quick and easy means. Wanting a better life for their children that American citizenship could provide is too noble a motivation for the Republicans to accuse immigrants of having.

As to the meaning of "jurisdiction" that the far right is trying to challenge, they are talking nonsense. The only people in the US who aren't under US legal jurisdiction are foreign diplomats and their families. If diplomats or their family members commit a crime here the US cannot prosecute them in US courts because they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States; they have diplomatic immunity. But when illegal immigrants commit a crime, they can and have been prosecuted in US courts because the United States has legal jurisdiction over them while they are in the US. Therefore, the 14th Amendment applies to their offspring. The Constitution couldn't be any clearer on this point. The Republicans just don't like the Constitution very much except for the 2nd Amendment, which they've interpreted far more liberally, ironically enough, than the authors ever intended.

No, no, we do not believe your lies. You only try to throw a blanket over the issue to hide the facts of anchor baby abuse in my country. I told my Pakistanian friend that Mexican's are having their baby's born here for Citizenship, and he said even people from his country do that here.

Now you are REALLY starting to sound ignorant, Pedro!

Why don't you respond to the evidence, rather than bloviating? Look it up.

Houston: Thanks for a dose of REALITY! Always needed!

Houston This is reality - If other's know the truth and it's not what you want to hear, you call them names. Many of us are living with this reality and know what damage it is doing to our state and country.

1. 1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
   Verify at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8
   
   2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
   Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML
   
   3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
2. Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML
   
   4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
   Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML

   5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
   Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

   6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML%3E;

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report:

12. The National policy Institute estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org/PDF/deportation.PDF

13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www/..rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14.The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .
Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml < ww http: articleshtml%3E; www.drdsk.com>;%20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME, HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY

and yet its still cheaper than one war

Carol AZ. You are right that their are problems and cost associated with illegal aliens. Where I disagree is with your total of $338.3B. There must be economic BENEFITS as well. I would be interested to see the benefits quantified and netted against your total costs.

I'm not saying everything is fine and dandy, I would just like to see both sides of the Cost/Benefit equation in order to come up with some kind of total economic impact.

The only fact that you sited that I would have liked to verify is "In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US ." The link you gave for this does not work.

Suzy - just understand this - you go after these pregnant women now and take away their children's citizenship, you could find yourself on the OTHER end of that law at come point. Can you imagine the chaos - and horror - if someone gets into power and decides that all women named Suzy born in the US should NOT be citizens - even if you have lived in the US all your life?

What would you do when you are deported?

What recourse would you have?

This is a VERY dangerous and slippery slope that you want to go down. You really need to re-think your position.

You said it better than I. However, I do not agree with the part where you said at least one parent must be here legally, that just puts us back to our current problem.... Illegal immigrants !!!!!!!!

Pietro, Suzy said nothing about taking away citizenship that has already been granted. If the laws were changed, an existing citizenship that has already been granted would be "grandfathered", that is allowed to stand. However, children born to illegal aliens after the laws are changed would no longer have an automatic right to US citizenship.

In most countries around the world, one must have at least one parent who has citizenship in a country, in order for a child to claim citizenship.

I believe the 14th Amendment was passed, actually, to ensure citizenship for freed slaves who were still being discriminated against and denied citizenship after the Civil War...and because of lack of immigration laws (prior to the exclusion acts), it would have been very hard for any immigrant to come here through "illegal" means at the time the amendment was written.

Also to answer the question asked by other posters, several other countries do grant citizenship to children born within their borders, regardless of the status of the parents. Some countries even allow children to hold dual citizenship until the age of majority.

Now that said, if there is actually a problem of "dropping and leaving" (which seems bizarre, but we all know that no Senator could ever be wrong or misleading), then let's do something about it. If, however, this is just another ploy to get one group of poor people to hate and fear another group of poor people in order to cull votes, then maybe we can just leave the Constitution out of it.

Who said anything about repealing the citizenship of those already granted it? I may have missed something in the article but my understanding and my position is based on eliminating automatic citizenship from the time an amendment is passed.

And if I may play devils advocate for just a moment, the pregnant women's fetuses have no rights according to the left. They aren't children until they're born and if they aren't children, they can't be citizens.

Yes, it's unfortunate that the cell masses have no say in the circumstances they are being born into, I agree fully, but at some point we have to stop the mess that has been ignored for so many years. I said the same thing when Bush was president as I'm saying now. Remove the incentive to cross the boarder and we go a long way in fixing the problem. Actually SECURE the boarder and this becomes a moot point, but doing nothing is only further dragging us into social and financial ruin.

Jherek Carnelian

Pietro, Suzy said nothing about taking away citizenship that has already been granted. If the laws were changed, an existing citizenship that has already been granted would be "grandfathered", that is allowed to stand. However, children born to illegal aliens after the laws are changed would no longer have an automatic right to US citizenship.

Jherek - that's not the point. The point I am making is that if citizenship can be taken away from one person, it can easily be taken away from ALL persons if a legal foundation is set for it. Just as you have stated that we need to 'change' the 14th Amendment, what would stop someone from 'changing' the citizenship rule and RETROACTIVELY rescind ANY citizenship that was granted under the 14th Amendment?

So the question is this - is this REALLY what you want to do?

Pietro, your talking about setting a precedent. That said it's a stretch, a loooong stretch. You brought up hair color, names, ect.. I give you this, if a person steals money from your bank account with the banks knowledge are you going to say "oh well they probably needed it" or will you complain to the bank that allowed the person access?

Suzy, actually you are incorrect about where the immigrants were coming from when the 14th amendment passed. At the time, the western border of the US was largely open to people coming and going from (gasp) Mexico. This is where the largest number of US immigrants came from then. But many white US citizens (I am one) have historically ignored this as we have the mistreatments of black slaves, native americans, the chinese, and now the American people from south of the US border. Maybe we should just go back to the Roman Citizenship model, if you have the money you can buy your citizenship?

Hey Dustin - yes, that scenario about deporting Blonde people is a looooong stretch, but the abolition of slavery was a loooong stretch too, wasn't it?

My point is this - if you open the door for people to abuse your rights, then guess what? Yoiur rights will be abused!! The really shocking part of this thread are the number of people who actually WANT to take away othe people's rights, especially when they THINK thet THEY are in a stronger position. What if you were in a WEAKER position? What if the 'unthinkable' happens? What then?

For many hundreds of years, the British Empire was the strongest and most prolific epire in the past 400 years. Now, the British empire - and influence - are just a shadow of what they were. Would it have been a looooong stretch for someone to believe you if you told a 17th century Englishman that they would not be a world power?

I guess I'm ultimately still confused at how people who are here illegally are extended the rights afforded by our Constitution to begin with. Basic human rights I get, everyone deserves to be treated with dignity, treated fairly under the law, etc, fine and dandy, but when your first act on American soil is breaking the law, isn't that a problem? When I went to Japan as an exchange student, I had to get a visa giving me permission to be in their country and while I was there I was expected to follow their laws. If I chose to ignore those laws, I was subject to punishment under the law. When someone crosses the boarder illegally, they are choosing to ignore our laws whether they did so for the best of intentions (seeking a better life for their unborn child) or nefarious intentions (drug trafficking, etc), they are still breaking the laws of our country. Why should that action be rewarded instead of punished? Ignoring our laws because they might inconvenience the law breakers is an erosion of the civil liberties of every law abiding citizen of this country.

Pietro you are completely missing the point. There is an enormous difference between taking away citizenship once granted and changing the basis under which citizenship is granted in the first place. Do you not see the difference?

No-one is talking about talking away citizenship that has already been granted. What is under discussion is changing the basis upon which future citizenships are granted.

Jherek Carnelian:

Pietro you are completely missing the point. There is an enormous difference between taking away citizenship once granted and changing the basis under which citizenship is granted in the first place. Do you not see the difference?

Actually, Jherek, it is YOU that is missing MY point. My point is that if you change the rules to suit your fancy, then don't expect the rules that suit YOU will remain static. You are opening the door for 'unintended consequences' that you probably have not thought of.

Besides, if you 'take away' the citizenship of small babies ( who are helpless and CANNOT fight back), then who is to say that what you are doing is NOT going to set precedence for someone to take YOUR citizenship away?

That is my point.

That is the danger in what you are advocating.

So, do we REALLY want to continue down this road?

Pietro, Lets try an analogy. Your neighbors pregnant dog digs a hole under your fence because your back yard has shade trees and his does not. She gives birth to a litter of puppies in your yard because she things your yard will afford them a much better life than your neighbors yard. Are the litter of puppies AND their mother now your responsibility because your yard was more appealing than your neighbors? So you're going to pay for vet bills, food, obedience school, toys, law suits resulting from a dog bite incident, whatever? Or are you going to say those are your neighbors dogs, return them to his yard and ask that he reinforce the hole in the fence his dogs created? After all, it's not the puppies fault they were born in your yard...

And once you've asked your neighbor to take back his puppies, do you honestly believe that your neighbors are going to demand you leave town and never be allowed to return because you refused to accept responsibility for those poor innocent puppies?

Your paranoia seems a bit extreme. All nations have the right and responsibility to determine their criteria for extending citizenship, do they not? The Bill of Rights is stacked with examples of changes made because circumstances changed. Voter rights is a prime example. Prohibition is another. Seems to me there are a few more that ought to be written in regarding congress but that's a matter for another debate. I do firmly believe that we could make this a non-issue if the feds actually stepped up to the plate and enforced our immigration laws- if we kept expectant mothers from crossing in illegally, there would be no question of what to do with their children's citizenship rights- they wouldn't be born here in the first place, but if the feds aren't going to do their job, maybe we need to explore other courses of action to deter the continued abuse of the 14th amendment.

Pietro, you try to make yourself sound smart, so stop trying to be so silly on this. You are trying to fear-monger.

The US does not have the right to strip citizenship from those who have it. It does have the right to not grant citizenship to those who do not have it. That would mean that ONCE a change in the current law (or the interpretation of it), NEW children born would not automatically be citizens. This does not affect anyone born before the change went into effect. This does not strip anyone of their rights. It denies those who do not have citizenship for the simple fact that they are not born yet.

I'm not ready to advocate this extreme of a change, but don't be silly about what this means. This would be an extreme change, but any more so that Brown v the board of Education? Any more extreme than Roe v Wade? Those massive changes resulted from the bench, so an amendment is not needed in this case. This is a serious matter, and a possible one. This deserves serious consideration, and not fear-mongering or hatred. That same advise goes the other way too.

To Suzy:

Your paranoia seems a bit extreme. All nations have the right and responsibility to determine their criteria for extending citizenship, do they not? The Bill of Rights is stacked with examples of changes made because circumstances changed. Voter rights is a prime example. Prohibition is another. Seems to me there are a few more that ought to be written in regarding congress but that's a matter for another debate. I do firmly believe that we could make this a non-issue if the feds actually stepped up to the plate and enforced our immigration laws- if we kept expectant mothers from crossing in illegally, there would be no question of what to do with their children's citizenship rights- they wouldn't be born here in the first place, but if the feds aren't going to do their job, maybe we need to explore other courses of action to deter the continued abuse of the 14th amendment.

I am very amused that you seem my point(s) as paranoia. Well, that is your opinion and I am OK with that. The analogy that you posted was cute as well, but people cannot be equated with puppies, and the situation(s) that they fnid themselves in are not even remotely similar.

However -

Your argument to change/repeal the 14th Amendment is interesting to say the least. You are making the ASSUMPTION that your standing is NOT going to change. I disagree. I say that if you change the 14th Amendment to strip innocent babies of their birthright, then you are opening the door for SOMEONE to strip YOU of your rights as a citizen.

Think that couldn't happen?

By stripping the rights away from children, you open the door for SOMEONE to strip you of YOUR rights. They will use what you have done a precedence to write laws/rescind laws that will benefit THEIR agenda.

You will have NO recourse to reverse what they have done.

This is a slippery slope that you will regret.

Is this being paranoid? Possibly. But I know my RESPONSIBILITY as an American Citizen. It is MY responsibility to make sure wing nuts - from both sides of the political spectrum - do NOT take away the rights of Americans.

The 14th Amendment is a birthright to Children, freely given so that ALL citizens have a birthright - not just the nobles/kings/queens/princes/princesses lke they were in Feudal Europe.

Now you want to take that away. What makes that worse, you want to take that away from CHILDREN who cannot defend themselves.

Do you think there will NOT be any consequences of that action?

If you support this action, you have NO IDEA of the hole you are digging for yourself - until you find yourself in it with no way out.

It'll be too late then, won't it?

To A voice (the real one):

The US does not have the right to strip citizenship from those who have it. It does have the right to not grant citizenship to those who do not have it.

A Voice, your narrative (posted above) is the CURRENT law as it is being applied. so far, so good.

That would mean that ONCE a change in the current law (or the interpretation of it), NEW children born would not automatically be citizens. This does not affect anyone born before the change went into effect. This does not strip anyone of their rights. It denies those who do not have citizenship for the simple fact that they are not born yet.

Here is where your argument falls apart. You are stating that once the change in the CURRENT law (or the interpretation of it), NEW children born would not automatically be citizens.

I disagree. The grounds of my disagreement is that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT the CHANGE(S) are going to be. Are we going to REPEAL the 14th Amendment? Are we going to change the wording of the 14th Amendment? Or are we going to get a 'new' interpretation of the law from the SCOTUS?

You seem to have made your argument on what you THINK will be the case, as narrow as your case is.

MY argument is that if you make those changes, what happens? What are the 'unintended consequences' of that change? Has ANYONE really thought this out COMPLETELY before making noise that they want to 'change' the law?

Is this an extreme view? You bet it is! Making changes to a Constitutional Amendment needs to be done CAREFULLY and not for some narrow political or socioeconomic objective.

I have stated this before - if you start 'taking away' people's rights, then don't be too surprised when SOMEONE takes away YOUR rights - and by this action of changing the 14th Amendment, you would have opened the door for them to do it!!

Does this mean I am trying to make myself sound smart? I really don't have the time to do that, but I do THINK and it is MY RESPONSIBILITY as an American Citizen to PROTECT those rights - for you, and even for those anchor babies - because that is what it is to be an American.

You want to abdicate your responsibility as a citizen? Go right ahead. Its your choice. However, I think that many Americans will think PAST the 'talking points' and REALLY understand that changing a Constitutional Amendment is a VERY important process.

I think that we need a LOT more debate on this subject, and ALL of the ramifications - good and bad - need to be laid out BEFORE anything is done.

So what say you, A Voice (the real one)?

Somehow I knew you'd take the puppy analogy literally instead of using it in the context it is intended.

My question to you is this- do you defend the 2nd amendment as vehemently as you do the 14th? As far as I'm concerned both arguments come down to the same issue- enforce the laws on the books and the debate on the amendments becomes unnecessary.

Suzy - to answer your question bluntly - you bet your butt I would defend the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. It does NOT need to be changed. AT ALL.

Now that you bring it up, let's explore changing the 2nd Amendment for a minute.

Let's just say that my argument for changing the 2nd Amendment is because I do not believe that the founding fathers actually meant for us to have AR-15s or M1 Garands as firearms for 'our own protection'.

I want to change the 2nd Amendment because I believe that the founding fathers were only talking about small arms only.

If I was successful in changing the 2nd Amendment to restrict gun ownership to just small arms, then whyWOULDN'T I go after the 1st Amendment? It was easy enough to change the 2nd, wasn't it?

That's what is called an 'unintended consequence'. I have set a precedent that I could use to change ALL of the Constitutional Amendments if I wanted to.

Now that I have the 2nd Amendment changed, we have an invasion from North Korea. They have long arms; we only have short arms, because we changed the law.

We would look pretty stupid trying to fend off Korea with short arms, don't you think? We would also have a REAL STUPID look on our face because we didn't think through all of the ramifications of just having short arms for protection.

Oh yes, we would also have to learn Korean - or get shot.

And learn to LIKE Kimchee.

My point is this - you can be for whatever you want, but if you rush into it without looking at ALL of the ramifications - good and bad - then you are just asking for trouble. Changing Constitutional Amendments for a NARROW political purpose is counterproductive, reckless and unwise.

As I have stated before - as an American Citizen, I have the RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that the idiots - from the left or right side of the aisle - do NOT infringe upon the rights of Americans as granted by the Constitution.

Abdication of your responsibility as an American citizen is your choice.

I guess you really need to choose wisely.

I really did think your puppy story was cute. It was a bad analogy because if I found puppies on my property, I would probably keep all of them, and shoot my neighbour if he decided to try and get his puppies back.

If nothing else, I would train my puppies to bite my neighbour.

What can I say... I like animals...

I really did think your puppy story was cute. It was a bad analogy because if I found puppies on my property, I would probably keep all of them, and shoot my neighbour if he decided to try and get his puppies back.

Damn. Maybe we're more alike than I thought.

Luckily for all of us, the process for amending the constitution is extremely difficult- it forces us to proceed with caution so that raw emotion doesn't lead to a bad idea, well,except for that whole prohibition business...

Suzy - I agree. I think Prohibition is a PRIME example of what happens when you do things for a NARROW political objective.

By the way - I got all of these puppies here...

Want one??

Sorry... Cat girl. We're gone too often to be fair to a puppy!

Robert Burnside, I grant your point that those who drafted the 14th Amendment knew what they meant. However, there is also the issue of what is best for the country in the light of social changes and current conditions.

Please note that the population of the US in 1866 was approximately 35 million. Do you think that those who drafted the 14th Amendment could have conceived of the nation that the USA is today? Do you think that they could have imagined that in 2010 there would be 12 million illegal aliens living in the USA, about ONE THIRD of the entire population of the country in 1866?

Laws change and evolve to suit the times. Under the laws of 1866 women did not have the franchise. So because that was the law in 1866, should that legal situation have never changed? New circumstances can call for new approaches. The fact that the US Constitution can be amended demonstrates that it is a living document that was intended and is able to change to suit the citizens of the country.

Jherek - the language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. If the amendment was for 'slaves rights' then the language of the 14th Amendment would have EXPLICITLY stated that (like the 15th Amendment). The mere fact that the language was left as it was tells me that it was done on PURPOSE. The people writing these amendments were quite deliberate and clear in their intent.

I chaulk up the current noise about the 14th Amendment to the right-wing fringe stirring up the pot.

The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with immigration. It was a means former slave to acquire Federal Citizenship status because, prior to the Civil War the Supreme Court in the famous Dred Scott case said that slaves had the status of merchandise, since they were bought and sold. And that being the case were not eligiable for state Citizenship

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

Does this sound like the designers/framers were not aware of the 14th Amendment's capacity of being abused by foreigners, and aliens? However, since that specific issue has never been addressed by the Supreme Court, it has been, and is being abused. Interpretation of the Constitution weighs heavily upon the historical intent of the original designers/framers, and that will be the tipping point that the court will rely on.

Pietro: If the issue is what effect the rights granted under the 14th Amendment are having today, the answer is to attempt to REPEAL the 14th Amendment, not seek a remedy with the judicial branch. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are the PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, and may only be taken by the will of the people, i.e. the REPEAL process.

Hey Pedro, there you go again: Your "proof" doesn't cut it on this vital point. Cherry-picking one obscure quote hardly establishes the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. No matter how many times you repeat that one quote.

Just want to keep adding this comment so those who read your repeated post don't think you know what you're talking about.

BURNSIDE: VERY COGENT comment. Thanks.

Pietro: If the issue is what effect the rights granted under the 14th Amendment are having today, the answer is to attempt to REPEAL the 14th Amendment, not seek a remedy with the judicial branch. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are the PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, and may only be taken by the will of the people, i.e. the REPEAL process.

NRESQ: I think you have conflated 2 issues into one. The 1st issue that we are commenting about is that the 14th Amendment grants AUTOMATIC citizenship to babies born here. The 2nd issue is what EFFECT does the 14th Amendment have in today's society.

Although I am aginst BOTH arguments you make, good luck in trying to get the 14th Amendment repealed. If you are successful in repealing the 14th Amendment, SOMEONE is gonig to use that SAME LAW to deport all citizens who were born in this country OR put all natural born citizens through some other 'test' of citizenship.

This is a VERY slippery slope you are embarking on here. If we REPEAL one Amendment, even if it is this one, who is to stop someone to repeal others that MAY be near and dear to you?

Pietro you seem to make a habit of studiously missing the point. You totally ignore my point that the Constitution is a living document that can be amended as the need arises.

I understand what the 14th Amendment currently says and why it says that. However, times change and what is under discussion is whether the Constitution needs to be changed to accommodate current social conditions. Note well that the US Constitution has been amended numerous times as the need to do so became apparent.

Jherek, I think you are missing MY point. I am very cognisant that the Constitution is a living document. It was Amended 27 times because it had to be.

All I am saying in this case is that if you start STRIPPING people of their citizenship - no matter what your political stripe is - you are opening the door for someone to use the precedence you are setting to use it AGAINST you some day. I am not comfortable with that nor do i wish that would happen to anyone - even you.

Following this 'mob mentality' is what is going to get us in SERIOUS trouble here in America, especially when the ones leading the mob are doing it for their own selfish political gain.

Unfortunately, Jherek, a lot of people have 'tunnel vision' when it comes to thinking about these sort of things. A lot of people are only concerned about making the change to suit THIS PARTICULAR issue; what they don't think about is what that change will do down the road. They don't weigh the short-term benefit against the long-term deficit (if there is one).

I am saying that repealing or changing the 14th Amendment - when it really does not need to be changed - is a DANGEROUS road to go down, and once you do, there is no turning back.

What we COULD do, instead of monkeying with the 14th Amendment, is to make it unattractive for people to drop their babies here OR to make it more attractive and have conditions if that were to occur (other than stripping people of their citizenship).

THAT is the discussion we are SUPPOSED to be having.

So what say you, Jherek?

Well Robert thats what i tried to tell all these country bumpkins who want to stand in the way of the pursuit of happiness of others. hey lots of things in this world not fair. is it fair that i have a great life nice things lots of dough a hot Mexican wife?

while others live under a bridge griping about the Mexicans taking their jobs at the wallmart? what they should be thanking is Obama for the thicker soup they get at sister teresas soup kitchen. could be the bush era where all they got was a boot in water LOL.

I love capatalism

God Bless the USA and President Obama

Yes the repulican did do something. Regan enacted "comprehensive reform." Only we got only the amnesty part, not the enforcement. That said the problem is getting worse by the day. In 1986 there were 2.5-3.0 million. Now there are 20 million. So the need to do something now is 10 times bigger. I just wonder how many illegals we'll have in 10 more years if nothing is done?

I just don't see it getting better with time.

You've forgotten the GW Bush did have an immigration bill. Guess what happened to it?

And still the Republican party did nothing when they had power, hmmmmm!!!!!!!

dirt, the right wingers killed the bill because they refused to compromise on deportation of families who are already integrated into our communities. they want to punish people for being bad. their desire to punish is stronger than their desire to solve this problem. until they change or lose influence this is gonna drag on and on.

we really should be arguing over the dividing line between those allowed to stay and those forced to leave, but we're not even at that point yet.