Replies

The part that is in question is the statement about coming under the jurisdiction thereof. Some argue that they couldn't see the immigration that we have today, when, at that time, we pretty much had an open immigration policy.

I fear two things in regards to making the 14th Amendment an issue.

First, this clause doesn't just cover the current 'crop' of anchor babies but tens of millions of citizens from 1 month to 100 years old, all of which have birthright citizenship, despite the status of their parents. We cannot legally go back and revoke citizenship on all of these people, even with a Constitutional change, as their citizenship has already been recognized. A change to the 14th Amendment would only effect future 'anchor babies' or those who haven't yet been recognized as citizens. People complain about the glut of illegal immigrants now because of the prospect of amnesty(sic), imagine the illegal baby boom if we were in the process of changing the Constitution.

Second, the chance of, and the time required to change the Constitution is a major detriment to immigration reform of any sort. If we hang our hats on this issue, with an 'all or nothing' approach that many are arguing, then we risk doing nothing. IMHO, even the option of changing the 14th Amendment should be put on a far back burner until border security is addressed and solid, reasonable programs for dealing with those who are here are put in place.