There is NO NEED to amend the Constitution. Congress only has to pass appropriate legislation to make the problem of anchor babies disappear. All it takes is reading the Constitution, a task that some Congressmen and many reporters are unable to do.
John / Billybob
I think the article (deliberately?) misquotes McConnell. Note that the direct quote does not include the money-word “changing”.
All McConnell has to do is clone Bob Stump's text from 2001 and go with that.
” McConnell is fuzzy on the Constitution “
McConnell is fuzzy, PERIOD. Usually, he is asleep.
New blood needed.
Assuming of course you can get 5 Supreme Court Justices to agree with you. With Kennedy on the court, that may not be likely. I can't think of a single immigration/citizenship case in the last 20 years where Kennedy has joined (in entirety) with the plainly conservative side of the Court.
Roberts & Alito (especially Alito) were both challenged on this issue during confirmation hearings. Schummer really pressed Alito, but Alito admirably parried Schummer's attack. My sense from the hearing was that Alito was open to revisiting the 14th, and narrowing or clarifying the decision in Ark.
Roberts has been entirely silent on the subject. I can't find any public comments or legal writings from Roberts on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". As I recall, he was pressed extensively on Plyler v. Doe, but he stuck to his statement that it was a subject he hadn't even thought about since law school. Since he didn't use the "settled law" phrase, I think he's likely to be open to limiting the application of the 14th.
Thomas and Scalia would seem likely to limit "jurisdiction" in this case. Kennedy, as usual, is the problem.