[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

The Ingles case in 1830 (before the 14th amendment) and the Ark case in 1898 (after the 14th) both confirmed the idea of jus soli in the face of this exact same argument. Sorry. There are several Supreme Court decisions that find the opposite of this proffered opinion. What to change it? Amend the Constitution.

[xzins]

This was a Fox News article, so it was required to be an excerpt. The article also includes this paragraph:

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the Court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

[xzins]

This was a Fox News article, so it was required to be an excerpt. The article also includes this paragraph:

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the Court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

[Mr Rogers]

Arguably, illegals aliens are the functional equivalent of the children of an invading army, which WKA specifically mentioned as NOT being citizens by birth.

[SatinDoll]

I strongly recommend that read a transcript of the Ark case.

The wording was very clear - parents had to be here legally for their child to be considered a citizen. And NEVER was mentioned that the kid was a natural born citizen, but merely a citizen.

Illegal aliens cannot drop anchor babies.