Wording aside, should foreginers born here be immigrants?
If they're born here, by definition they aren't "foreigners."
Personally, I would like to change the law to only bestow citizenship on children who are born in this country to at least one parent who is a citizen or legal resident. But I'm not kidding myself - that will take a Constitutional amendment, and isn't likely.
In my opinion, if they came here legally on a tourist or immigration visa then they have consented to be subject to the jurisdiction of our laws and yes, if they were to have a baby they would be BOTH born on our soil AND subject to our jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the child of an illegal who chose to live outside the jurisdiction of our laws only meets ONE of the TWO requirements.
I think there is lots of room for argument on these points. The other side can also make some very valid points. The Constitution puts sole authority for determining our immigration policies in the hands of Congress. They, rather than the courts, should decide what the clause means.
"Wording aside, should foreginers born here be immigrants?"
It's not a wording issue.
A person born here is not a foreigner. He's an American, and therefore not an immigrant.
What you probably mean is: should the child of foreign parents born in the US be an American? The Constitution says they are, so they are. SHOULD they be? I think so. It's the only way to eventually regularize the illegals in America. As it is, there are about 20 million illegal aliens in America. The economic interests that use them are stronger than the old slavery interests ever were, because the slavers were concentrated in one part of the Union, but the economic interests who benefit from cheap illegal labor are all over the country. The inaction of the federal government and state and local governments on the illegals issue is the natural response of government faced with the truth that the middle class and up all rely on these 20 million unprotected workers for cheap labor that is below the norms of US labor law.
Now, so long as their children are Americans, because born here, this subjection of one illegal class of workers to the society is non-permanent. They come and work. The society at all levels, from middle class people with yard-work to do to WalMart, breaks its own laws because it's economically good for them to do so. The immigrants themselves are not protected, and can't be protected because the advantages of exploiting them are too strong, and the financial incentives, from there perspective, to come and stay here are too great.
What you cannot do is let them become a hereditary race of unprotected, illegal laborers. That would be a gross injustice. Americans have a hunger for this cheap labor, unprotected by American laws and without recourse to the American courts. That is understandable. If they want that sort of labor, they have to keep importing it. They cannot be allowed to make it an hereditary caste.
Babies born in America are Americans, and move into the system of protection. Close the borders, and in a generation the cheap illegal labor pool will dry up.
Their children will be Americans, and protected, and vote. That is as it should be. It is what's best for the country, in the long run.
If the borders won't be closed, you'll always have the cheap labor, but it will keep having to be removed, because there will not be a class of legal "sudras" in America, born of illegals and, therefore, hereditarily unprotected.