[ovrtaxt]

Here’s the case which established the precedent for the current interpretation of the 14th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

I believe that it’s a misinterpretation, or misapplication by liberal courts, of the original intent of 14. It needs to be reintroduced, revisited and redefined by the USSC.

[Repeal 16-17]

The Court in Plyer v. Doe cites United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In Wong Kim Ark, the Court interprets "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean to be within the boundaries of a State. For the Supreme Court to get rid of "anchor babies," the Court would have to overrule Plyer and Wong Kim Ark. I think a Constitutional amendment overruling those decisions has a better chance of passage (which isn't much) than does the Supreme Court doing the overruling itself.