[Defiant]

Trumandogz, it is not certain that the Constitution mandates automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. That's why Congress passed a law, I believe in the 20's, that give citizenship to anyone born in the US. The language in the constitution is that someone born in the US and "subject to its laws" is a citizen. Thus, the children of diplomats are not citizens. Neither were the children of Indians, unless their tribe had submitted to US law.

Illegal aliens are subjects of Mexico who are unlawfully in the US. They have not submitted to the process of applying for entry, having permission and thus becoming "subject to our laws." I think the Congress has the absolute right to deny the children of trespassers the right to part ownership of the territory in which they have trespassed. If you disagree, well, it is a debatable question, but it is not open and shut as you imply. I think we've got 4 votes on the SC that would support this bill, and we are close to a majority.

[trumandogz]

See: United States v. Wong Kim Ark

See: Plyer v. Doe

[Carry_Okie]

That's why Congress passed a law, I believe in the 20's, that give citizenship to anyone born in the US.

They didn't. It was US v. Wong Kim Ark.

By a strict reading of the 14th (and a clear understanding of Natural Law parentage), Congress doesn't have the power to make anchor babies into citizens.

[Tennessee Nana]

The legal term “alien” is in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution..aliens are not citizens...

Thats why the urgent rush to ban the word “alien”

[Tennessee Nana]

Very well put...

Great explanation...