[SmithL]

The idea has a growing list of supporters, including Republican Reps. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove

FYI

[Grunthor]

“As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.”

Good.

[pgyanke]

“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

-- Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

[OldDeckHand]

""I don't like it," said Chad Silva, statewide policy analyst for the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. . . ."

Latino Coalition for a Healthy California? If that's not an oxymoron, I don't know what is.

[STONEWALLS]

...no more anchor babies!!

[AuH2ORepublican]

I hope that they pass the legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which empowers Congress to enact legislation to enforce the other sections of the 14th Amendment, including Section 1’s declaration that all persons born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens of the U.S.

[TheThinker]

Remind Americans that it is not retroactive, which is unconstitutional, and this will go more smoothly.

[fuzzybutt]

Too many squishy RINOs, I am glad they are trying but it will NEVER pass.

[defal33]

AMEN!

[astyanax]

"...assailed by critics as unconstitutional..."
So enforcing the Amendment as it was written and intended is "unconstitutional"?!
Needs some editing...
"..assailed by critics the naive as unconstitutional..."

[skeeter]

Maybe the GOP has finally learned a lesson after watching California this past election, and have given up Rove's "natural republicans" strategy.

They'd better have - they're dead political meat if they haven't.

[PATRIOT1876]

Finally!

[Uncle Miltie]

Politically speaking, this is an excellent argument to take up..... in June.

Let’s prioritize folks, and unwind 0bamaCare, Stimulus, Tax Increases, etc. first. Things on which we have vast majorities of Americans behind us and ready to support.

Somewhat more controversial stuff (where we still have a majority, like building a fence), can wait a couple of months while we build credibility doing the most highly popular things.

I’m not arguing against the idea. I’m arguing the politics of priorities and how they will be received by the electorate.

[Hoffer Rand]

About time. The designers of the 14th specifically said it was not to apply to people in the country illegally. That was “interpreted” later.

[Hoffer Rand]

About time. The designers of the 14th specifically said it was not to apply to people in the country illegally. That was “interpreted” later.

[ontap]

Great...I’m really beginning to like these guy’s!!

[Armando Guerra]

Personally, I think it's the wrong way to go if done by itself. It will be blocked by the Senate and Obama and even if it passes it will end up in litigation for years to come. The first challenge would be in the 9th district which will say it is not constitutional and it will have to go all the way to the Supreme Court who will probably do everything it can to avoid touching the issue. In the meantime, nothing has changed.

The anchor baby issue comes up because right now the parents of US citizens can be petitioned for by their adult children. It is an immediate relative category which means no having to wait for a visa number (the category is not limited to a set number per year). To fix the problem now all you have to do is amend the Immigration and Nationality Act making a parent inadmissible (unable to get their greencard) if they are being petitioned by a US citizen by birth child and the parent was not legally in the US at the time of that child's birth.

No need to amend the Constitution and no basis for challenging the constitutionality of the law. It can be passed more easily and would be less likely to be tied up in legal challenges so can take effect immediately.

All in all, a much better way to handle the anchor baby issue now. The birthright challenge can still be brought separately.

[isthisnickcool]

Better to pass a law clarifying that no child born here by any foreigner is not nor ever has been a legal citizen. Anyone that has been here illegally or is here illegally are not US citizens and are not domociled here. It is also clear that those that wrote the 14th understood the difference between children born in the US to citizens and those born to non-citizens. They showed this by excluding Indians. Their original intent is clear. They wanted to include blacks as citizens while excluding Indians because Indians were considered citizens of their own nations.

In 1924 Congress granted citizen rights to Indians. Today, as they did in 1924 they can either clarify that illegals who have children on our soil have been or will be citizens or do the opposite.

While foreigners and illegals may have legal protection under our laws that should be all they have. And they certainly do not have any extra legal protection by their own declaration. For example, if they happen to be moslem and demand that sharia law be inserted with or before US law. Which brings up the question whether the followers of islam even born here are citizens since they have repudiated their citizenship by declaring that islam is first before the US Constitution.

At a minimum we need to stop this anchor baby garbage and do so ASAP.

[Gabrial]

Every little bit helps, but we need to seal our borders.

[Bastiat_Fan]

I can’t say that I agree with this idea. We’re going to end up like France, with third generation kids who know nothing but America. They certainly wont leave to Mexico. Rioting anyone? A much better solution is an ACTUAL fix, namely, a fence.