Oh, I can see the argument in favor of it. However, James Madison also said that he was averse to putting citizenship requirements for leadership in the Constitution that added a "tincture of illiberality" to the document. He said he wasn't opposed to having citizenship requirements for Senator and Representative, but thought the Constitution was the wrong place for them; that they should be passed in the form of a law instead.
My whole deal is this: It's one thing to say this is a good idea, and we ought to do it. I probably wouldn't spend much time in such a discussion, because it doesn't make that much difference to me.
But it's another thing entirely to claim that this is the way the Founding Fathers set up the Constitution, and that's what it means, when that clearly is not the case.
Or, to put it a different way: If you don't like the Constitution, amend it. That's been done 27 times already.
Don't misrepresent it and claim it says something it doesn't.
It clearly *IS* the case. The alternative is that the founders put an inoperative or pointless clause into Article II, and that they were too stupid to foresee "anchor babies" even though they had many thousands of them to deal with after the war.
The Founders just didn't consider that the influence of British trained lawyers would screw up their work so badly a hundred years later.
Or, to put it a different way: If you don't like the Constitution, amend it. That's been done 27 times already.
And most of the ones subsequent to the 10th, were either badly written, or just stupid. The exception being the 27th amendment, which was in fact, written by the founders.
The 14th, in particular has been the cause of much Mischief and destruction to American society.