[markomalley]

The current interpretation giving citizenship to children of illegals and tourists is bogus. It isn’t supported by the 14th Amendment at all. It was something made up by bureaucrats and judges in the past 50 years or so.

And that's the reason why any change must be VERY carefully worded so that some future evil administration (and there will be one if the US survives...) will pervert the lack of protection as to where they can autonomously strip citizenship of whomever they disapprove...and the court would approve of the action since there's nothing preventing it.

Again, I wholeheartedly agree with doing what is necessary to eliminate the concept of anchor babies. But we have to tread carefully so we don't leave our progeny vulnerable to some future tyrant.

[gusty]

I know Peggy Noonan is not everybody’s favorite, but she made a serious point in her latest article. She says due to the feckless leadership displayed by the GOP and the Democrats over the last twenty years we as a country may be entering our Weimar period. Trump, fortunately for us, maybe a very benign harbinger of where we are heading, but if we continue on the same feckless path for another twenty years, who knows what tyrant may arise. So you are right. Every bit legislation must keep in mind what a future tyrant might be able to do with the power granted or abandoned to the executive today.

[JediJones]

Seems to me the only change needed is to say that at least one parent has to be a citizen for the child to be a citizen.

I suppose if at least one parent is a legal resident on some kind of temporary visa, the child would have to inherit that residency on the same timeline.

[JediJones]

And if one parent is on the legal path to citizenship, then their child should be able to get it at the same time they do if they were born here.