The interpretation of the 14th amendment giving rise to anchor baby "citizenship" is a relatively new phenomenon, and one that some Asian parents take advantage of via "birth vacations," not to overlook the more numerous Central American parents who are in the country illegally. In the case of "birth vacations," the parents are both non-citizens, and the child is removed to his parents' country for upbringing, etc. But, they are born citizens.
Wong Kim Ark set up an interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction" so that everybody on US soil, except ambassadors, is swept in. This interpretation is contentious, with the opposing side finding that "subject to the jurisdiction" means more than having to avoid criminal acts, violations of law, having recourse in the courts for torts and crimes committed against the alien while on US soil, etc., and instead means that the person is obliged to perform the duties associated with citizenship, e.g., be subject to the draft. IIRC, the initial proposed text of the 14th amendment included something in the nature of "and not subject to the jurisdiction of any other country." That material was removed and there is no historical record explaining why (may have been viewed as duplication/superfluous, or may have been viewed as too narrow)
Plyler v. Doe reinforced the broad interpretation, including anybody (but ambassadors) on US soil, and by FN 10, appears to extend the birthright of citizenship to children born of illegal aliens. I refer to an Ann Coulter piece only because it is easy to read ... Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies - August 4, 2010. Here is a link to Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
-- My point is that anyone attempting to revoke their citizenship would lose ... --
If you mean that the government can't revoke citizenship, I disagree (Losing US Citizenship), but revocation is done on a case by case basis against people made citizens by operation of a naturalization statute. In the WOT, this comes up in Congress against ANY citizen. See Senate bill authorizes feds to revoke citizenship of Americans. Any citizen is able to revoke his own citizenship.
As to your hypothetical children (being born abroad, I assume), citizenship statutes condition the grant of citizenship on various US residency and age criteria. For example, If Obama was born outside of the US, he is not a citizen, even though his mother (assuming it's that Dunham chick) was one. He fails the statutory criteria in place in 1963.
But, I do agree that had they been recognized as citizens, they remain so unless they choose to give it up.
I appreciate the fact- and logic-based debate between you guys. This is the kind of back and forth that is supposed to happen when a case is argued. It is way past time for the case to be argued where it’s SUPPOSED to be argued: in a legally-binding court.
We’d STILL be arguing about hanging chads if the courts had not done their duty in 2000. And the country would be divided worse than the Hatfields and McCoys after going that long with 2 groups duking it out in forums but nobody having standing to get a LEGAL resolution. We cannot allow the courts to keep claiming that none of us has standing to get LEGAL resolution of a controversy before it tears a nation apart. There is one way for we the people to get a class-action suit before the courts that requires a judicial response: through the actions of a State.
Is there any good reason for us not to do this through our state legislatures?