Thats the way it should be

Worthy of discussion. . .anchor babies is a concept we could consider ending. . .

It would makes sense. The addition to the Constitution was never intended to apply to anybody that made their way into the country in time to have a baby, and since there are no children of slaves still around the purpose does not exist. Times change and the need for certain things change, just like times changed and it was seen as a need to insert this into the Constitution to begin with.

Another Constitutional clause that should be revised. Children born anywhere in the world should inherit their parent's nationality, not the nationality of the land they are born.

This will be an injustice, white americans were the first immigrants, they killed to native americans. we have to accept this people in this country.

The 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, of the Constitution states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This being said, the purpose of this amendment was to make former slaves (as mentioned by GenghistheHun) citizens of both the United States and the state in which they lived and to protect them from state-imposed discrimination. All persons naturalized (granted citizenship) according to law are U.S. citizens. Anyone born in the United States is also a U.S. citizen regardless of the nationality of his parents, unless they are diplomatice representitives of another country or enemies during a wartime occupation. Such cases are exceptions because the parents are not "subject to the jursdtiction" of the United States. So...if you are illegally in the United States, which means you're trespassing more or less, doesn't that mean that you are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? Therefore, your child who was just born is also not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as well. We have laws in this country that protect us. That's why there is legal immigration. So, if you are not legal, then you are illegal and you are wrong. Why should we allow illegal immigrants be permitted to have the same rights and be able to peaceably protest and assemble in order to sway public opinion when they really should be doing it in their own country? Indeed we are a nation of nations; however, laws have been established over the years to protect the citizens of the United States and the ideal that is to be an American. We celebrate diversity but unify under one nation, under God with liberty and justice for all. The United States cannot exist with an encroachment of another nation upon it's soil; to delay the issue that is illegal immigration only perpetuates a growing number of peoples that will eventually seek amnesty and independence. This is my country. This is my home. Unless your invitation is approved, you're not welcome in my home.

These babies being born in the USA actually gives amnstey for the entire immediate family to live in the US

The original constitution adopted in 1787 did not have the provision that made everyone born in this country a citizen. The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, had this provision because the drafters of the amendment wanted to make all former slaves citizens. Unwanted unintended consequences are often found in the best of intentions.

The only people born here who do not become citizens are children of people not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. This means diplomats who have diplomatic immunity and cannot be arrested or otherwise hauled into court.

I am uncertain whether modifying the clause in the Constitution that defines citizenship will change much, only that it would be perfectly legal to toss back the kids with their parents. I believe the specific passage that is in question here is the part defining citizenship sanguis, or "by the blood." It currently reads that a person is a US citizen if they are either born to legal US citizens, regardless of physical location, or if they are born on US soil, regardless of their parent(s) legal status. Such a change would fundamentally alter what it means to be an American, and I am unsure what other legal ramafications such a change might have.

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that they must be "subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. government. If you are newborn and if your parents are here illegally, you are NOT subject to any jurisdiction of anything. All we need is a clear interpretation of the amendment.

Well at the least it will remove a powerful incentive

not only does this encourage aliens to come here, it is an incentive to get pregnant and have a child in the united states.

Let's do it! No more anchor-baby loopholes!
I vote: Yea

People have been using this loop hole for years in order to protect themselves.

I've been supporting this idea for awhile. Why should these kids be overloading our social services and killing the schools I went to?

Another great Idea!

Regardless of how effective it may or may not work, we must do this.

Yeah, let's take it out on the children!

I think this encourages illegals even more to know that their children born here will be automatic citizens.