Legislators set sights on 'anchor babies'By Mariano Castillo, CNNJanuary 5,

[LnGrrrR]

Since there were no immigration laws in effect at the time of the 14th amendment it clearly did not address or include children of illegal immigrants. If the later immigration laws that were enacted conflict with the 14th amendment then the intent of the 14th amendment should be clarified and the conflict resolved one way or the other.

Actually, that very specific topic was brought up. Except instead of Mexicans, they used gypsies as an example.

http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2...tizenship.html

While the 14th Amendment was primarily intended to overrule Dred Scott and make sure that freed slaves and their children were granted U.S. citizenship, it was not limited to freed slaves. Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause included lengthy debate over Native Americans, Chinese immigrants in California, and Gypsies.
Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, a raging racist who voted against the 14th Amendment, expressed his concerns during debate that the people of California would be "overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race," and "Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies."

So this idea was already argued, and dismissed obviously, since it's not in the Amendment.

[LnGrrrR]

And of course, there's some common-law precedent. From the same link above:

The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that "where birth in the United States was clear, a child of Chinese parents was, in the Court's opinion, definitely a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though Chinese aliens were ineligible to naturalize under then-existing law." (Chinese Exclusion Act).

The Court stated that long before the adoption of the 14th Amendment, "all white persons" born in the U.S., including children of "foreigners," were considered native-born citizens (provided that they were not "children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government"), and that "[t]o hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Cons ution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."

So anyone that argues that the 14th Amendment doesn't allow "anchor babies" is pretty much ignorant.

[LnGrrrR]

It's a complex issue, and I am not going to spend the required time on such topics again with you lib s. Immigration was meant to be controlled. Congress is given that power. you loopholes that were never meant to be you maxist got.

Poor form WC.

[Duff McCartney]

It may not be in there, but it sure as is implied. Our founding fathers hated Mexicans, I doubt they'd be happy with how they're taking over the country. Just look at the numbers provided by the GOP on this issue, the facts speak for themselves.

Technically when the Founding Fathers were around..there were no Mexicans as there was no Mexico.

[Duff McCartney]

I think we should have more restrictive gun laws...after all that's a "well-regulated militia" means...or that there should be no laws against freedom of speech because after all the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law".

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think we should have more restrictive gun laws...after all that's a "well-regulated militia" means...or that there should be no laws against freedom of speech because after all the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law".

I think the founders were speaking that the right to bear arms was only to form a militia if necessary.. that is what the text implies....

[George Gervin's Afro]

conservative logic fails miserably again....