AJ, you had it right the first time. There is no "need to repeal the 14th Amendment", only to interpret as you have.

They are derived from the nature of man.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ind...

That isn't even needed, even at the time of the 14th inclusion it was well known and firmly, and clearly, stated it did not automatically give citizenship to temporary aliens. While the concept of unlawful presence did not exist at the time the concept of non-immigrants' children birthed on American soil was known and talked about.

What we fail to understand today is that the point of the limits such as for ambassadors or staff, was to not impose citizenship on the birth of children to those who were not actually immigrating. It wasn't about who could or could not qualify but about not forcing U.S. citizenship on the kids of consulates and their staff.

Now, could you parlay they into something around unlawful presence? I think you could, but the record shows it isn't necessary. What most don't realize is despite the clear intent to avoid granting birthright citizenship to children of foreign diplomats and their staff, which is not in question by anyone, the process for ensuring this doesn't happen is as open as the sky. as a result we currently have these children becoming U.S. citizens.

What we should do is to put in place the mechanisms to ensure it doesn't happen. For example, birth certificates should require the presence and validation of at least one parent's SSN before they can be issued, and that for new SSN applications of newborn or underage children the SSN of at least one parent must be present and validated before issuance.

The perceptive amongst us will notice this neatly solves both problems, and clearly follows the laws as written today (and well, frankly for decades).

Children born in the U. S. should have the citizenship of their parents. If they are here illegally, they should have to go to their country of citizenship before applying for immigration.

Precisely!
Glad to know there are more people out there that caught this.

Where do rights come from anyways? I always here folks clamoring for their rights. Where do Objectivists think rights come from?

"[S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof" is no joke.
And is why there is no such thing as birth-right citizenship for children born of illegal aliens, i.e., persons not lawfully in the United States..

I believe you are correct. And, since this is an invasion of sorts, then we would be incredibly stupid to think that these babies, born to people who broke the law to get here, are citizens. Their "jurisdiction" has nothing to do with location but their national loyalties. As such, "anchor babies" have parents with no loyalty to the United States except what is purchased by the welfare extended to them by their slave-masters in an elitist government.

Precisely. For a great legal analysis by a scholar on the subject, listen to both parts of the interview here: http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-i...

No. The key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction." Even the Court that went wayward in Wong Kim Ark's case recognized that his parents were lawful domiciled residents of San Francisco. They also named two specific classes they would exclude: foreign diplomatic and consular staff and their families, and soldiers of invading armies.

Perhaps a stricter definition of who is a citizen must be determined. One criterion would be: if one parent is a citizen, then the child is a citizen, for example. Or if the mother is a citizen, then the child is a citizen. This would prevent men from selling their "services" to foreigners looking to gain citizenship for their children for whatever reason.

All that is needed is to repeal the 14th Amendment, perhaps all of the restoration Amendments (13 and 15 too). None of them apply any longer. Besides its demeaning to have a persons rights determined by a piece of paper - another groups judgment.

If someone has been sponsored to immigrate based on a misunderstanding of the constitutional citizenship mandate they have still legally immigrated. They are legal immigrants, and can be "anchor parents" to make the child legal.

There are lots of things we can do to fix mistakes of the past, we need to fix the current process first.

California has sealed it's fate. They will go bankrupt. I just hope there isn't a Federal bailout.

The narrative today is to pretend that the issue is settled and it does apply to anchor babies. I hope the discussion continues and that more Constitutional scholars come forward to challenge that idea.

That discussion gained some traction about ten or fifteen years ago in California when the influx overwhelmed the system. It's still being argued as far as I know.

Trump is bringing to light that some legal scholars do not agree that the 14th amendment applies to illegal immigrants. The media seems to be trying to deflect this by simply acting as if the issue is already settled. Could be an interesting debate.

No. The 14th Amendment was written to ensure that freed slaves received, and were not denied, their full rights as US citizens. It has never had any relevance to anchor babies.

That's a good, albeit complex question. The short answer is no, but the route to get there is somewhat involved.

First of all, the solution is NOT to change the existing Constitutional mandate. The answer lies in our immigration policy itself. If the granting of citizenship is rooted in a crime, in this case the crime would be illegally entering the US (or becoming and 'unregistered Democrat if you prefer), it seems to me that citizenship should be revoked. Here's the problem: in many cases, citizenship has been granted (you know...the whole 'anchor baby' thing). What of the family members that have been sponsored to emigrate to America based upon the citizenship of the infant? How do we deal with that?

This is a whole Pandora's Box that didn't need to be a problem in the first place, and by doing nothing the problem is getting exponentially larger.