The existing language of the Ammendment is clear and straight forward. I agree with the Arizona initiative and its reasoning, but it does conflict with the letter of the law.

What we need is a Constitutional ammendment that clarifies what the original leaves - in Arizona's and your interpretation - ambiguous.

This must be addressed. But since it exists at the federal level, the remedy must also be at the federal level. And remedy we must.

Next up: Chain Migration.

The wording of the 14th Amendment is clear--if you are born here you are a citizen here. Similarly, my sister was born in Germany at a military base. She had German and US citizenship until she was 18, at which point she had to declare for German or USA.

I think that (1) we should end the practice of dual citizenships, and (2) make policy that just because a child is born here, if the parents lose the right to remain in the USA then the child accompanies them. Those two approaches along with reducing employment opportunities, eliminating social benefits, and active enforcement of immigration laws would drastically reduce the number of illegals in the country without having to wait 10 years for a Constitutional Amendment.

the fact is for most of the eighteen hundreds thier was no such thing as illegal immigration. the concept hadnt been born yet.

and it was naturally recognized that birth within a state made you a citizen. we are applying our problems andour understanding to the founders when they had no such problem and probably couldnt have concieved this.

im leary to start tinkering with citizenship by birthright,

im thinking it is a position that will garner more ill will and make conservatives a target.

I would put it under the heading of shooting yourself in the foot politically, ala rand paul.

much better to hammer away at finnally closing the border off physically and demanding the national guard protect the nation by helping the border patrol.

Citizenship is not totally immune from restrictive definition, though it may require a treaty, short of a constitutional amendment. For instance, there is an international treaty which says that the children born in a country are not citizens if their parents are foreign nationals in diplomatic status. Think about the problems that would cause as parents moved from country to country without such an agreement. The US is a signatory to that treaty.

Denying the children of people we don't like their constitutional rights is a slippery slope, i'm just saying.

Next it will be that the second amendment doesn't apply to children of violent criminals.

what? im not following that logic trail....

its not about like or dislike the argument is about how and why they entered the country.

Those children entered the country by being delivered from their mother's womb into the United States.

The Constitution is clear in stating that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States. To remove a young child citizenship, violating their constitutional rights, because of the crimes of their parents starts a very slippery slope.

If the government is given the power to violate citizens' constitutional rights based on their heritage, do you really think that they will stop at illegal immigrants?

MAModerate you are making a logical fallacy when you say that the law is removing a young child's citizenship because of the parents crime. The 14th Amendment was enacted to make sure ex-slaves were not denied citizenship, not to give citizenship to every pregnant Latina's baby whose mother was able to evade the border patrol. You can't take away what was never there.
Any country has the right to restrict citizenship however it desires. The United States has that right no less than any other country.

Why are they removing the child's citizenship then?

The Constitution is the Constitution, even if you don't agree with it or ascribe a certain intent to it. It's one thing to kick out an adult criminal, but it is an entirely different paradigm to deport a natural born citizen, according to a literal interpretation of the 14th amendment.

If Arizona tries, it will go straight to the SCOTUS, who will shoot it down.

The child may then return after reaching 18 and declaring American citizenship. Righteous!

As "Native Born" but not "Natural Born". That being the caveat.

The key words are "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That is why children of diplomats aren't considered US citizens. It also excluded Native Americans not subject to tax (they were later granted citizenship by an act of Congress). The question is whether children born of illegal immigrants are truly "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The case most often cited is Wong Kim Ark in 1898. He was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants who came here legally. His parents were ineligible for naturalization under the Chinese Exclusion Act, and later returned to China. Wong visited China and was detained upon trying to re-enter the US. SCOTUS (and the District Court) ruled that because his parents were here legally and "conducting business" (rather than here representing the emperor of China in a diplomatic mission), that Wong was born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. It was a controversial ruling but has held since.

Many of us were criminals that snuck in here illegally.