Below is a selection of Internet sources on various sides of the question whether a child born within the boundaries of the United States ought to be considered a citizen:

Magazine article:   Happy 14th Amendment Day! --Thanks to the visionary constitutional reformers of 1868, America enjoys equal rights for all. Today's anti-immigration zealots want to destroy their legacy.  By Garrett Epps, author of   "Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America."  (Salon)

Commentary:The Hijacking of the Fourteenth Amendment (.pdf) by attorney Doug Hammerstrom of Reclaim Democracy (html version)

Testimony: 1995 Statement to Congress of Asst. Atty. Gen. Walter Dellinger

From the Federalist Blog:  The Washington Post's Feeble Attempt To Revise Fourteenth Amendment History and   Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance

Law review article: Citizenship and the Babies of Non-Citizens (.pdf), a 1996 article in the Stanford Law Review (html version)

Wikipedia entries:  Jus soli (Latin for "right of the territory"), or birthright citizenship. "Anchor baby" and The 14th Amendment.

Court decisions:  The key U.S. Supreme Court case in this matter remains United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).  Background; Opinion; Dissent.Two other SCOTUS cases of note are Elk v. Wilkins (1884) and Plyler v. Doe (1982).

Heritage Foundation:  Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution by Edward Erler, professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernadino.

Beyond Borders Blog: Birthright Citizenship - Why Tom Tancredo is Wrong to Oppose It

News article: `Birthright citizenship' policy change stirs debate, December 2005 article by By David Crary, The Associated Press. Polling data cited.

Legislation: Don't Complicate Immigration Reform by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas),  sponsor of House Joint Resolution 46 to end birthright citizenship by constitutional amendment. U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal (R. Florida) has a similar bill before the House.

Editorial: The Washington Post argues that the attempt to ban birthright citizenship is "an ugly and fruitless path."

News article: "Children of illegal immigrants may lose birthright citizenship-- 92 lawmakers in the House push bill revoking right of citizenship to discourage illegal immigration."   Los Angeles Times, December, 2005

Polling Data:   A Pew Research Center poll released in March, 2006,  found that  54 percent of Americans oppose amending the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship. A surprising 44 percent of self-identified conservative Republicans oppose the idea.

If you have other links, please submit them in the comments area.

You really should post some links about logic and the proper way to argue a point so someone could introduce the concepts to Ms. Arellano. I mean, I understand she is being completely cynical with her ploy, but the simple solution to this problem (as has been stated many times on this site) is that she must go and she can either taken her minor child with her or leave him as a ward of the state.

It is illogical for her to claim that she has a right to stay in this country because of the birthright of her child.

It's a simple "if, then" scenario.

If you sneak into the country, then you are subject to deportation proceedings.

If you are deported, then you should take your minor dependants with you.

If you choose not to take your child with you, then the child will become a ward of the state.

The 14th Amendment is fine the way it is and it shouldn't be upended.

In a time when black is white and up is down, I guess it should be no surprise that the argument is being made that being born in America doesn't make you an American. It's part of an increasingly ugly nativist movement, scared to death of an inevitable demographic trend toward whites becoming a majority minority population.

ZORN REPLY -- That's an interesting point, Mike, but it's not really an argument, now, is it? As you prowl through these links you'll see that many countries don't automatically confer citizenship upon those born there....are they, too, merely ugly nativists?

It wasn't intended to be an argument, but rather an observation--a 'comment', if you will. The question of whether birth establishes citizenship in America seems to have been pretty much a settled question, both legally and socially, since THIS country's foundation. Yes, being born here makes you an American. The 14th Amendment dealt with that 'peculiar institution', slavery, but it didn't contradict what had been both the common and the legal understanding of "birth equals citizenship" in existence since the founding of the country. That legal and common sense has held sway until relatively recently. Why has it been challenged? Because (insert comment above). One of your citations grows out of a court case during an earlier ugly nativist period at the end of the 19th century (the hostility then directed against an immigrant Chinese population). Surely you're not suggesting that this recent debate is just an interesting development of Constitutional theory?

ZORN REPLY -- Oh, not at all. It's clearly a response to what is at least perceived as a significant growth in the number of illegal immigrants having children here. As a one-off thing, granting citizenship to those born here I'm sure seemed like the easiest way to go. I doubt that it was ever intended to cover the sorts of numbers we're now seeing, and in fact if one reads the history of these laws elsewhere and the history of the court decisions here it's hard to argue that the existence of a very small population of illegal immigrants is more or less assumed. When that assumption changes, it doesn't strike me as hateful or nativist to at least re-examine the law, what its purpose is, what its effect is.
My continuing objection to your comment is that it relies, in the end, on name calling -- hater! nativist! -- than it does on considering the history, purpose and effect of the law in a way that makes sense with today's realities. Tell me, Mike, is the suggestion of such consideration automatically objectionable?

Regarding Elvira Arellano- My tax dollars have already paid the hospital bill to spew out her anchor child, his schooling, and 4 years of court costs. Stop wasting time and deport her.
P.S.
Does she even know who the boys father is?

The Constitution of the United States is a sacred document and wanton, specious, and frivolous modifications must be avoided at all cost.

However, while being very careful to not feed anti-gun, change-the-Second-Amendment zealots, I believe that it may be time to revisit the Fourteenth Amendment.

My rewrite of the first part of Section 1:

"REQUIREMENTS FOR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP:

1) Any person born within the physical boundaries of the United States and territories to LEGALLY RESIDING PARENT(S) - Citizens (native or naturalized) or legal immigrants;
2) Any person born outside the physical boundaries of the United States and territories to parents who are LEGAL CITIZENS (native or naturalized).

Any person born within the physical boundaries of the United States and territories to parents who are NOT citizens (native or naturalized) and are NOT legal residents WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CLAIM CITIZENSHIP and WILL AUTOMATICALLY INHERIT THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PARENT(S) and WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME DEPORTATION LAWS."

No one sneaking across the border to whelp a child (at U.S. taxpayer expense) should be able to jump in front of the hundreds of thousands of people doing it by the book.

Imagine spending years studying to become a citizen of this country, learning more about our history and government than most native-born citizens will ever know. Then imagine the frustration and hurt when you see others circumventing the whole process by sneaking in and popping out a kid.

Like an invasive species taking over a lake, stream, or field, we are in danger of being conquered by illegal immigration rather than by overt warfare.

Eventually, the new "native" population gains political power (i.e. Luis Gutierrez) and begins making demands.

It has happened here already in many communities.

It's got to stop.

Uh...Eric? MY observations relied on name-calling?
There's nothing automatically objectionable to reconsidering birthright law--but scratch the surface, and all too often you get...well, how would YOU characterize it?

Mike:

On the contrary, the question of birthright citizenship has been settled regarding the children of immigrants who are legally in the U.S. The birthright citizenship for children of parents who are here illegally has not be answered - it has just been assumed.

Regarding citizenship by birthright for the descendants of those in America illegally: Don't let's assume it. If you are in the U.S. under questionable terms, then you-- and by extension, your offspring --are not entitled to the rights and privileges granted to citizens. ICE needs to act quickly and decisively to deport Ms. Arellano. She will probably find her way back anyway.