Why is the 7-year-old son of Elivra Arellano  a U.S. citizen?

Because even though she is an illegal immigrant still defying a deportation order by holing up in a West Side church, he was born here. And the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

From this answer, though, comes three other, related questions.

First,  does that hedgy clause "..and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the middle of this otherwise unambiguous declaration mean that it still applies to illegal immigrants?

Second, did those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 intend for it to cover children born to those who were illegally in the country?

And finally, clauses and amendments aside, is this time-honored practice still a good idea?

My fellow liberals are familiar with this style of probing the Constitution when it comes to guns:

A main argument of gun-control advocates is that the stilted introductory clause in the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," drastically limits the application of the next clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 

And even if it doesn't, they argue, the Founders were all about muskets and flintlock pistols, and surely never intended this guarantee to apply to the rapid-fire, deadly-accurate weaponry available today.

But they don't seem nearly as engaged with probing the 14th Amendment. Even asking the three questions above is likely to prompt a left winger to brand you a nativist and immigrant hayta', (CQ) though Arellano's high-profile standoff with U.S. Immigration and Customs officials and her attempt to play her son's citizenship as a trump card brings them right to mind.

Republican-led efforts to repeal so-called "birthright citizenship" either by amending the constitution or passing a law that will invite the Supreme Court to re-interpret the 14th Amendment have become perennial failure in Congress.  And the backers always start, of course, with resounding "no!" answers to the above three questions.

My argument here is not that they are right or wrong, but that the questions themselves are worthy of serious consideration.  And to advance that view I've  created a robust -- love that word! --  webliography of links to commentaries, news articles, research and court opinions that will prepare you well to argue either side.

As to the first question I think that being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a necessary prerequisite to be considered an "illegal." By asserting that those who come here illegally are in fact illegal immigrants in any meaningful sense we are implying that they are subject to our laws merely by virtue of their presence here. Otherwise we have no significant argument to claim that they should abide by our laws. If they must face the threat of arrest and deportation, then they are being subjected to our jurisdiction and by the letter of the law their children would be citizens. Flouting a law does not mean you are not subject to it, just that you haven't been caught by the proper authorities.

For the second question I cannot imagine our founding fathers imagining anything similiar to today's circumstances in regards to immigration. The possibility of illegal immigration while pregnant was very slim, considering the treacherous multiple month boat ride involved, and I doubt there was very much of an established force to prevent illegal immigration until well after the Revolutionary War was over. I don't think there is anything helpful that can be drawn from this discussion.

As to whether it is a good idea today.... I would say that there should be a clause against granting citizenship to those here illegally, but that might create more problems than it solves. For one thing where would these children be granted citizenship? If they weren't born in (for example) Mexico, then they would not be Mexican citizens, but if we don't grant them citizenship then we have created an individual sans citizenship. This seems to promote further chaos rather than helping the situation because it would result in nearly untrackable human beings with no national affiliation. (Interestingly they would be ideal terrorist recruits) So perhaps the way we do it is the best of all possibilities.

ZORN REPLY -- I imagine that a child born of foreign nationals in the US would be considered citizens of the parents' home country even as a child born to US citizens abroad would be considered a US citizen.
Yet I expect that there are significant and forseeable problems we would encounter, such as a somewhat greater "permanent" immigrant class. if a child born of illegal immigrants is himself an illegal immigrant, then we make it more difficult for him and his culture, whatever it might be, to assimilate into our culture.

Every year, hundreds of pregnant women sneak across the border to have their babies in US hospitals. Not only is the kid a citizen, but the poor taxpayers pick up the hospital costs for it.

This scam needs to end now!

I have looked at your "webliography" and the language of the United States Supreme Court case pretty well settled this matter.

Basically it says that the framers of the constitution understood, and long standing common law in England held, that a child born on the Untited States soil was "subject to the jurisdiction..." of this country.

I don't think the Supreme Court would be likely to retreat from this language. Ergo the matter is settled unless you amend the Constitution, which I think is a very very foolish thing to do in this case.

ZORN REPLY -- Perhaps, but saying it's foolish doesn't mean that it is foolish. Not many countries practice this anymore, and it's at least fair to ask if the provision holds up to modern analysis and if so to explain why.

Regardless of the myriad other articles you link, the flaw in this item is obvious. You ask if the 14th Amendment was meant to apply to illegal immigrants. How can "illegality" be imputed to an immigrant's child? The law says if you're born here, you're a citizen. The newborn broke no law. This much, at least, should be beyond argument.

ZORN REPLY-- Well, it doesn't apply to, for instance, a child born on US soil to foreign diplomats. The law is settled on that. How can diplomatic status be imputed (or conferred upon) a diplomat's child? Well, because the law says so.
Your argument amounts to "because the Constitution says so," which doesn't get at the question of why it says so and if it should continue to say so.

Eric -

Kudos to you (an avowed liberal - which is not a dirty word, by the way) for being intellectually consistent with respect to interpretations of the Constitution on an emotionally-charged issue like immigration. By admitting the possibility that extra-Constitutional sources regarding interpretations of the 14th Amendment might have a legitimate place in the debate (as gun control advocates do with respect to the 2nd Amendment), you gain credibility in my eyes as an objective commentator on divisive social issues. I believe that many conservative bloggers and radio commentators wold not have the intellectual honesty to do what you've done with respect to their "hot button" issues (i.e., admit the possibility of the credibility of their opponent's arguments).

As a person in my 40s, one thing that I have noticed about the difference betwen most liberals and most conservatives, is that conservatives won't even consider the possibility that their position might be wrong. I have found that much more often a liberal will at least consider the possibility that his/her opponent might be in the right.

If the "anchor baby" law were merely a matter of federal law, changing it might make be an easier analysis. But amending the United States Constitution is a separate issue. The decision to do that is not weighed by merely looking at "modern analysis" or what other countries do. Amending the constitiution to take away a right is a VERY scary thing and should be made only after the most intense and careful analysis, not just of the effects of this change but of the effect of our entire system of government.

ZORN REPLY -- Well, of course, but some legal scholars and supporters of this legislation think that Congress could write that change into federal law and that the change would survive the inevitable challenge to the Supreme Court. Reading both the majority opinion and the dissents in Plyer v. Doe (1982) it's hard to believe that the Court would rethink its position on the almost inescapable meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," so I think that it almost certainly would require an amendment.
I agree that amending the constitution is a serious step, yet I don't see birthright citizenship as necessarily an integral human or American right, even though it is a policy statement in the 14th Amendment. It does not seem to me to attach itself to any core principles in the Bill of Rights or to be so manifestly just or wise that it's somehow sacrosanct.
It may be good public policy. It may be the best possible public policy. But I don't see that it's integral to "our entire system of government" to the point that we must shy away from looking at it critically.
I feel the same way, by the way, about the 2nd Amendment. I happen NOT to be a particular critic of the gun rights folks -- the collected works at http://ericzorn.com/columns/guns/ usually surprises people -- but I don't think our modern day gun laws ought to be bound by the deeply held notions of sound firearms policy well over 200 years ago.
Similarly, I don't think we should be bound by the OK of birthright citizenship in an era when illegal immigration was nearly unheard of. Again, not to say this necessarily renders the idea a bad one, just that saying "sorry, 14th Amendment" isnt' very persuasive to me.

I could not disagree more with the previous poster who claims an amendment process regarding anchor babies (sorry, it's a legitimate description) to be "foolish."

It is PRECISELY because the Founders anticipated unforeseen results/consequences of "law" that they created the amendment mechanism. The influx of illegals we now enjoy was never anticipated in 1790 (or 1868 for that matter).

I do, happily, agree with Jay's honoring of your intellectual honesty, and your consistency. As always, good on ya, Eric.

Diplomats are not subject to our laws, so they and any offspring are not covered by the 14th admendment. If a diplomat runs over people in their car on the way to the hospital to deliver the baby, the worst that can happen to them is deportation - without getting their home country involved in prosecution.

If Elvira had been in the U.S. for only a few days and had never worked here when she had the baby, it would be more reasonable to say she should not be anchored by her child.

"Second, did those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 intend for it to cover children born to those who were illegally in the country?"

In 1868 there was no such thing as being "illegally in the country". The first federal laws restricting immigration weren't passed until the mid-1870s.

You do not need a constitutional amendment to deny U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal aliens -- you need only:

1. A lawsuit by a party with standing, challenging the constitutionality of this practice in the context of something or someone currently subject to action by the U.S. government or a branch thereof, e.g., an immigration hearing brought by the government against an illegal for deportation and where that illegal brings up the anchor baby as a "defense", or even as a "red herring" "argument" in an attempt to gain the court's sympathy; this could find its way to the Supreme Court for interpretation of that portion of the 14th Amendment as applying to that case, such interpretation thus standing as an interpretation of the amendment to the children of illegals as a whole; or,

2. An act of Congress codifying either the legal or illegal status of anchor babies, which would inevitably lead to a legal challenge and thus the said review by the Supreme Court.

The Constitution is essentially what the U.S. Supreme Court interprets it to be. Thus, regulated abortion is a constitutional right in the United States. The right against illegal search and seizure by the government changes (generally in favor of the government, i.e., our rights are LESSENED) change seemingly every few years, the right being virtually taken away one little chip at a time by each successive Supreme Court decision.

Why? Because circumstances change, and if we want our police to have the legal tools to stay one step ahead of the criminals, search and seizure laws are said to have to stay current with the reality of modern society and technology.

However, many believe that the law of the land should reflect a destructive new reality in which foreigners illegally invade our country, lower our wage scales by increasing the supply of cheap labor while not equally effecting demand, increase our taxes for services and education (and thus the quality of both to our own people) and similarly cause the cost of ever-scarce housing for our own poor to skyrocket, all based not on the Bill of Rights, but an AMENDMENT brought nearly a hundred years later for the purpose of denying states the power to deny equal rights to newly-freed black slaves who had been in this country against their will for hundreds of years.

Liberals claim that the Constitution is a "changing" document when seeking to deny other citizens their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, or seeking to have the document apply to medical procedures which were not even dreamed of in science fiction at the time the Constition was enacted (abort). Similarly, many conservatives claim the same need for fluidity in giving police more leeway in entering or otherwise monitoring the homes of suspected criminals to prevent crime, or even in today's new reality of spying on U.S. citizens without warrant or even logical cause in the hopes of finding a terrorist conspiracy in the everday correspondence and conversation of old ladies in Iowa.

Yet, many on both sides of THESE arguments find the argument of illegals that their children are citizens because a law intended to protect the rights of black slaves during Reconstruction allegedly provides that any one of the 6 billion foreigners on this planet has some inalienable (no pun intended) right to illegally sneak past our border security to give birth to a child conceived of and by foreigners on foreign soil -- a sort of "convenience pack" method of citizenship.

Give it a break, already. The most conservative of estimates gives these invaders majority status -- and thus supreme political power over us in our own country -- in less than 2 generatioons (under 50 years). And, once they have secured THEIR status, rights, power and privilege here, you can bet that they will have no qualms about changing "our" constitution to protect what they will then perceive as "theirs."

No other country I can think of allows such utter nonsense. I for one would like to be able to claim my own right to enroll my children in the public school which I am paying for, but which is too crowded to accept my child, because the school is overflowing with anchor babies to whom I somehow owe their "right" to an education funded by me, causing me to go into bankruptcy to send my own child to a private school (amusingly enough, they then claim that my children then become more privileged than theirs, and demand that more of my tax dollars be thrown at the public schools, to ensure that their children get an equal amount of MY money for their education).

These arguments can go on and on, but please accept the reality that the majority of Americans desire a stop to illegal immigration, and that the law does not really provide that their anchor baby stategy is legal, unless you wish to interpret a century-old amendment passed for the benefit of victimized AMERICAN blacks to provide a "legal" loophole which completely deprives the United States government of sovereignty over its own borders. REPRESENT YOUR CONSTITUENTS, OH VOTE-PANDERING POLITICIANS!

ZORN REPLY -- On a purely practical level where I disagree with your analysis is in what one might expect from the Supreme Court here. In 1982, the Court sounded very sure that the 14th Amendment ought to continue to apply to children born of illegals (even though, as another poster has observed, the very concept of "illegal alien" was, um, foreign when the amendment was wrought) though that question wasn't the one immediately before the court (in Plyer v. Doe).
Applying the Constitution to life and situations not even imagined by the authors and ratifiers is seldom easy or obvious; it requires looking not only for intent but for the principle that was or ought to have been behind the language (i.e., it is doubtful, at best, that the founders intended a full range of rights and guarantees to blacks and women; it is undeniable that the prevailiing spirit of the constitution demanded it). The Constitution was not intended to be a regulatory instrument that defined public policy in granular detail (not to say that it hasn't been used in that way; prohibition, for example, was an abominable amendment).
So, long point short, it does seem appropriate, to me, for the Court to look at that passage of the 14th Amendment again through 21st century eyes instead of through the eyes of 19th century lawmakers and judges who never envisioned this sort of application.

Eric, your reference to the relevant clause of the 14th Amendment debated here as "a policy statement" strikes me as odd. The Constitution and Amendments are all "policy statements", I suppose; but in any case this clause is a legally binding policy statement, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. It also rings false to read you dismissing those who point out that it IS settled Constitutional law as being unhelpful to furthering the discussion. True enough; but so is any argument based in fact--facts are stubborn things, as they say. From what I've seen, the discussion on this subject and related immigration discussions is quite emotional, and rarely framed as "we need to amend the Constitution". And finally, you're quite willing to put down birthright supporters as name-calling "hatah's", but not once in this or in your previous webliography post, do you reference, much less confront, the sort of vitriol that that leads to illegal immigrants referred to as vermin, savages, the cause of the fall of American civilization (see Pat Buchanan's new book). YOUR discussion rises above that of course, but the discussion itself does not, and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

ZORN REPLY -- I tend to think of the constitution more as as a declaration of key principles and bedrock structtural details -- sine qua non stuff, and not the nitty gritty. As noted in another response on this thread, one can find examples where amenders have written what should have been laws into the fundamental document of our nation either due to laziness or shortsightedness or pure opportunism.
I don't think that saying "this is settled Constitutional law, end of discussion" is particularly helpful in this case any more than it is in the issue of abortion or gun rights. What's "settled" about an issue that pretty neatly divides the country in half? I would not argue that the issue of whether it's OK to burn a flag in protest is "settled Constitutional law" and consider the argument over even though I am deeply opposed to efforts to amend the Constituion to prevent such acts. I would argue instead that such an attempt profoundly violates the spirit and the principles in the Constitution that are key to making our nation great. Not to get into THAT wrangle here.
I'm not going to answer for those flinging inflammatory rhetoric on both sides of this debate, though I think some of it is caused by a failure on both sides to listen and to speak reasonably and without loaded rhetoric. I haven't read Buchanan's book but I suppose it's getting so popular I probably should. Does he just call names or does he seem at least to try to make points and support them with evidence?

I don't know (and don't really care) what the "official" (and very temporary) resolution of the immigration dispute will be. I don't care because that official resolution won't change things -- the flow of immigrants (illegal or not) will continue more or less unabated for several decades at least and will bubble up as a current issue every few years.
The real result (regardless of what the law or the pundits say will be an increasing segment of u.s. residents who will be in the same position as were southern blacks before the Civil Rights movement. And these disenfranchised, oppressed and exploited citizens* will have no course but to continually mobilize behind the demand Freedom Now!
[*I am claiming that "resident" and "citizen" are actually synonymous. Those without legal citizenship are simply citizens denied their rights as blacks were in the south before the '60s.]
And so of course the only way to organize that ongoing and endless struggle is to make precisely the demands which you (Zorn), if I remember correctly, criticized as foolish and counter-productive.

ZORN REPLY -- I will mark you down, then, as an advocate for a world without borders.

I'm not sure I buy into the 'assimilation' concept any longer with regard to our Mexican and Central American illegal immigrants. I think displacement (and hence, creation of a new sub-culture) may be a better word.

That said, all immigrant groups have had neighborhoods or regions where their home culture thrived for at least a few generations. This illegal Mexican immigration feels different to me, but I may be ethnocentric and a prisoner of my own times.

I experience one type of reaction in a personal, one-on-one situation where I exercise my tolerance and acceptance, and genuinely like people and try to help them.

On the other hand, I get angry about the expressions of entitlement thrust at me by people who have clearly circumvented the legal system. I tend to want to roust them all from their "sanctuary" at gunpoint and march them to the border in shackles. This is purely an emotional response, but I am sure it is shared by many citizens.

Go to any neighborhood ravaged by gangbangers of Mexican descent and tell me you like the graffiti and the gunshots. I've lived in L.A., New York, Florida and Chicago, and it's the same anywhere you go.
It seems to be getting worse, not better. I don't want this culture near me or my family, and I don't like people who try to force it upon me.

Why hasn't La Migra arrested this woman? There's no freaking sanctuary in this country! Her "anchor baby" is no anchor, as far as I can see. She is free to take her child with her back to the country of their citizenship. Yes, "their" citizenship. When he's 18, he can come back as an adult and realize his U.S.A. citizenship.

I see no need to alter the Constitution. The minor children of illegal immigrants are the responisbility of their parents. They are not wards of the state. They have no more rights than any other minor. They belong with their parents, and if their parents are here illegally and get deported, the kids go, too.

And think about this. Just who benefits from a very large workforce of cheap labor in this country?
All work has dignity. There are no jobs Americans won't do. That's some crackpot idea that elitist yuppies buy into, but it's bull----. There is work and there is compensation, plain and simple. It's all about wages and control, and has been with all the various immigrant groups throughout our history. (Yes, EZ, I read your book THE WAR ON LABOR AND THE LEFT, by Patricia Sexton.)

So, what is your updated projection on how this will be handled now, perfesser? Still think they will march in and arrest her and it will end ugly?

Jack

Well, Jay, for some liberals who won't even consider the possibility that their position might be wrong, surf on over to The Swamp and read the comments of John Scanlon, John E., and Raving Loon.

There's a lot more civil discourse over here; in The Swamp it's mostly name-calling, the last refuge of people with nothing constructive to say.

Another thing.

Wasn't the 14th Amendment added to the Constitution in order to guarantee citizenship to the recently emancipated slave population? This is what I always believed.

Is it now being abused by illegal immigrants for a different purpose?

I think so.

http://www.theblackrepublican.net/archives/002573.html

I'm hoping to not only contribute soon to the real aspect of this debate (the contemporary legitimacy of the 14th amendment), but to also make people like "fed up" and "jack" look like the fools that they are.

To simply see "Go to any neighborhood ravaged by gangbangers of Mexican descent and tell me you like the graffiti and the gunshots" on a blog is quite amusing. To clarify, one needs to understand that it is a racist, capitalist society that creates these problems, not the people.

Racism leads to underfunding of neighborhoods, which leads to poor education, and lack of a future for minorities (latino, african american, or otherwise). They are TAUGHT that they will not succeed, and that their future revolves around NOT getting arrested (and of course, the cops are trained to search out young, male, minorities...racial profiling is integral to the work, it provides "examples"...just look up Chicago's very own Jon Burge...)

and jack is right, who does benefit from a large, underpaid workforce? why the bosses and corporations of course!!!!

and why does that underpaid workforce exist?
because of racism.

Racist ideas, coupled with racist neo-liberal policies create a working class that finds itself bound to travel to the only place that provides work (even though the laws that, that very nation creates are supposedly intended to deter that).

But everyone knows that this nation needs to have this anti-immigrant racism so that bosses (be they big corporations or local bosses) can create tier systems of labor.

Having an oppressed and terrified immigrant class of laborers creates a situation in which those very oppressed laborers can be used against U.S. unions and U.S. laborers.

This system of having THIRD CLASS labor (since "legal minorites" already suffer from racism anyway) allows immigrants to be used as scabs, and as an excuse to drive down wages and wither away at benefits.

by NOT supporting the struggle of undocumented workers, we shoot ourselves (as laborers, whether we recognize ourselves as that or not) in the foot.

and i cannot stress this enough, most of our tax dollars are NOT going to people in our medicare system, nor our welfare system!
our tax dollars are going to our military to create bombs and other weapons to kill people. the war in iraq alone is costing about 1 billion a month.
our funding of Israel and its military costs about 6 billion a year in tax dollars, and likely more in times of war (such as now).

1,000,000,000 (A MONTH for the war in iraq)
6,000,000,000 [a year (AT LEAST) for israel]
and millions more to militarize the border against mexico...

this could be going to underfunded schools, high schools, universities, retirement homes, social security, hospitals, etc.

so why doesn't it?

because that wouldnt be convenient for the U.S. government leaders. a healthy and educated populace is dangerous. why do you think that the news doesn't tell us about whats going on in Oaxaca, Mexico with the 70,000 strong teachers strike/occupations thats going on right now!?

Or about what happened throughout Chile in may, where the high school and college students of the nation rose up to fight the government through collective protest and school occupations?
U.S. government leaders don't wanna show the power of labor. It might give people in the U.S. ideas about their own strength.

look it up on BBC or wikipedia, its there.

hopefully i'll actually be able to debate the 14th amendment soon, i just wanted to address some of the silliness in the comments sections that i've seen; and felt ready to address right now.

my punctuation isn't always great. sorry.

moreover, i can also be marked down in the list of people that support a world without borders. im with carrol c on that.

ZORN REPLY -- Though greed and racism may mimic one another, I wouldn't so glibly confuse the two if I were you. The existence of the vast underground / undocumented / illegal workforce has little to do with racism, in my view, and much to do with the desire of people to maximize their own income/savings. Is it "racist" when you (perhaps you in particular but perhaps merely the generic you) buy clothing made in China or some Indonesian country by people paid appallingly low wages? I doubt it. I doubt it matters much to you at all. You simply want decent goods at the lowest price. Calling this "greed" may even be too strong.
Similarly, the business owner who hires illegals probably doesn't care if the guy who busses his tables or clears the brush from his yard or cleans his airplanes is Mexican or Polish or an Okie from Muskogee -- he just wants the job done at the lowest wage he can get away with paying.
But all of that is only tangentially relevant, if at all, to the birthright-citizenship question. I can't expect you to tackle that question since you are a no-borders guy to whom the question is irrelevant -- anyone who is here is automatically a "citizen," though that word as well as the word "immigrant" would ideally have no real meaning for you. National borders would become like our state borders in the U.S. -- abstractions but not barriers.

Umm...Jeff...how do you propose ending this 'scam'? By throwing out women and their babies that need medical attention out on the street?

I don't think I am a racist but I do believe cultural differences are a reality and I prefer to live with people who share my cultural mores, no matter what race or ethnicity they are.

Poverty breeds a lot of things, and racism does exist. Recognizing this fact doesn't mean that I want to live in a poor neighborhood filled with gangbangers.

Inequality, whether it is caused by institutionalized racism or a capitalist system that exploits poor imigrants, will cause social problems of crime and violence and disease. How does illegal immigration help this problem?

The 14th Amendment needs to be re-evaluated and perhaps changed to address our 21st Century problems. I don't know what to do about the birthright of citizenship but it needs to be addressed. We are dealing with real people with families and needs, but opening up the floodgates isn't going to solve our problems. We share a border with a nation that has a huge class of poor folks that see opportunity across the border, and nobody is going to be able to stem that tide until some form of equity is established.

Rather than amending the Constitution, however, I believe ending the war on drugs would be a giant first step in changing the structure of our society. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol and it doesn't work with drugs. A medical problem has become a criminal problem and the prisons are filled to capacity with drug users, some violent but most not. The drug trade fuels a lot of ills in this country. Getting "tough on drugs" is feel-good political jargon that does nothing to solve the ills.
We need a more enlightened policy towards drug use than locking people up in prison for decades.

Well, Kenneth, glad to see that a resident arrogant socialist know-it-all doesn't have to stoop to insults (yes, spoken like a true "fool"). Interesting to see how you cite no facts or law to back your "argument."

I see you as a typical, privileged "Hyde Park" rich liberal who has neither any real world experience, nor had to work very hard at all. Trust me, in 40 years at this rate there won't be any more of your type, as the middle class, including the "upper" middle class, will be a long forgotten memory.

The majority of the world is "third world." If there are no population controls here, all their poverty will be exported to us, and all but the mega-rich will join them in their poverty. Yes, it does suck that most of the world has to be poor, but I don't feel so sorry for them that I wish to join them in a show of "solidarity in poverty", so to speak. So, get a real job and contribute more to this society than your leftist extremist, unsupport opinions, won't you?

I don't think I am a fool, either, but I agree with Kenneth on some things. The money thrown into our military budget saps the societal programs that I think are necessary to bring about changes that will benefit everyone in our country.

Blaming it all on racism doesn't say anything. Let's write some laws that put power back in the hands of people who want to organize and form unions, including illegal aliens.
Let's spend some money on education and health care for all.
I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about public schools, a bulwark of a functioning democracy. Why can we spend trillions of dollars on foreign wars and relatively nothing on education?
Yeah, yeah, I know, terrorism and threats from people who "hate" us, and all that. Well, we'll destroy ourselves from within if we don't nuture our own country first. Spending money on public education is a good first step in solving a lot of problems.

None of this answers the question about changing the 14th Amendment, but everything tends to get all tied together after you start thinking about it.

Several weeks ago the Tribune ran a story in the Sunday magazine section "I'M STILL CROSSING THE BORDER" about some illegals who received a free high school education and now they were whining that they couldn't go on to college. An official on the Cook County Board recently proposed that Cook County to be a sanctuary for illegals and then there are the anchor babies the illegals hide behind to justify their actions. Why won't the Federal Government enforce the law? Because the Republicans want cheap labor and the Democrats want votes. In this environment which political party would pursue a re-evaluation of the 14th Amendment? It’s time to vote out of office anyone who has no respect for our immigration laws and send a message to our so called leaders that were mad as hell and won’t take it any more.

She and many others are disrespecting the Americans-naturalized and born here. She knew when she had her son that he would be legal (I guess), but she would not. If she did not know this, then she could studied her rights ahead of her pregnancy. Is the father legal? I hate lots of things in this country, but either live with it or try to change things. I do not think we have the freedom that other countries think we have. I quietly fight my tough battles. I have one foot in the grave and I am still fighting to exist and to help others exist. And I was born here!

The 2nd Amendment is not nearly as vague as the 14th. What is it that liberals do not understand about the phrase "the right of the people", which appears several times in the Constitution and Bill of Rights? George Mason, one of the architects of the Bill of Rights, was asked: "Who and what is the militia?" He replied, "The militia is all of the people, except for government officials."

ZORN REPLY -- What is so vague about the 14th, then? You have to torture the word "jurisdiction" to within an inch of its life to get it NOT to apply to people who are in the country and therefore subject to its laws. Kinda like how you have to torture "militia" in our modern understand it to get it to match up with Mason's idea. But oh, well.

Eric, you're veering very closely into Bob Greene territory with all these Arellano posts. Remember Bob Greene and Baby Richard? Please don't start obsessing on Michael Jordan, Bob Evans, and your teenage life in Bexley, Ohio too!

ZORN REPLY -- Oh,how dare you! What distinguished Bob's campaign for Baby Richard from nearly every other j-crusade I can think of, including some of my own, was the repetitive relentlessness of it. Bob didn't just revisit the topic from time to time, he all but sat on a flagpole to protest what was going on, even the when there was nothing at all new to say about the story.
I've written a few times about the Arellano story and tried to move the ball forward a little each time, adding new wrinkles or posing new questions.
If I'm guilty of mere harping on any one topic these days it's been the Cebra Gindorf story, which I've told in various forms four times, I think, in the last three years even though there's been precious little to add. I just want to remind people what a coward our governor is to refuse even to act on Gindorf's clemency appeal.

Good column, good board. I KNEW there had to be sensible people who wrestled difficult problems with principles, not dogmas.
Although a suit would test the 14th, I think a law is better, because then (assuming it was upheld) we would have a positive course of action. It is hard to argue from the history of the amendment that it was meant to cover the current situation. Pass a law, and let's see.

Eric,

Once agian you hit the nail on the head. I really beleive that you (left & liberal) and someone like me (right & conservative) sitting together could solve 95% of all our problems. Most right & left today just refuse to be consistent in applying their beliefs to all facts and arguments.

Myself, I see both the 2nd and 14th amendments as being well defined. The intent of the writers was to allow guns and allow children born here to be citiznes. What they couldn't know is how life and times change. Personally I believe they meant for amendments to be much more common then they are. Just look at 10 right off the bat.

However, in today's landscape an amendment is something to be afraid of. So we cheat. We pass a law then the courts rule on the law and hence 'create' an amendment. This current mechanism allows the minority to get things passed that would fail if put to a vote. Is this good or bad? Who knows but it is they way the US runs today.

So would I support changing the 2nd and/or 14th amendments. The answer is yes to both. Allow gun ownership but with wording that limits ownership. And I would modify the 14th to exclude the so called 'anchor babies'. Of course the real issue is getting wording that enough people agree to that then allows the amendment to succeed.

The arguments about race, citizens of the world and even economics are not relevant. For example Kevin said that these poor people are taken advantage of by business and given below average wages. Except a very simple solution is to prohibit any business from employing them and punish the business if they do. Of course this solution wouldn't be approved by Kevin yet it would 'solve' the problem. Companies who would still need the work done would be forced to pay higher wages or to relocate to the source of the lower wages. So the argument about wages and economics has multiple solutions that are dependent on resolving the real question of illegal immigration.

In closing keep up the good work. I may disagree with you much of the time but boy I sure do respect your viewpoint and am glad to read what you have to say.

John

Another thought that came to mind.

Sometimes I also wonder how politics impacts the various positions. A short ime ago an article appeared where it tracked baby and population trends of liberal and conservative parents. It seems that conservatives are having many more babies then the left or liberal parents and the gap is increasing.

So how much of this argument is a counter weight to this trend. Does the left or liberal base need outside immigration to help support and increase their voter roles? How soon before the call to allow illegal immigrants the right to vote?

And is the right against this knowing they would lose more elections? What would the right and left be saying if most of the illegal immigrants were conservative based and wanted to vote republican? Would the left still be asking for open borders and would the right still want to deport all of them?

Unless you are willing to apply your beliefs fairly to every situation then you are just an oppotunist and should be treated as such.

Sadly, it is almost impossible to pass an amendment; that's why there's so few of them. The only way for this to happen is for an Act of Congress or lawsuit to bring the issue before the U.S. Supremes.

I realize some people might take this the wrong way, but as an aside and off the direct subject, wasn't exporting all of our good manufacturing jobs to Mexico under NAFTA supposed to stop this? Instead, Mexico got all our good jobs, the U.S. corps' Mexican subsidiaries pay them next to nothing there, and their poor continue to flock here to drive down the pay rates for the remaining service jobs. As usual, the mega rich and influential win out, and out of our pitifully-reduced wages, the so-called "middle class" has to pay for the insane costs of the illegal immigration which is making the rich ever richer.

Think about how much medical costs, education and taxes would go down if not for the MILLIONS of illegals here, and the TENS OF MILLIONS of their "citizen" children. No, I guess we can't; that would be "bigotted" under the rules of political correctness. Shut up, Anglo, and pay ... and pay ... and pay ...

If conservatives are having more kids than liberal/progressives, that's probably a good thing given that so many kids rebel against their parents by taking on contrary political positions. Politics aren't genetic.