In this thread, jrodefeld asserts (with approval) that Rand Paul wants to repeal the 14th Amendment, or at least that provision of it which has been interpreted to mean anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen. This is known as jus soli, “right of soil.” The 14th Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments, and the intent, of course, was to extend unconditional citizenship to African-Americans (practically all of whom, at the time, were American-born).
Many immigration opponents complain about this, especially as it makes it possible for a pregnant foreigner to stay in the U.S. just long enough to birth her baby, then claim citizenship for the baby, and eventually get the whole family in, as family reunification is part of our immigration policies at present. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted broadly: A person born abroad of American parents can also claim citizenship by jus sanguinis, right of blood. (I’ve seen commentators in Free Republic claiming Obama is no citizen even if he was born in Hawaii, because his father was foreign, but that’s neither here nor there.)
Now, if jus soli citizenship were abolished, that would leave jus sanguinis only (apart from citizenship by formal naturalization, always a difficult process). That is the situation which, formerly, strictly denied German citizenship to ethnic Turkish “guest-workers” even if they had been born and raised in Germany and knew no other home. (A reform in 2000 eased the naturalization process somewhat.) That is not a fair or just arrangement, and if it had been consistently applied in the U.S. since Independence, citizenship today would be limited to white Anglo-Saxon “Old Americans,” DAR families, descended from white people living here at the time of Independence. IOW, only a minority of the total population would be citizens, as in South Africa under Apartheid. Aren’t a few “anchor babies” preferable to that?
Or does anyone care to suggest some compromise rule?