So much for jus soli...

Fucking idiots. Who would fucking vote for this?

Probably because it makes sense even though it will be struck down as unconstitutional.

How does it make sense? You have no control over what your parents do. Why should you be punished for your idiot parents?

Stop being stupid.

The reason birth-right citizenship makes no sense, goes the argument, is that it encourages people to come to the country illegally and have a child and thus evade deportation.

For your second question, I am having trouble with the is/ought problem. How do you get from "no control over what your parents do" to "you should therefore be a U.S. citizen." Why shouldn't you therefore have the same citizenship as your parent and leave?

Finally, your third question answers your first question. You say "why should you be punished..." You assume that being deported with your parents is punishment, probably because it is generally to a place that is a lot crappier. That is almost certainly true and that is what encourages their parents to come here illegally, so that they are not sent back to a hell-hole.

Some scholars think the text of §1 of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," does not mean what we think it means, so far as jurisdiction is concerned. To simplify, they argue that "jurisdiction" could not have meant birthright citizenship because at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified (1868), there was no such thing as legal or illegal immigration and that "jurisdiction" meant "complete jurisdiction," meaning that one was not subject at all to the jurisdiction of another country, like the child of an ambassador or an Indian tribe.

I think there are problems with this argument, but Professor Graglia, the author, is a serious scholar at UT. Link is a pdf. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/graglia1.pdf

That was the main problem that I had. The Supreme Court probably won't go so far as to say the law is a violation of the 14th Amendment, but they likely will strike it anyway via field preemption due to the Feds pretty much having taken over the field of immigration and citizenship and federal laws taking priority over state laws (generally).

Just popped in quickly on this, think you should get the same status as your parents or where they have a passport.

If the Parents are citizens, then the kids shouldn't be either.

These statements are polar opposites.

Corrected. It is hard to proofread on my cell phone.

Arizona's anti-immigrant laws are racist and digust me. Shame on them.

Okay, so how do illegal immigrants/their children constitute a class of people who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"/The United States?
Wouldn't they by law be subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin?

I do think that some illegal immigrants might need some kind of protection by staying here, think Nazi Germany, so there should be some consideration when deportation may threaten life.

So you think Mexican laws apply to children of illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States?

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means diplomats and other foreign government officials.

so as the feds want to control these immigrantion laws and not allow the states to act.....

are the feds doing anything really on illegal immigration???

and .....most Americans aren't too happy with Obama POV!

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Half of Americans reject President Barack Obama's lawsuit against Arizona's controversial immigration law, with only a third supporting the move, according to a Gallup poll released Friday.