The Washington Post has an editorial about birthright citizenship entitled "Citizens, All". Let's see if we can spot errors in their "thinking":
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has a bold idea to stop illegal immigration: Deny automatic citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. "There is general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are children of folks who come into this country illegally," he told the Washington Times. General agreement? Perhaps among Mr. Tancredo's friends in the House but not among the framers of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, any such modern consensus would have a small problem in the text of the Constitution, which is, inconveniently for anti-immigrant demagogues, not subtle on the point.
Obviously, the WaPo has a bit of a problem with their choice of words: it should be clear by now that anyone using the word "undocumented" is a politically correct fool. And, opposing illegal immigration does not equal being opposed to immigration; calling someone "anti-immigrant" is even worse, implying that they're trying to victimize immigrants.
And, it's not just the language they use. As pointed out many times in the past:
At the time the amendment was approved, the author of the clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the phrase relating to jurisdiction meant, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners...." ...In subsequent years, the courts invalidated the assurances of Howard; at this stage, an amendment to the Constitution seems the only means available to change the law...
More on that here.
Immigration2005b · Sat, 11/12/2005 - 09:48 · Importance: 1