[And Also: More on how this is largely a distraction here. Overall, it is useful to address the issue to reaffirm the basic principles of citizenship and rights that are being challenged or disrespected. As with torture and so on, cheapening such things need not require amendments to the Constitution. See also, Mourad's comments here. Overall, even if they aren't citizens, they would constitutionally and in practice have various protections and benefits as "persons." But, posturing is not always based on such details.]
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Though they might be pulling back some, Republicans are trotting out the same idea brought out back in 1996: suggesting that children born in the United States of undocumented immigrants are not really U.S. citizens. Some appeal to original intent and/or fear of "anchor babies" or "jackpot babies" (the babies tie the aliens here while providing various benefits) or "birth tourism" (coming here just for citizenship; a few previously suggested some terrorist sorts do the same -- Manchurian Candidates?). Some ugliness is shown (the terms alone are pretty ugly); connections to the "birther" crowd is easily imagined.
Supreme Court precedent is on the side of those who argue that (with a few exceptions) those born here are citizens of the United States (and state citizens based on residency). A 1960s ruling (involving protection from being stripped of citizenship involuntarily) summarized a 1898 one, involving the group many were concerned in the day, so much that racist barriers were placed on the alien. parents ever becoming citizens:
The issues in that case were whether a person born in the United States to Chinese aliens was a citizen of the United States and whether, nevertheless, he could be excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Act, 22 Stat. 58. The Court first held that, within the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States, and then pointed out that, though he might "renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of . . . any other country," he had never done so. ....
Because the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, and of the expatriation proposals which preceded and followed it, like most other legislative history, contains many statements from which conflicting inferences can be drawn, our holding might be unwarranted if it rested entirely or principally upon that legislative history. But it does not. Our holding, we think, is the only one that can stand in view of the language and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, and our construction of that Amendment, we believe, comports more nearly than [a more restrictive ruling] with the principles of liberty and equal justice to all that the entire Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to guarantee.
The latter paragraph provides a warning to those who want to take some statements from 1868 to settle upon an "original meaning" that is not compelled by the text or the overall meaning of the amendment using various criteria, including an appeal to history. Basically, those living here -- even undocumented -- are under the jurisdiction of the U.S., so the protections (including citizenship by birth) are supplied. As noted by Plyer v. Doe (public schools):
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.
The term "jurisdiction" was specifically concerned with Native Americans (later dealt with by statute), enemy aliens and diplomatic personnel. A nation of immigrants is not the best place to rest citizenship on the legality of the residency of the parents, a matter mostly not a concern in 1868. There were various people in effect "illegal" even then -- enemy aliens, for instance, or paupers or the diseased in certain states though federal restrictions as a whole came later. If anything, this might imply the original meaning was to have a very liberal rule, immigration generally open. Anyways, into the 1980s, the Supreme Court assumed that the children of even those that could be deported (Mexicans here) that were born in the U.S. are "citizens" of the United States. The Wong Kim case argued that this role was the ancient English practice:
every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born
The immediate purpose of the rule was to overrule Dred Scott v. Sandford, which argued that even free blacks -- even if born in states that recognized them as state citizens -- were not intended to be included as U.S. citizens. Therefore, they were not able to sue or be sued in federal court. They also in effect were citizens of no country. The children of undocumented aliens are allegedly citizens of a foreign country, since they are not totally connected to this one. See also, the idea that somehow Obama is partially connected to another country because of his father's foreign citizenship. But, Wong Kim Ark involved parents loyal to a foreign sovereign; the child born here was still deemed a citizen. The legality of the parents' residency wasn't the basis of the ruling either. Born in U.S. jurisdiction, the U.S. sets the rules.
And, the racial implications of the proposed policy underlines the connection to Dred Scott. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States ("Citizenship") summarizes the value of the birth place rule:
[It] helped clarify property rights; it promoted immigration; it avoided jurisdictional conflicts; and it eased fears of massive expatriation during wartime.
Any "anchor" was in some way always there as was other things such as jobs, additional liberties and other family members living there. Relying on rules of other countries is also no way to determine citizenship of people born here. Marisa Tomei is recognized as a citizen of Italy, does that mean she is not really an American citizen? If a citizen does not follow their obligations, they can be penalized. And, overall, are undocumented immigrants the only concern here? "Birth tourism" suggests legal temporary residents also are a concern. Is citizenship to be left to the intent of the mother? Some artificial time limit is supposed to be implied or something?
Guests on Keith Olbermann earlier tonight provided a concerning alternative: the situation in Germany, where foreign workers are given work permits, but their children are not considered citizens, even when born there. A type of "people without a country" form, those who only know Germany, but are not considered citizens to that country. The racial/nationalist implications are fairly easy to imagine as are the resulting problems and conflicts. Is this what we want in this country, putting aside that it runs against text, history, doctrine and pragmatic principle? Even if there is an opening there, why should we seek it out?
It's a bad idea, more of a wedge issue than a credible idea. As with flag burning, hurt the gays to "protect marriage," violate privacy and equality to favor one religious/moral view of life and so forth, Republican amendment ideas [changing the "natural born citizen" rule for Presidents is an exception] tend to be stupid.