No, the problem is deported immigrants who keep coming back.

That, and everybody looking like a fool with their pants on the ground.

lololololololol at both of these!

Well it wouldn't be the first time. The constitution as written doesn't even mention citizenship at all. That was added on later. And honestly, I don't think it needs to be amended. Congress has the power to determine what qualifications for citizenship there are. Just get rid of a lot of the pointless stuff things. Maybe just have a simple residency requirement. Also I don't like the fact that immigrants are required to learn English to be citizens. I agree with it on a practical level, but there is no legal justification for it. It's not like English is the official language of the United States.

Giddy-up!

Hmm... so you say that the law requires one to learn some English to be a citizen, but then you say there's no legal justification for it?

Well, the law states that those who wish to be naturalized need to learn English. But English has no official standing in the United States, so why that requirement?

Do you honestly believe that?

No, it would be 28th time -- in 221 years. ;)

It absolutely would have to be amended. The Fourteenth Amendment says "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." That means being born here = citizenship. Trying to add anything to that would unquestionably be unconstitutional as the Constitution is currently framed. I can't imagine any amendment changing that gaining any steam at all.

No, Congress has the power to determine the requirements for naturalization. (Article I, § 8) Congress has no power to add any citizenship requirement for someone born in the US.

I disagree, Congress has before in the past deemed who is and who isn't a citizen. Jus soli didn't just appear in the books.

If you're referring to American Indians, that's because for a long time, they were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Since United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), though, there's no doubt that if you're born here and are subject to the US law, you're a citizen.

I think anyone would have a very hard time arguing to the courts now that anyone born within the territory of the United States, with the exception of children of diplomats and the possible exception of children of illegal immigrants, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Regardless though, Congress simply doesn't have the power to add any other requirement for citizenship for those who meet the criteria of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what Psi U MC Vito was suggesting.

To try and put it another way, there are 2 ways that one can become a US citizen:

1. By being born here and being subject to US jurisdiction. Most of us became citizens in this way. But the child of a diplomat would not because, even if he was born here, he would not be subject to US jurisdiction. If you meet both requirents (born here, subject to jurisdiction), you are a US citizen. Congress cannot impose any other requirement, like passing a test, on you, because you meet the constitutional requirements.

2. Naturalization. Anyone who doesn't fall under method one, including that diplomat's kid, can seek to become a naturalized citizen. Congress makes the rules on naturalization and can change those rules whenever it sees fit to do so.

Where does it say that?

Ok....cool

Why not? We have national media for them to disseminate their ideas. We have many means of communication for people across the nation to unite to work for the candidate.