[sigzero]

"if you're born on US soil, you're a US citizen"

Actually there IS debate about what that section actually means. Some take to mean in context that your parents had to have been under the laws (a citizen) already and subsequently you cannot just hop the border, have a baby, and the baby is a citizen. I happen to believe that as well.

[anigbrowl]

Not among legal scholars, at least not since 1898.

Oops, left out the citation: US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111...

[JustACommenter]

This case, and the idea that being American has a lot more to do with ideas than with your ethnic origin, are important to my family history.

My grandmother was born in the US. Her mother died when she was young, so she and some of her siblings were sent back to the old country to live with relatives for a while. Eventually my grandmother and her siblings returned to the US, and she married my grandfather, leading to me, a proud American.

The reason this law was important was because my great-grandparents weren't US citizens. In fact, they were prohibited from becoming naturalized US citizens even if they wanted to be ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ). Without the 14th amendment, I might not be a US citizen.

Nor would my great-uncle, who served in the US military. It turns out that in 1940 the US military suspected they had a need for Japanese translators. What better way to learn Japanese than to have gone to school in Japan?

My last thought on this topic is a joke:

Q: Who was the greatest German general of World War II?

A: Eisenhower.

[jonhendry]

Mostly it's a debate among people freaking out that the US has a black president.

[drewse]

There does exist debate on the topic, although I'm not sure if I agree that there should be. The statement is clear by itself, but unnecessary interpretations are what cause a debate. I understand that there is usually necessary interpretations to be made on topics from the constitution and other legal documents, as some are very vague. However, in my opinion, this statement leaves no room for interpretations and therefore no implications should made. [Sure this is debatable, but so is everything]. Rather than spending so much time on forming interpretations, people should consider an amendment. The general consensus now may have changed since then.