[margorczynski]

> US to drop an anchor kid to force naturalization

I've always wondered why the US didn't change this law (to right of blood)? The current approach was created when the US was just a colony and needed a quick injection of people. Now it doesn't make much sense and creates a plethora of problems as I understand.

[mschuster91]

> I've always wondered why the US didn't change this law (to right of blood)?

Because that is enshrined in the Constitution [1] and amendments are very very rare to happen [2] even in a time when politicians were actually interested in running the country vs just "owning" the opposing side.

And there's many things that more desperately need constitutional reform than getting rid of "anchor babies" - FPTP, Electoral College, executive orders, or actually enforce the separation between state and religion to name a few.

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-1-1...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Cons...

[crusty]

Add campaign finance.

[cafard]

The 14th Amendment put birthright citizenship into the Constitution. The concern was not at all with immigration, but with preserving the legal status of the Black population.

[logicchains]

It's in the constitution so it's quite difficult to change, requires more than just a simple majority.