The federal court decision blocking key provisions of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect could light a fire under lawmakers considering an alternative -- and some say radical -- approach to reining in illegal immigration.

Lawmakers since last year have been kicking around a proposal to bar U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens. Such a move, which has been ridiculed by legal scholars, would be a drastic reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

But those supporting the move say it removes a key incentive luring illegal immigrants over the border. And with Arizona lawmakers now prohibited from requiring police to check immigration status, the option might be back on the table.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News after the Arizona ruling came down that "birthright citizenship" needs to be changed.

"I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward I don't want 20 million more (illegal immigrants) 20 years from now," he said. "Let's have a system that doesn't reward people for cheating."

Though other lawmakers have called for a change in U.S. or state law, Graham said he might introduce a constitutional amendment.

"We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen," he said Wednesday. "They come here to drop a child -- it's called 'drop and leave.' ... That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."

The amendment process is drawn out, and success is almost always unlikely -- it would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states. That's 38 states.

Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer and former federal prosecutor, called the push "pie in the sky" no matter how lawmakers go about it. He said any law altering the 14th amendment would never survive a court challenge and questioned the intent.

"It's spiteful," he said. "These are U.S. citizens. ... They're babies that by the grace of God were born in one country instead of another."

He said immigrants are not by and large crossing illegally into the United States just to have children. For starters, he said the parents would have to wait 21 years before their children could sponsor them for legal residency.

Wildes, former mayor of Englewood, N.J., said changing the citizenship ground rules would fundamentally alter the foundation of the United States. It is a rarity for a country to offer citizenship to anyone just because they're born on that country's soil -- but that principle has shaped the U.S. population.

"America has always been a beacon to the immigrants," Wildes said. "As a result of that, we have made ourselves the greatest superpower in the world."

Children of immigrants include droves of accomplished Americans, including former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, born in Kentucky to Jewish immigrants from Europe; actor/dancer/singer Fred Astaire, born to an American mother and Austrian father; singer Christina Aguilera, whose father was born in Ecuador; and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, born to Italian immigrants -- not to mention President Obama, whose father is from Kenya.

Those looking to fiddle with the 14th Amendment, though, aren't looking to go after children of legal immigrants.

A bill introduced in April 2009 by former Georgia Rep. Nathan Deal called for the law to be changed so that "birthright citizenship" as prescribed in the 14th Amendment only applies if one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen or national, or a legal immigrant.

That bill has languished in the House since last year, though it currently lists 92 co-sponsors.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce told Fox News last month that he was working with some of the co-sponsors, as he considered a similar bill at the state level in Arizona. Pearce was behind the Arizona law that was partially struck down by the court Wednesday.

Pearce contends that the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, was intended to protect African Americans.

"Illegal wasn't illegal then," he said. "If you think about it, it's illegal to enter the United States, illegal to remain here, but you get the greatest inducement you could possibly have -- the citizenship of your child. ... It was never intended to do that."

A spokesman for Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the co-sponsors, said he wouldn't be surprised if the bill started to kick back up "in the wake of Arizona."

Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Graham, said the senator is currently "discussing the issue" but would not say what route he would take.

"It is something he is very interested in pursuing further," Bishop said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/29/lawmakers-consider-ending-citizenship-children-illegal-immigrants/

We should have never strayed away from the 14th Amendment in the first place.

There is no "anchor baby" law.

The law states if you are born here, you are a citizen here and can have dual citizenship if your parents so desire if they are citizen elsewhere.

That is not an anchor baby law.

That is the born here, citizen here law.

Once more, misunderstanding rides roughshod over reality ...

that reality thing agian... hmmmm

I think it would be fair to require one parent to be a citizen or legal resident of the states for birthright status

a child should naturally inherit their parents nationality, unless the parent has LEGALLY established residence elsewhere,, in my opinion


if I had had been traveling to france when I had my son, I dont think that should have automatically meant he had french citizenship,,,,

Green card holders are not citizens but, they come here to deliver their kids.

I would advocate Hospitals verify Immigration Status and if they are only Green Card holders, they receive care but, the child not be given anchor child status.

Citizenship should only apply to citizens.

As with Hussein.

Give them a Certificate realizing a live Birth happened and not citizenship.

why wouldnt his birth be citizenship as his MOTHER was a citizen? Should my daughter not be a citizen because her father is foreign?


come on now,,,

take canada for example.... they have more people that "visit" there when they are due, just for the dual citizenship, then the child gets free health care for life....

You should only be a citizen if atleast one of your parents are a citizen and you were born here. No more of this border jumping just to have a baby crap, then parents throwing a fit when they get deported because they are losing their kid. I am sick of this crap.

wow..for a country that is so "pro-life", there sure is a lot of anti-children rhetoric being thrown around...

It's not 'anti-children' ... it's ANTI-ILLEGAL-ALIEN ...

Parents bearing children during travels to the US children do not automatically receive citizenship or services until that child is old enough to form the intent to reside. If the parents intent is not to reside than child's intent is taken as no intent to reside until they are old enough to form the opinion of wish and intent to reside in the US even though they are born here and ahve no right to services until intent is determined and voiced.

This country is not "pro-life".......with the right to have abortion the country being pro-life went out the window.....I am personally not pro-life and back the right to abortion even though I would not choose that path myself.

I know

Again there is no anchor baby law in this country.

There is a born here, citizen here law.

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1996064,00.html#ixzz0vH9UPEUO

One saving grace.

Just because an Illegal dumps an anchor here doesn't give her rights to stay here.

She will be deported. If she wishes, she can drag her anchor back with her, leave it with legal relatives or give it up for adoption.

...there are amendments though, much like I dont think bearing ARMS applied to the types of weapons we have now, I dont think that clause was meant to make citizens of anyone who could break the immigration laws to get in and have their child,,