However, about half of the GOP’s 2016 candidates actually back Trump’s war on “anchor babies” and the 14th Amendment.

Gilmore did agree that it is “abusing the system” when women enter the country specifically to have babies, but still, “it’s risky to go into a situation where you take people who are not favored and begin to remove their citizenship“. Problem is, how do you discern the allegiance of a newborn? Will 300 million Americans have to traipse down to some government office and produce a maze of paperwork showing that their parents were documented residents of the U.S.? What’s newsy is him implying that that ruling should apply not just prospectively but retroactively (“I don’t think they have American citizenship”), meaning that many thousands of people – some now adults – who have lived all their lives in America as citizens would suddenly find themselves stateless.

The United States confers citizenship by what’s referred as jus soli – Latin for right of soil – as opposed to jus sanguinis – Latin for right of blood. Doing so involves overturning an interpretation of the law that goes back virtually to the beginning of the republic. (Native Americans were granted citizenship by statute in 1924, though that allegiance/dual-loyalty paradox still clouds much of Indian law.). And the courts have always held that due process requires any foreigner to be given a “meaningful hearing” in court before being deported.

Is the U.S. unique in offering it?

Some well-meaning Republican candidates are calling for an amendment to the Constitution to ban birthright citizenship.

The Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks to limit immigration to the United States, says that 30 of the world’s 194 countries allow birthright citizenship, but that the United States and Canada are the only two advanced economies that do so. No. Why? Because the Constitution says they aren’t.

Critics of birthright citizenship also claim “birth tourism” is a troubling and growing concern. What gain is there to continue to alienate its leaders and citizens upon whom we rely for help fighting drug cartels and, yes, providing laborers who do so numerous backbreaking jobs in this country?

How can it be changed?

At the time, the amendment was intended to definitively declare the newly freed slaves citizens, but since then it’s been interpreted to cover the children of immigrants as well.

But Trump and some other conservatives have suggested birthright citizenship could be ended by simply passing a law through Congress that defines the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof“.

Cruz said Wednesday that he “absolutely” favors ending automatic citizenship to those born in the country as guaranteed in the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

One of the biggest political proponents of this position is Iowa Rep. Steve King, a Republican who has introduced legislation to restrict birthright citizenship to legal residents.

But that’s not all, or even most, of what Trump had to say to O’Reilly.

Advertisement

Though Cruz’s get-tough attitude on illegal immigration certainly matches Trump’s, the two men differ vastly on policies involving legal immigration. Amusing – except when you realize that in recent years it’s usually only taken a couple years for plainly ridiculous far right legal theories to jump from the blogosphere to at least four votes on the Supreme Court. “I was a congressman, you put your name on a hundred bills just to make somebody happy”, he said, adding that the issue has become a “stumbling block” or “another wrench” in efforts to achieve immigration reform.