Jurisprudence and Political Considerations Addressing Jus Soli

Forgive me, but I've sort of been thinking about this one.

There is apparently another means by which we can restrict the phenomenon of "anchor babies" outside the purview of constitutional amendment: Supreme Court decision.

In the case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that enemy aliens were not entitled to jus soli just as the children of foreign nationals hostile or occupying England (and by extension the U.S.) were not American citizens. Justice Grant opined and cited the precedent history of English common law. This is the most important case I can find addressing the immigration component of the 14th Amendment and underlying current interpretation.

Given that the Mexican government has aided and abetted people from making illegal entrance into the United States, a statute could clarify that such actions constituted "hostility" or "allegiance." Grant in Wong Kim Ark alluded to precedent when he outlined how the Court's view of allegiance fit within the context of jus soli.

The words 'not subject to any foreign power' do not in themselves refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that, nevertheless, they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.

The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents merely being domiciled in the country; and it is single, and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of double nationality, has no place in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.

But it is argued that the words 'and not subject to any foreign power' should be construed as excepting from the operation of the statute only the children of public ministers and of aliens born during hostile occupation.

Barring statute, states could argue that national states of emergency constitute declaration of hostility and therefore fulfill the burden met in Wong Kim Ark. Similarly, the President could argue that the national security interests incumbent upon a secure border justify curtailment of this right.

Apparently, according to The Washington Times's Stephen Dinan, the House is fast at work addressing this very issue:

Most legal scholars say the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to almost everyone, with the exception being children of diplomats or children born to enemies in time of war. But new legal scholarship says that's not the case, and Congress could pass a law to change citizenship rules.

That view has taken hold in the House, where H.R. 1940, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, has gained 79 co-sponsors. But reception on the campaign trail is mixed.

Here's how the Republican field stands, as far as I am aware. (If anyone knows of any additions and has the supporting documents, send them on it.)

*Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are co-sponsors H.R.1940.
*Mitt Romney was still studying the issue late last month, according to ABC News' Teddy Davis
*When asked earlier this year, Sen. Sam Brownback said he was going to "fudge" on what he called the "anchor baby proposal," saying it was a constitutional question and out of his hands.
*Giuliani also says it's a constitutional guarantee.
*Rather than letting the constitutional questions be an impediment, Rep. Ron Paul has introduced a constitutional amendment, H.J. RES. 46, to change the 14th Amendment.