Possible discussion point: with the administration potentially moving on to immigration reform, it's important to understand the constitutional issues involved. Columnist George Will argues that the 14th Amendment, which makes the children of illegal immigrants citizens, derives from flawed constitutional arguments.
A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."... If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.
Is Will correct on the constitutional question? Will constitutionality make a difference?