Well, if I was Mexico, I would argue they are citizens of that nation.  Just as an American couple vacationing, working or temporarily living in another country having a child is an American.

That being said, I do not favor changing the 14th amendment.  I understand the cries about the intent and anchor babies, but as with all government rules and laws, once you start making exceptions, the whole tapestry unravels.  It would be a source of untold law suits and if people are upset with the birthers now, just think how it would be if the 14th was partially repealed!

It should be noted that having more citizens and immigrants is not a bad thing.

The problem starts when you decide to give free stuff to citizens or residents based on nothing but the fact that they are citizens or residents regardless of how they contribute to society.

I am in favor of Arizona enforcing current immigration laws if the federal Gov't refuses to do it's job. But I can not accept the idea of children being born in the US having their citizenship removed just because they parents are illegal immigrants. If the law states they are citizens then they are citizens. To change this to make exceptions not only opens the door to lawsuits but it will make the whole purpose of the amendment useless as will bring about a resurgence of racist arguments and mentalities that will set us back decades and will destroy any progress that had been made till now. The idea is ridiculous, stupid and down right dangerous. I'd rather we make the parents legal citizens than to make exceptions based on race or situation.

Fascinating though that a 'small government' libertarian would be so for changing what has come to be a core principle of the nation, right? 

If everyone thought the same, we would have no reason for debate of discourse.

What exactly about what he's saying diverges from your average winger?  My comment was more pointed at Rand Paul's posing as some sort of purist. 

equally fascinating is he seems to favor it being implemented by judicial legislation.

But you portrayed it as a manifesto of one side.  I showed you where it was not so, as did others.  It does not hurt to have other opinions as they make us examine what we think is true.  Your only fault was in trying to say that all those on one side believe that, which is clearly not the case.

I think Rand Paul is the worst thing that could have happened to Republicans. Even if he wins a general election, he could only open the doors for racicsts and loonies. His father didn't do much good either and is a danger for America's foreign policy.

While other loonies like Sarah Palin are decent people who stand no chance to gain any votes from liberals, the Pauls and their followers are not people I would want to run America. And it's sad that the "Tea Party" is open to everyone, from moderate conservatives to complete and utter morons.

So-called moderate Republicans are not RINOs, they are instead the real Republicans. The Republican party was not created to defend "states rights" or conservatism, let alone the white man's right to discriminate against blacks if he wants to. The party was created specifically to defend the rights of everyone, using violence if necessary. Anything else is RINO.