By Lee A. Daniels

Two prominent Senators in the last week have said they believe the Senate should consider revoking the automatic right of American citizenship granted all children born in the United States – including children of undocumented immigrants.

Senators Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, and Jon Kyl, of Arizona, both Republicans, said they support the Senate holding hearings on the matter because the right of automatic citizenship has been abused by undocumented immigrants and is a significant part of the problem of illegal immigration.

Revoking the birthright citizenship provision of the Constitution – which is lodged in the post-Civil War 14th Amendment to the Constitution – would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate, followed by approval of three-fourths, or 38, of the states.

If the idea ever moves beyond the talking stage in Congress, it would undoubtedly provoke debate the institution has seen since that over the enactment of the civil rights acts of the 1960s. And, if a proposed amendment passed there, it would embroil the country in controversy for years, as each state legislature considered the measure.

Few observers expect the idea to be seriously considered in either House of Congress.

But the Graham and Kyl statements are a sign the most bitter debate over illegal immigration is intensifying in the wake of a federal court ruling last Thursday blocking the implementation of key provisions of controversial immigration enforcement law on the grounds that it interfered with the federal government’s authority over immigration enforcement.

Arizona officials have already sought an expedited ruling on that decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals insane Francisco, and, whatever that higher court, rules, there’s no doubt the Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of the case.

Some advocates for tougher federal efforts contend that eliminating birthright citizenship is essential to curbing illegal immigration. They say that the 14th Amendment provision was actually meant to protect African Americans born into slavery in this country before the Civil War from being denied citizenship rights by the states of the Old Confederacy. They assert that now that provision motivates many undocumented immigrants to come to the U.S. to have children – because those children then automatically become U.S. citizens and, as such “anchor” their undocumented parents in the country as well.

But critics of the idea point out that the Supreme Court has continually ruled that the birthright-citizenship provision applies to all children born in the U.S.

Others, such as conservative Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, President Bush’s former chief speechwriter, have gone further, declaring the idea a violation of American principles.

In a brief column last Friday, Gerson wrote “The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ for a reason,” pointing out their intent to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision.

Gerson continued, “They purposely chose a standard of citizenship – birth – that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don’t have to please a majority, you just have to be born here.”

Lee A. Daniels is Director of Communications for the NAACP Legal  Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., and Editor-in-Chief of  TheDefendersOnline.