No it doesn't and that's not the argument that i was making.  

 

As an analogy, when a team is fielding a punt, should a member of the returning team touches the ball after its kicked and passes the line of scrimmage the ball is live.  However, if the member of the receiving team was blocked into the ball then its like he never touched it.  

 

The argument that i put forth wouldn't overturn, in whole, the concept of birthright citizenship as put forth in the 14th amendment.  My argument is that if the geographical location of the birth as set forth in the amendment is, in and of itself, a violation of the laws of the jurisdiction of the united states, because of the illegal status of the parents, then the geographical location should not confer citizenship to the child.

 

In other words, if the very act of the parents being in the country is a crime, then we shouldn't be rewarding criminal behavior.  

 

As to xenophobia or racism you're better than that. You can make your case without implying that anyone who holds an antithetical position is riding around in their white hoods.  

 

In order to have a country you have to have sovereignty and part of that sovereignty is controlling the flow of people in and out of the country.  If its your position that we should have an unlimited amount of legal immigration to the country but monitored, then that's fine.  I may disagree but i could respect the argument.  At current what we have is anarchy, and that's the real surrender of US jurisdiction. 

---