OK, a link would be nice.
I'm guessing (you were not specific) at what you are requesting a link for - so here goes.
(i) In addition to the example upthread (circa 2010 that I read last week), here is an example of how a policy was applied in 2007 and how the policy has changed in application to the current era.
In 1997, an illegal already deported once, illegally re-entered the US, had a child, and was not caught, arrested, and deported until 2006/07. The child (presumed to be a US citizen) was also deported. (
LINK) This effort and result generated litigation on behalf of the deported, but the court upheld the deportations (despite the presumed citizenship of the child). Coleman v. United States, 454 F. Supp. 2d 757, 760 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
Months later, in late 2006 and early 2007, several workplace raids resulted in arrests and the start of deportation efforts of illegals, some with US-born children (presumed citizens). ICE had softened its policies (some): "We grant humanitarian relief in the case that someone is a single parent or sole caregiver of a child," she says. "We go to extraordinary means to find out." (
LINK) The particulars of the humanitarian relief were not explained, but it appears to be softer than the initial deportation of the illegal mom followed by the deportation of (presumed) citizen child, esp. in light of the public outcry of the 2006/07 arrest and deportation in the paragraph above.
After another high-profile incident in Oct. 2007, ICE issued new guidelines on how ICE agents should treat single parents, pregnant or nursing women, and other immigrants with special child or family care responsibilities who are arrested in raids. (
LINK)
Recent policy has been to place many US-born children into foster care when one/both illegal parents are deported. (
LINK - page 5)
Given how government regulatory agencies tend to operate (having litigated matters before several agencies), the consistent application of such policies is at the mercy of subjective judgment, as clearly demonstrated in this series of examples.
(ii) With regard to the 14th Amdt and the 100 years thing -- the 14th Amdt has been around for 160+ years, but the citizenship clause is a lightly litigated aspect of that amendment. The privileges and immunities clause, as well as equal protection and due process (as applied through the states) gets much more litigation attention. Although a
very recent development may bring this clause into the federal court spotlight.
One part of the reason why the citizenship clause has been lightly litigated is that illegal immigration did not because a significant issue until the 60s, esp. in the aftermath of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which increased the caps and loosened some of the standards for legal immigration, relaxing enforcement (and in turn, encouraged more illegal entry). Until the mid 60s, immigration was a highly regulated and controlled process, esp. from the 20s to the late 50s, when the derogatory label "WOP" (without papers) came into vogue and was a source of shame for many illegals. So, the immigration problem emerged as a problem in the late 60s and early 70s and has progressively increased to now.
Evidence of that is simply searching "birthright citizenship" - bunch of links. After looking at a couple, imo,
Wikipedia provides a decent starting point regarding the (light) history of birthright citizenship in the courts. This
link is more comprehensive on the few legal battles that have ensued.
One of the noted historians and scholars on "birthright citizenship", and critic of current policy interpretation and policies springing from those interpretations, John Eastman, has challenged everyone that opposes his view to cite a case, an enacted law, an executive order, or a presidential memorandum that supports the broad interpretation of birthright citizenship to extend to children of non-citizen illegals. To date no one has or can because none exist. It was an assumption that has become policy. It's legal basis is shaky at best. (
LINK)
