TED HILTON - Taxpayer Revolution San Diego

Regarding the proposed ballot measure to restrict benefits and birth certificates to those here unlawfully, the North County Times made a correct analysis: The U.S. Supreme Court has never decided a case stating that children born to those here unlawfully are citizens of the United States.

It is very clear from the debates in 1866, recorded in the Congressional Globe and from early court decisions, that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause was not intended to mean that everyone born on our soil is a citizen. The polls show a majority of Californians want the automatic citizenship policy ended.

The practice is a major attraction for unlawful migrations. As the author of this initiative, I believe there is intent for the laws to raise those issues.

The San Diego County Registrar's Office reports that 60 percent of the birth certificate applications do not contain a parent's Social Security number. There will be a mandatory requirement to provide a Social Security number. If a parent is neither a citizen or permanent resident, the document will indicate "foreign parent," but that information does not create a second certificate. In addition, the birth mother will be subject to strict requirements in order to receive the document. These include providing official government identification, photographs and fingerprint, all to be transmitted to Homeland Security.

Those requirements serve as a deterrent to save taxpayer dollars from the many who choose to deliver in the United States but lack the money to pay for it.

The North County Times commentary states every child is guaranteed equal protection, but the federal government does not mandate that states issue benefits to children whose parents do not qualify. We are simply following federal law by stopping the child-only welfare program. There are Supreme Court decisions that hold that equal protection is applied differently for those who are not similarly circumstanced.

Every country in Europe has ended birthright citizenship, and the reason given by the last to end it was to terminate the welfare magnet.

Congress is asleep at the wheel. Article V of the 14th Amendment gives it the authority to define "subject to the jurisdiction." But our national elected representatives will not move on this issue until a state makes the case first.

More and more citizens are waking up to the fact that our nation cannot control its borders until we grant citizenship according to the parent's relationship to our country, not its soil.

If one reads about the original intent of the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause, the authors did not intend for it to grant citizenship to Korean tourists' children to exempt them from military service; nor to drug cartel kingpins, nor to the Sept. 11 terrorists nor any others who overstay visas or illegally cross our border. It is time to return to the original meaning of our Constitution.

Ted Hilton is with the Taxpayer Revolution San Diego and is the author of the California Taxpayer Protection Act.