Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff isn't exactly sure when the desire to alter the 14th Amendment started in earnest, but he is troubled that the movement appears to be gaining steam.

"It's coming from the same kind of hysteria over this belief by the far right that our country is being invaded — they use those terms — by Hispanics," he said. "I've studied history a lot and what they're saying today about Latinos isn't much different than what was said about Irish, Italians or Chinese."

The notion that it is Republicans who are the ones behind altering the amendment pushed by the GOP back in 1866, he said with his voice rising and brow furrowed, "would have Abraham Lincoln turning over in his grave."

Shurtleff, who has a bronze cast of Lincoln's hands that rests on his desk ("One of my most prized possessions"), said he doesn't think the movement to change the so-called birthright clause of the 14th Amendment will actually happen. But, as a Republican, he is troubled by the tone the illegal-immigration debate has taken and thinks passion for changing the U.S. Constitution is borne of a frustrated public and is being fueled by misguided political posturing.

Which is exactly why he was dismayed to see Mike Lee, who is seeking the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Bob Bennett this year, pushing the issue.

But Dan Hauser, Lee's deputy campaign manager, said the birthright clause — the first sentence in the amendment — "needs to be clarified" because the original intent of the amendment's authors has not been upheld.

"If this was to be anybody born in the United States, there would be no need for this clause: 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' " Hauser said. "We want to hold true to what was actually passed through Congress — that the people who are here legally qualify for what is called birthright citizenship — which would be termed as somebody born of at least one parent of U.S citizenship."

—

Right of citizenship • The United States is one of only about 30 nations that grants automatic citizenship to people born within its borders. Called jus soli — the right of citizenship by soil — instead of jus sanguinis, citizenship by bloodline, it wasn't controversial when the country was trying to populate large swaths that contained few inhabitants. But now advocates for changing the birthright clause point to a need for a more formal process for immigration that doesn't reward those who cross the border illegally and have children here.

Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, said the proponents of changing the amendment may have a point.

"I think you could make a pretty good case to the American public — especially when the parents aren't here legally — that they are criminals," Volokh said. "Not horrifically criminal — it's not a monstrous act — but still, we generally aren't allowed to get valuable things for our families through our illegal conduct."

But Volokh also agrees with Dan Levin, associate professor of political science at the University of Utah, that public policy isn't usually made through the U.S. Constitution.

Levin said while state constitutions have been used to circumvent legislatures, the U.S. Constitution isn't used for that purpose.

"The U.S. Constitution is a document that is about the purpose and structure of government," Levin said. "It's not a policy document, nor should it be one."

—

Immigrant offspring • The Pew Hispanic Center released a report in August that showed births to undocumented parents in the United States are significant, but not as widespread as sometimes painted.

An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were of undocumented immigrants — roughly 7.9 percent, according to the study. But Tony Yapias, director of Proyecto Latino de Utah, said it's a myth that those crossing the border illegally are doing so simply to have babies on the American side.

"It's a way to a cheap vote," he said of the political rhetoric. "Nobody that I know in Utah came here to have a baby. I'm offended by that notion."

Pushing that issue, he said, is simply pandering to extremists. He also agreed that it doesn't actually address the enforcement issue at the border.

Which is why Sen. Orrin Hatch sees the calls for a change in the amendment as simply unfeasible. With a required two-thirds passage in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives — along with ratification by three-fourths of all states — he said it would be "extremely difficult" to get done.

And it shouldn't get done, he said.

"Let's not amend the Constitution when we can otherwise handle things," Hatch said. "We just have to enforce the border and enforce our current immigration laws. If we did that, it would go a long way toward resolving these problems."

dmontero@sltrib.com

Matt Canham contributed to this report. —

The 14th Amendment

"."