Replies

Your are right, but how do does the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution without looking at the original intent of the people that actually wrote it?

During the original debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause described the clause as . . . excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

Why is it we still don't allow children born to Ambassadors to be citizens, under your description they would be dual citizens no matter what.

I agree that illegal immigrants pose something of a problem with regards to the Fourteenth Amendment - arguably, given that they do not have a right to be here, and do have a right to consular assistance, they are not subject the jurisdiction of the country (although, since they are arguably). Legal immigrants, though, particularly permanent residents and others who are on a "citizenship track," I think, are pretty clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., so their children are citizens.

There is a huge distinction, however, between immigrants (legal and illegal) and Ambassadors. Ambassadors (and, to some extent, their families) often have diplomatic immunity - that is, they cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed in the U.S., and cannot otherwise be held liable by the U.S. for their conduct while here (though they can be expelled). They are the clearest example of people who are here, but who are most certainly not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

So, while it is arguable whether or not aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., it is clear that Ambassadors are not - hence, it makes sense (at some level) to treat the situations differently.