It is bizarre that after so *MANY* discussions of this topic on Free Republic, that there are still those of us who don't understand that 14th amendment citizenship is not *NATURAL* citizenship. It is in fact a "naturalization."
Don't believe me? Read the actual debates on the 14th amendment. The people trying to pass it through congress *TELL YOU* that it is a "naturalization" process.
They were trying to give citizenship to freed slaves who were already born here. They wouldn't have to give it if it were already natural.
Giving citizenship to non-citizens is naturalization.
The 14th amendment did not re-write "natural born citizen." It created a new naturalization process. That's it. That's all.
It has nothing to do with the 14th amendment and naturalizing parents.
A baby born on US soil and within US jurisdiction does not transform its parents into citizens. That is just not discussed by anyone.
The baby does not define anything about parents, other than perhaps a green card, which is permanent resident alien, and is not a citizen — and thus has nothing to do with naturalization.
Dragging parents into the matter just makes it all meaningless. Suppose a parent of a baby born on US soil within US jurisdiction suddenly renounces citizenship. At the moment of birth. Maybe the birth is only 1/2 completed and they renounce citizenship.
It will not affect the baby. The baby is not responsible for the parents in any way provided there is no aspect of jurisdiction. A renounced citizen standing in an Iowa hospital is not outside US jurisdiction.
The only defined aspect of jurisdiction is diplomatic immunity. There is no other immunity from jurisdiction. How can people imagine there would be after Assange was prosecuted and convicted by plea bargain of US laws when he is not even a US citizen. Jurisdiction is everything.
Wrong, Vattel was writing about European civil law, not the Common Law. Blackstone is the primary source for Common Law definitions, not Vattel.