The Elk case held he was NOT a citizen because he was born on an Indian reservation which is NOT subject to the full jurisdiction of the US. How does that apply to a person born in a public hospital in, say, downtown Seattle?
how can anyone argue that the child of an independent and alien power (i.e. foreign nation) can claim US citizenship by simply being born in the US?
Because it's what the 14th Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
If you are born in the United States, and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (not an ambassador or other legally-exempted individual), then you are a citizen. There should be no argument at all about this.
There is only ONE way to NOT get citizenship when you're born on US soil, and that is to not be under the jurisdiction of the United States. So who is exempted from the laws of the United States, when present here? Who does not fall under US jurisdiction?
Essentially, the only way a person born here (not to an ambassador or other foreign government official) is NOT a citizen by birth is they can, somehow, not be subject to US law. That's the only way out.
So, make the case for who that person would be. Who is not an ambassador and not subject to US laws on US soil?
“If you are born in the United States, and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (not an ambassador or other legally-exempted individual), then you are a citizen. There should be no argument at all about this.”
I don’t think there is an argument about this: such individuals are NATIVE-BORN citizens. If they are NATURAL BORN, then why would one of the co-author of the 14th amendment in the House said:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Very clearly, in the opinion of this 14th amendment co-author, an “anchor baby” would not qualify as natural born citizen since such an infant fails to meet the test of: “parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.” There can be no dispute about this.
By logic, BHO likewise would fail the NBC test on grounds that his father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. How can you dispute this? Are you claiming that the co-author of the 14th amendment didn’t know what he was talking about?