I have & I have read the congressional testimony & speeches of those that actually wrote the law which you obviously haven't.
FYI...Gray didn't write the 14th & he issued an entirely different opinion in Elk (1884) wherein he quoted the framers of the 14th & the Slaughter-House case:
“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” The Elk case held that the 14th was infact constitutional & even the dissenting Justices in Elk agreed with this. Sorry, but you are just miserably blinded by your shiney google diploma.
“’[t]he phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction “ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.’ The Elk case held that the 14th was infact constitutional & even the dissenting Justices in Elk agreed with this. Sorry, but you are just miserably blinded by your shiney google diploma.”
Firstly, Ark, as you very well know, does not take that position. Secondly, if that’s what the framers intended, they did an awful job of it. Secondly, diplomats and ministers of foreign nations are not fully subject to U.S. law, yes. But regular foreign nationals, obviously, are. I know this because they can be found, in spades, in U.S. prisons. No one save wacky birthers argue otherwise.
If the framers of the 14th amendment wanted to exclude citizens of foreign nations altogether, they should have said so. In order to produce its language, such theoretical framers either were too lazy, assumed too much, or simply didn’t see the potential controversy. Unfortunately, a general intent to exclude dual loyalties is not law. The actual words they used are, and those words confer citizenship status at birth to the children of foreign nationals who are somehow immune to U.S. law.
“who are somehow immune to U.S. law.”
Sorry, that should be: “who are somehow NOT immune to U.S. law.”
By the way, about that “shiney google diploma,” does anyone here seriously believe patlin gets his quotes from anywhere but the internet? Does anyone believe he does not pull them either from previous birther posts or from any of the multitudinous birther sites? You can do so, of course, the long way. That is, using links instead of google. However, people in glass houses still oughtn’t throw stones.