Absurd or not, it's what the drafters meant. And it's what the Congress, and the courts of the time, understood without question.
Thinking about the lucid writing of Dave in Post 19, I have to agree with many of his points, and should it be possible to resurrect any record of the debates in the various State legislatures of the time (and it may well be), I think Dave would be persuaded by such a record that indeed, those entrusted with the ratification of 14 did in fact understand the law as intended by its drafters.
The only folks who now don't seem to share that understanding are those that think that linguistic drift should undermine the meaning of words penned long ago; to make them appear "preposterous" to someone reading the language with today's understanding of the meaning of words. Now, to me, THAT'S preposterous.
As for Diplomats, even they are subject to our laws, they are simply immune from prosecution for violations of those laws. You are not the first person who seems to think that our laws against murder don't apply to diplomats. They certainly do. They simply can't be prosecuted in our courts. In fact, thay are not subject to the jurisdiction of our courts.
But the children of non-diplocmatic foreigners are similarly saved from the application of all our laws, for example from a law requiring registration for conscription, or actual conscription itself, should it ever be necessary.
As for you remark about "bending" the law, perhaps you should read up on the history of the 14th, its passage and its enforcement in the courts, right up until Kim. Then you might sing a different tune about just who is "bending" the law.
As for Diplomats, even they are subject to our laws, they are simply immune from prosecution for violations of those laws. You are not the first person who seems to think that our laws against murder don't apply to diplomats. They certainly do. They simply can't be prosecuted in our courts. In fact, thay are not subject to the jurisdiction of our courts.
Yes.
That's it exactly.
I never said that the laws do not apply to them. But they are not subject to our jurisdiction. There's a subtle difference, but a very important one. If they break our laws we have to turn them over to their governments for trial and punishment. That's what jurisdiction means.
And that's the loophole that the drafters of the 14th Amendment placed in it. They obviously never intended that children of foreign dignitaries born in the United States be endowed with automatic citizenship. So they clarified that intent within the language of the Amendment.
Had they ever intended to limit such citizenship to children of citizens, they could easily have done so. But they did not. We can't go by what we think they may have meant, we can only go with the language of the Amendment itself. That it contains a very specific exemption for one group tells us that other exemptions we would like to find in it are not there.
But the children of non-diplocmatic foreigners are similarly saved from the application of all our laws, for example from a law requiring registration for conscription, or actual conscription itself, should it ever be necessary.
Not a great example. There are some regulations and laws that only apply to citizens. Conscription laws to not apply to foreign students, visitors, people on work visas, etc. That does not mean that people on work visas are not subject to our jurisdiction - they most certainly are, since we process he visa, renew or revoke it, etc.
Women are also exempt from Selective Service, but no one yet has floated the argument that half our population is not subject to our jurisdiction....