I agree that my examaple wasn't the greatest, and I agree that there isn't any dispute that even under its broadest interpretation the 14th is conceded not to grant citizenship to the children of diplomats.
But, the AUTHOR of the amendment, and no one should know better than he what his intention was, included the children of foreigners - as a class - among those the Amendment was intended to bar from automatic citizenship by birth.
When this amendment was adopted there were many non-foreign individuals whose own US citizenship was less than certain. They were NOT subject to the jurisdiction of any foreign power, yet they were not clearly citizens in their own right. The 14th was intended to secure the citizenship of the children of this class of person.
The reason that the condition was not expressed "and not subject to the jurisdiction of any foreign power" apparently had to do with the issue of the citizenship for American indians. Too bad, because had the law been worded this way, with no change whatever in the intent of the author (except the introduction of ambiguity into the situation of indians), our we would not today be beset with the "anchor baby" situation.
But, the AUTHOR of the amendment, and no one should know better than he what his intention was, included the children of foreigners - as a class - among those the Amendment was intended to bar from automatic citizenship by birth.
Even if we accept this as fact, it doesn't matter. Only what the Amendment actually says matters.
He could have included "children of foreign nationals" into the language of the Amendment. But maybe then it wouldn't have passed.
The reason that the condition was not expressed "and not subject to the jurisdiction of any foreign power" apparently had to do with the issue of the citizenship for American indians. Too bad, because had the law been worded this way, with no change whatever in the intent of the author (except the introduction of ambiguity into the situation of indians), our we would not today be beset with the "anchor baby" situation.
You may be right. But again, if a specific exemption was intended for a group of people, that should have been articulated. Indians are mentioned in the Constitution itself, they could have been mentioned here.
Again, maybe if he had written the language to provide for the result he really wanted, it might not have passed. That's why we don't look at authorial intent, only by the final language of the law. The author's original intent is no more law than any of the compromise drafts considered before a final version was worked out. All are interesting; none are law.
I agree with you that "anchor babies" are not a good idea. The concept weakens our sovereignty and invites lawbreaking. But by a strict reading of the language of the Constitution, they are Constitutional.
I believe in such a reading of the Constitution. If we don't like what it actually says, we need to change that language. That there are Republicans in Congress willing to adopt Dim tactics for short-term political gain is disappointing, but does not change my opinion.