Actually it was written to deal with native americans. The "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause was intended (and congressional debate proves this) to exempt: Indians subject to tribal law, diplomats (protected by diplomatic immunity), and persons of other countries under American military control. But since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, all children born in the United States to immigrants have been citizens. You don't have to like that from a policy standpoint, but it's settled law.
That's what I said, the impetus for the 14th amendment was to deal with native americans, I didn't say it made them citizens, they were the subject of debate.
Uh NO, Jacob Howard said the purpose was to settle "the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Howard said the citizenship clause was merely declaratory of national law, which was only children born to parents not owing alligence to the United States, were US citizens.
Howard went on to say that subject to the jurisdiction was to be construed "imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
Paul Madison says:
"When one is said to be subject to some nations jurisdiction, this means they are considered as a citizen of that nation. When an alien visits or sneaks into this country they are only under the jurisdiction of local laws and ordinances, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they are not subjects of the nation.
"Consider also that the United States could bar citizens from, say, entering Mexico, but cannot banish an Mexican national from returning to Mexico because such a person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in its exercise of sovereignty over citizens of the United States. "
>You don't have to like that from a policy standpoint, but it's settled law.
Oh? care to point to were this law was settled? You can't point to Kim Ark ruling because that never touched birthright citizenship, and national law continued after Ark to treat children born to aliens as simply alien up to the the 1960's.
So I'd like to see this so-called settled law you speak of.