"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."
The reason the 14th amendment does not apply to your argument is because of the clause I have underlined.
i.e. If a child is born to vacationing folks from Bulgaria while staying in an American hotel......that infant is not considered a "Citizen" because he (or his parents) are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are still subject to the jurisdiction of Bulgaria and are not considered citizens.
For this same reason.... children born in the U.S. of Diplomat parents are also not considered citizens. They are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
I'm surprised people still try to use this silly argument about the 14th amendment.
Someone here on vacation on a temporary travel visa is quite a bit different from a legal resident alien permanently residing in the US who has not yet obtained citizenship through naturalization. Santorum’s father for instance was a legal resident alien but not a naturalized citizen when Rick was born, yet he was not under the jurisdiction of Italy either (not to mention his service in the US military prior to his naturalization proved that he was no longer subject to the jurisdiction of Italy). Rick Santorum is a NBC and is eligible to hold the office of POTUS. So are Rubio and Romney and Jindal.
For this same reason.... children born in the U.S. of Diplomat parents are also not considered citizens. They are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
And yet American law says that a child born outside of the US to citizen parent(s) is considered a natural born citizen if certain conditions are met. The reason the children of foreign diplomats are not considered US citizens at birth is due to the unique legal status of foreign diplomats and that embassies are considered sovereign ground of that embassy’s country, not the country in which the embassy is located. This also means that the children of US diplomats serving abroad are not citizens of that country at birth but are US citizens and naturally born, i.e. a US embassy, no matter where it is located is considered to be sovereign ground of the United States.
The US citizenship of the parent or parents only comes into play in cases of a child born outside of the US. This means that someone born outside of the US can still be considered a citizen at birth (NBC) if both parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.; if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national and for those born in US possessions, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and finally; any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time).
Furthermore that means the child of parents neither of whom are US citizens and are merely working for a US embassy or US military base abroad are not considered US citizens at birth because the parental citizenship conditions for children born outside of the US are not met under Title 8 Section 1401 of the US Codes.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
I'm surprised people still try to use this silly argument about the 14th amendment.
I’m surprised people still use the silly argument that children born in the United States are something other than US and naturally born citizens at birth. There are only two types of citizens – those born in the US who are citizens at birth (NBC) and people who are born outside of the US who obtain citizenship through naturalization. A child born in the US (excepting a child born here to foreign diplomats) is not required to obtain “naturalization” because they don’t have to being that they are natural born citizens.