I would like you to justify your claim that birth on soil = citizenship in light of the Expatriation Act of 1868. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? The law is the law and there has never been ANY law legalizing the "concept" of dual citizenship. The heart of the 14th lies in the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" which is clearly laid out in the law of 1868 which was passed 2 years after the civil rights act. The 14th was passed to formally make the states comply with the rights of blacks to right of citizenship by way of Constituional Amendment. It says NOTHING of foreigners, diplomats, etc. & neither did the preceeding law which stated:
"All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."
Nope, no diplomats or such there, just a general class of ALL foreigns regardless of their title. These judges that quote from English law, words which have NEVER been codified in ANY of our laws. It's called judicial activism. Judicial activism aka legislating from the bench which has never been codified into law. In fact it should be reason enough to have a judges & justices impeached immediately for practicing it.
“not subject to any foreign power”
This does NOT mean ‘has citizenship elsewhere’ - read WKA. Someone can be a foreign citizen and still be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. The WKA decision discusses it fully.
A diplomat or member of an invading army are examples of foreigners who ARE subject to a foreign power - only here due to the demands of their home country.
If you do not understand this concept - that a foreigner can still be under our jurisdiction and not subject to a foreign power - then you aren’t ready to discuss the issue. I suggest you study some more...
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html