A few questions - and I am curious, if the intention of the writer(s), and the original Legislators that passed the 14th Amendment was - for anyone born within the jurisdictional boundary to be automatically a U.S. citizen - then -
1. Why are not the children of foreign ambassadors and diplomats who have children born on U.S. soil - to this day - are not U.S. citizens. Why is that?
2. The (though the 14th Amendment had 5 numerical parts, or paragraphs) first paragraph is the one that generates all the controversy. The controversial part reads:
"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...."
Why did it simply not read:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States..."
Why did the original author include "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? That is the crux of the entire 14th Amendment controversy.
So, again, why are not the children of foreign Ambassadors and diplomats born in the USA not U.S. citizens? They never have been - and still are not - given U.S. citizenship. Why?
Those are good questions. I am no expert but tried to do a little reading over the weekend. What I came up with is that the Supreme Court in an 1890's case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, said that the Fourteenth Amendment affirmed the traditional "jus soli" (or birthright citizenship) rule, but included exceptions for children born to foreign diplomats, and to hostile occupying forces or on foreign public ships. The Court added a new exception for children of Indians because they thought they owed their direct allegiance to their tribes. (Congress changed that some 20 or 30 years later, bestowing citizenship on Native Americans) The Court further held that the "Fourteenth Amendment ... has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship" and that it is "throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship."
The clause in the 14th A we've been discussing was put in to overrule the Dred Scott decision that held that slaves and their children (even of freed slaves) were not US citizens.
If this is in error I hope someone will correct, but it seems that the answer to your Q is that it is because of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th A some 100+ years ago. So if people do not like that, they will either have to amend the 14th A OR persuade the Supreme Court to overrule that case.Statistics: Posted by BoiseBYU — Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:09 am
]]>