How you coming along with that answer to why children of diplomats do not have citizenship because Congress declares then no subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. This the fourth time I have asked. Guess you don't want to go there. Idiot. Google show you a lot of words but can't show you how to think.
Let's try it this way... name a single upper federal court decisions where birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment was not upheld? Just one. Congress has no jurisdiction whatsoever over birthright citizenship as defined by the 14th Amendment. It is easy to understand why children of foreign diplomats do not have birthright citizenship -- it is because they have diplomatic immunity and are not subject to U.S. law (aka jurisdiction). However a child of a normal citizen (non-diplomat) of a foreign country does not have diplomatic immunity and is subject to U.S. law when on U.S. soil -- hence the 14th Amendment applies to them. This rule regarding children of foreign diplomats is explained in numerous U.S. government documents which can be easily found. For example let's look at Chapter 3 of the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services government website. Chapter 3 - Children Born in the United States to Accredited Diplomats https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-3 By the way, this framework is defined due to international law -- not due to anything done by Congress. The DHS is merely following international laws and regulations for diplomats. The rule is in place to stop the kidnapping the children of declared diplomats by foreign nations who attempt to claim the "child was born here hence they can't leave the country" in attempt to pressure a nation. This rule regarding children born to diplomats is reciprocal across the globe.
I see. So there are reasons why some people born in the U.S. are not citizens even though you have told us twelve times that the Constitution says that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. And you cite international law which makes the point that some of the issues are a matter of law, not constitution. Similarly, the issue of who is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a matter of law, not constitution and that this is controlling where enacted and if enacted further such as if Congress wanted to eliminate chinese birth tourists or children of illegals. You are getting closer, thanks to my help. You are welcome. So here is another question for you. Don't give a bunch of google shit to cover up the fact that you are not able to think this through, just think it through instead. I am trying to help you to become a thinker rather than an assistant thinker. Here is your next question: If, according to your argument, everyone born in the U.S is always a citizen (noting that you were just forced to modify that a little based on the diplomats argument) why did does the construction of the 14th amend even bother to include the language and qualifying factor "subject to the jurisdiction?" I mean if the only criteria is just being born here why is that even needed? Go for it. That's why God gave you google rather than a brain.
Let's try it again -- Name a single upper federal court decisions where birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment was not upheld? Just one. I merely outlined that Congress has NO jurisdiction over the application of the 14th Amendment. When it comes to foreign diplomats it is due to international law -- Congress has no say in the matter. Congress has no power whatsoever "to eliminate" birthright citizenship for "chinese birth tourists or children of illegals". This has already been firmly settled in multiple federal court cases.
So, I am looking for you answer as to why the language "subject to the jurisdiction" was included in the constitution if being born is the only criteria. Guess I would have to work again to rub your nose in that. In regard to your rambling comments about various federal court cases and the supreme court having decided the case before (not true. other cases presented different fact scenarios) suppose, for argument, I accepted that point. Then my next question would be: If it is so clearly settled, why did the current Supreme Court decide to hear the case then rather than dismiss or just uphold the lower court in a summary order???????????? Can you answer that? Instead they accepted the case and held oral arguments on May 15 or thereabouts. I guess the Justices do not have access to google to settle all legal issues the way you go. GIGGLE!!!!!!!!!!
Oh... do get back to us when the Supreme Court handles the latest case. To summarize EVERY SINGLE UPPER FEDERAL COURT DECISION HAS UPHELD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AS DEFINED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Case closed!
I have asked Judge Google several times to explain why the 14th bothers to include the language "and subject to the jurisdiction of" if just being born is the sole test. Justice GWB apparently is thinking that through and won't be ready to answer anytime soon. That's okay. I think I know why.
"Subject to the jurisdiction" means that you are on American soil. If you were not "subject to jurisdiction" then that would mean that anyone located anywhere on the face to the earth would be considered U.S. citizens.