So after reading opinion after opinion on this subject and the conclusions thereof contained in the document you so graciously provided. I've come to the conclusion that you didn't even read it, or you agree with the original author of the amendment, who stated that children of parents that are under the jurisdiction of another nation, are born citizens of that nation and not eligible for citizenship here. The language of the amendment was explained by its author and the Ark case didn't address the issue being discussed today, so it isn't settled. There is a tradition, but not a ruling. An excerpt, one of several just like it within it, if you will:
"It is not to be admitted that the children of persons so situated become citizens by the accident of birth. On the contrary, [p732] I am of opinion that the President and Senate by treaty, and the Congress by naturalization, have the power, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment, to prescribe that all persons of a particular race, or their children, cannot become citizens, and that it results that the consent to allow such persons to come into and reside within our geographical limits does not carry with it the imposition of citizenship upon children born to them while in this country under such consent, in spite of treaty and statute.
In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens."
One is not a moron because he has an opinion different from you, but you just keep on throwing ad-hominens out there like you're programming dictates. You tell us more about yourself every time you do it.
