Yes, but so is the ambassador. That issue was also settled in the senate debate for the Citizenship Clause. An ambassador can't murder a US citizen and be immune from prosecution.So what?? I'm sure the king under English common law would not have tolerated a serial killer under cloak of ambassadorship. Ambassadors (within a tremendous expanse) are "not subject to the jursidiction" of the US, and the concept maps directly to the "natural born" exception that the SC referenced.
Look it is not possible for "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean "citizen". 1) "Subject..jurisdiction" is a *quality* of citizenship in the clause and 2) if they meant "citizen" why not just say "citizen".
That's just it, there wouldn't be a child born into citizenship in that household. To me, it would seem impossible to even naturalize the child until the child was old enough to renounce all possible conflicting allegiances.Americans are not required to renounce all possible conflicting allegiances. I have a Canadian friend with an American wife who has three sons, all born in the US...natural born citizen, never naturalized...who have citizenship in Canada. You are imagining an America that has never existed. Wong Kim Ark only became an issue because he was Chinese. If his parents had been English citizens, no one would have denied him all the rights of a natural born citizen.
I repeat: The Constitution only discusses TWO types of citizen 1) naturalized and 2) natural born. If your a citizen and you're not one, then you are the other.
The 14th amendment was written almost 90 years after the Constitution was ratified. The mindset of (some of) its voters can hardly be considered representative of the original Founders who did not define "natural born" because they knew what it meant from common law. The debates you are hanging so much on did not even directly pertain to the purpose clause itself or the final text. They were a side issue.
Finally, it doesn't matter what some senator thought in 1867. The SCOTUS --dealing directly with what "citizen" meant when the Founders voted on the Constitution-- clarified the issue in 1898. And, by that definition, Obama is a natural born citizen.
It's clear what the Framers of the clause had in mind.It is not clear fromt the text of the constitution. What is clear is that the child would be a natural born citizen based on English common law (on which ALL US non-Federal law was based). All the ways that having a father who was an ambassador would complicate things is hardly made clear even based on what some senator said once whose opinion did not prevail in the debates on the 14th amendment.
The American born child of English citizens wouldn't be a Natural Born Citizen. You keep ignoring the language of the Constitution and the intent of the Framers.
Your devotion to English common law in regards to anchor babies is especially humorous considering England doesn't recognize a child who is born on English soil as a British citizen if neither parent is a British citizen.
The 14th amendment was written almost 90 years after the Constitution was ratified. The mindset of (some of) its voters can hardly be considered representative of the original Founders
I'll try this one more time. An amendment to the Constitution isn't supposed to represent the mindset of the original Founders. The amendment process exists for the primary purpose of rejecting the mindset of the original Founders.