And what of the children of illegal aliens, born in this country, who swear an oath of citizenship? Does swearing that oath, in Spanish, in front of their parish priest, make them citizens? If not, then you must admit that it is circular reasoning to require that a person must be a citizen (i.e., "owe direct and immediate allegiance" to the US) in order to become a citizen.
To "owe direct and immediate allegiance" to a country, is to be a citizen of that country. To argue, as the majority SC opinion that you cite does, that John Elk is not a citizen because he does not "owe direct and immediate allegiance" to the US, is to circularly argue that Mr. Elk is not a citizen because he is not a citizen.
But the real acid test is this: the 14th Ammendment's primary purpose, the fundamental reason it was adopted, was to make citizens out of those who had been slaves, who had not legally been citizens before the adoption of the Ammendment. Which interpretation of the Ammendment has the desired effect, and which does not?
If we interpret the Ammendment to mean that only the children of citizens become citizens, then the Ammendment cannot have the intended effect, because the slaves were not the children of citizens. This shows the interpretation you prefer, and which the Supreme Court long ago sanctioned, to be seriously at odds with the original intent of those who wrote and adopted the 14th Ammendment.
That is very true, which is why the Court in 1884 ruled the status of the parents of a child born within the territory of the United States determines whether or not the child is eligible for U.S. citizenship. It is their allegiance to the country that matters, not their kid's.
But the real acid test is this: the 14th Ammendment's primary purpose, the fundamental reason it was adopted, was to make citizens out of those who had been slaves, who had not legally been citizens before the adoption of the Ammendment.
Absolutely, that was what the 14th Amendment's original intent was, to give legal status to the former slaves and their offspring. Foreigners were not part of the deal, the framers of the Amendment said as much and the Court of 1884, which has yet to be overturned correctly interpreted it.
If we interpret the Ammendment to mean that only the children of citizens become citizens, then the Ammendment cannot have the intended effect, because the slaves were not the children of citizens.
Not really because with the ratification of the 14th Amendment former slaves were granted citizenship, which means their kids would fall under the automatic citizenship clause. Legal immigrants who swear an oath of allegiance to the country and become citizens are also included. The Supreme Court ruled that way in United States v Wong Kim Ark of 1898 and it still stands to this day.
Elk wasn't a citizen because he was born not on US land but on land belonging to a tribe not subject to taxation and thus not under the jurisdiction of the US. Elk could no more claim citizenship than the child of a diplomat or a child born in a foreign nation could, and the majority in Elk v. Wilkins stated it exactly that way. If anything, Elk v. Wilkins can be twisted to support birthright citizenship: Unlike foreign diplomats and Elk's Indian tribe, illegal aliens are subject to taxation and to the rule of US law.