Money quote(s):
"Yes, it’s true. There must be dozens, perhaps even hundreds of newborns who are extended US citizenship every year even though they are “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Find the evidence in a report from the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies here.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be so snarky: the report is a pretty interesting one."
Not only that, but certainly the children of foreign diplomats can be assumed to have a higher national loyalty to their parent's country rather than our own. That'd be one reason that at least that much of the "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof" restriction actually sticks and hasn't been reduced to Constitutional filler verbiage.
"It considers the single operative exception to the otherwise universal rule of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. (There is one major exception — those born into Native American tribal jurisdiction — but that hole was plugged by statute in 1924.) It’s generally understood to be a minor qualification to the otherwise absolute rule, but leave it to the folks at CIS (who run some very useful programs, including a daily wrap of media items relating to immigration) to check out its (non)effect on the ground.
Turns out that nobody is policing the exception. Children of diplomats born in the US get ordinary birth certificates, which is all you need to demonstrate citizenship."
This is something that consular officers abroad are expected to keep an eye out for when we encounter citizenship cases like this abroad. The State Dept. publishes an annual "blue book," IIRC, that lists all those foreign diplomats to whom this restriction might apply. In cases of doubt, we're supposed to refer back to Washington so they can make a determination.
There's still the exception for children born to members of an occupying army, but there's never been a case where that was operative. Hopefully there never will be.
7/ 11
