The 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The 14th was written in an era when immigration was something generally seen as a positive good and there was essentially no such thing as illegal immigration because there were no quotas. Also, that exception for children of diplomats and foreign heads of state comes directly from the literal language of the 14th. Since diplomats and heads of state have diplomatic immunity, they certainly are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Granted, current law takes a narrow view of who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but a broader view could mean that illegal immigrants would be able to avail themselves of diplomatic immunity and be subject to nothing more than deportation if they broke our laws unless their country of origin chose to waive immunity. In all, I don't think we should try to change birthright citizenship without an amendment. The practical and political problems of such a change means that it needs broad support if it be done.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd like to see a citation for that claim that immigration was more permanent back in the 19th century. There's always been a portion of those who came here intending to work for a while and then head home, some of whom later decided to stay. I can believe that the fraction who did so has changed over the decades, but I'm doubtful it's been a big change.