> The phrase is exclusively intended to handle both foreign and US diplomats. I'd argue that the phrase was originally intended to make it absolutely clear tha

> The phrase is exclusively intended to handle both foreign and US diplomats. I'd argue that the phrase was originally intended to make it absolutely clear that formerly enslaved people were citizens, and so were their children. Obviously it's been used for other purposes since then, and the authors and those who ratified it considered the repercussions through their own biases, but I believe that was almost exclusively the primary intent. It's striking me at the moment how much the political climate today mirrors that of the time the 14th was ratified. From a historical perspective, the concern is over the expansion of the electorate - from the abolition of slavery then, and from uncontrolled immigration today. The difference I see is that the abolition of slavery was a positive decision made by the US government; today's concerns around illegal immigration were caused by our failure to enforce our own laws. Based on my understanding of the motivations of our Justices today, that could be a key difference.