From: Steve Smith (e-mail him)

Two years ago I wrote my congressman (Henry Waxman) about the US government extending birthright citizenship to foreign diplomatic workers’ anchor babies, and I also wrote the Center For Immigration Studies.

This month, CIS finally released  a report Birthright Citizenship for Children of Foreign Diplomats? [By John Feere, July 2011]

I never expected anything from Congressman Waxman. But the CIS did write a report and it reveals (as I suspected) that the U.S. government does nothing to exclude foreign diplomats and their children and staff from US citizenship—it doesn't even count them or keep a master list.

What triggered the letter to my Congressman and the CIS was a FOIA request to the State Dept as to how they track and treat diplomats and their staff in regards to US citizenship birthrights. Their response was essentially to tell me to "pound sand". It was then that I realized that they don't do anything to deny US citizenship to anybody—even foreign diplomats or even avowed enemies such as OBL (had he had children born here).

Apparently the CIS report and inquiry is generating some sort of response from the State Department (not Congress?).

My point is letters help and some even provoke responses.

By the way, the UN has over 25,000 workers (along with their families) and nearly every country on the planet has embassies and "satellite embassies" in nearly every state—each with dozens of employees and families in each one. [VDARE.com note: There are a lot of Mexican Consulates.]

Given the nature of the one-sided crappy foreigner-favouring treaties America has signed over the last twenty years, I can't help thinking that a large portion of the US State Department is in fact foreign nationals and second and third generation alien diplomatic anchor babies. 

See previous letters from Steve Smith.

James Fulford writes: Seven years ago, I wrote this:

"Consider the following hypothetical case:

“Imagine that an invading army enters the United States, wearing uniforms and carrying arms, and behaving exactly like an army, but bringing their wives.

“This is what the European armies of the early nineteenth century did, during the Napoleonic Wars, after all. Women frequently gave birth in foreign countries.

“If this hypothetical invading army stayed long enough to have children, would the enemy soldiers’ sons and daughters be American citizens?

“Would those children have the right to return to the US, years later, and sponsor their soldier fathers, who would presumably have been expelled in this hypothetical war?

“The idea is ridiculous."

But it's not much more ridiculous than declaring someone an American citizen because his parents are here working in a foreign embassy. This exact situation was contemplated by the people who passed the 14th Amendment in 1868, and that is one of the specific meanings of the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Apparently the Government just doesn't care.