The 14th amendment didn't apply to Indians or children of foreign ambassadors in 1870....
It didn't apply to slaves in 1850, either.
But that was found to be unconstitutional.
Please stahp being stoopid.
You are showing your ignorance the 14th amendment only applied to slaves.....
There has not been a court case that says other wise to challenge an illegal born baby
Fact: As noted above, requiring that one parent be a legal permanent resident, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is exactly what the 14th Amendment means. No case law has ever determined this to mean anything else. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Court denied a bid for citizenship from an individual who was born on an Indian Reservation and moved to non-reservation territory in the U.S. Law Professor John Eastman has an impressive and concise analysis of the case law on the citizenship clause and proves incontrovertibly that any limitation on birthright citizenship (such as requiring that one parent be a permanent resident) would not need be enacted through a constitutional amendment - See more at:
Conservative Review - Fixing the Birthright Citizenship Loophole: Myth vs Fact