I'll add this:
The argument here is on the language of the 14th.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This sentence has to be taken wholly and together, because that is how language an legal language works. "All persons born or naturalized in the United State"....has a very specific modifier and qualifier attached to it that MUST go with it....",and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." That comma and the word "and" are pivotal elements because they put direct qualifiers on the first phrase.
It's not "all persons born or naturalized in the United States"
IT IS, however this:(All who are) subject to the jurisdiction thereof (who have been) born or naturalized in the United States---in contextual meaning that is not implied, but expressly stated by the " , and" that links the first phrase to the second phrase of that first sentence.
The real discussion here needs to be on the correct definition of "subject to the jurisdiction". What does that mean? I'll go with the Occam's Razor analysis...the simplest path with the least assumptions is the right answer until evidence proves it is not. There is a vary interesting history of the Civil Acts Right of 1866 and later Wilkins decision regarding Native Americans that come into play....Also there is the Expatriation Act of 1868 that has implications too. We all know that as citizens we are subject to the jurisdiction. This implies there is a pathway or a course that is to be followed. LEgal immigrants, likewise, go through a process to be vetted and to be approved to be here lawfully....therefor subject to the jurisdiction. But what of the foreign alien, the illegal border crosser off the grid and working in the shadows to stay off the rolls and hidden, the visitor on vacation, the pregnant wife of a visiting diplomat here for a couple weeks----do we now grant express consent for any children born here during their visit to be a US citizen---are these people not citizens elsewhere with their allegiances and jurisdictions there? I say absolutely--those people are from their own HOME countries and that is where they are under jurisdiction. Not the US...until they are legal residents seeking citizenship. Do they have laws to follow here---sure, but that is globally universal. That is my reasoning and my thinking. The definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" is the vital element. It is hight time that gets better defined so all this nonsense can end.
Equal protection of the laws goes hand in hand with Consent. A sovereign nation should be able to grant consent to those who seek to be here legally and to gain citizenship. Our constitution gives consent to US Citizens who have children. If liberal interpretations of "birthright" for those here unlawfully or illegally or in the shadows...it is akin to the old British system where if you were born in the King's territory at that time and place, you were therefor subject to the King and could not renounce it. That isn't America...we are a nation of laws and consent, not old feudalism.
