WebsterMark wrote on 11/02/18 at 11:30:52:yeah, and understand that the word JURISDICTION applies to almost anyone on US soil.
did you not read the article? No one at the time it was written, took the 14th to mean what it does today. In fact, they specifically said it did not.
There is no debate as to what it means. The debate is over the leftist wishing to change the meaning so as to add votes.
wtf??? I QUOTE from Andrew Johnson's veto of the 1866 Civil Rights act
"By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of these races, born in the United States, is by the bill made a citizen of the United States."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/veto-of-the-civil-rights-...So this was VERY MUCH on the mind of people as they voted on the 14th amendment, which was meant to fix the mistakes that Johnson didn't like so they could pass it as an Amendment.
it is also reported AS I'VE SAID BEFORE BUT APPARENTLY YOU DON'T LISTEN
While the Citizenship Clause was intended to define as citizens exactly those so defined in the Civil Rights Act,[3][10] which had been debated and passed in the same session of Congress only several months earlier, the clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, phrased it a little differently. In particular, the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed", were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and while Howard and others, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the author of the Civil Rights Act, believed that the formulations were equivalent, others, such as Senator James R. Doolittle from Wisconsin, disagreed, and pushed for an alternative wording.[11]
There was no recorded debate over who was encompassed by the expression "not subject to any foreign power" or whether these same people were excluded by the wording of the Citizenship Clause. Howard, when introducing the addition to the Amendment, stated that it was "the law of the land already"
and that it excluded only "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers".[12] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[13][14] However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Trumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on them at birth,[15][16][17] and no senator offered a contrary opinion. Trumbull even went so far as to assert that this was already true prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, although Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, disagreed, arguing that this was only true for the children of European immigrants.[15] Senator John Conness of California expressed support for the Amendment for giving a constitutional basis for birthright citizenship to all children born in the United States to any parentage (including Chinese noncitizen residents who do not intend to reside permanently in the United States), even though he (and others) thought it had already been guaranteed by the Act,[18] whereas Cowan opposed the Amendment (and Act), arguing that it would have the undesirable outcome of extending citizenship to the children of Chinese and Romani immigrants.[19]
Most of the debate on this section of the Amendment centered on whether the wording in the Civil Rights Act or Howard's proposal more effectively excluded Indians on reservations and in U.S. territories from citizenship. Doolittle asserted, and Senators Reverdy Johnson of Maryland and Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana concurred, that all Indians were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the phrase "Indians not taxed" would be preferable,[20] but Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the U.S. government did not have full jurisdiction over Indian tribes, which governed themselves and made treaties with the United States.[21][22] Moreover, they objected to the phrase "Indians not taxed" on the basis that it could be construed as making citizenship dependent on wealth and also that it would allow states to manipulate who is a citizen in their state through tax policy.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clausealso,
we inherit English common law where:
"Birthright citizenship, as with much United States law, has its roots in English common law.[28] Calvin's Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608),[30] was particularly important as it established that, under English common law, "a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth—a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection."[31] This same principle was adopted by the newly formed United States, as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England ... since as before the Revolution.[32]" United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866). However, Calvin's Case is distinguishable, as a Scotsman was granted title to English land as his King (James VI of Scotland) and England's King (James I of England) were one and the same.[33] Calvin was not born in England.[33] Moreover, in Calvin's Case, Lord Coke cited examples in which the native-born children of parents, either invading the country or who were enemies of the country, were not natural-born subjects because the birth lacked allegiance and obedience to the sovereign.[34]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_Statesfurther more
Wong Kim Ark's parents WERE NEVER CITIZENS. they were denied naturalization due to the Chinese Exclusion Act. and then they WENT BACK TO CHINA. But their son, BORN IN AMERICA, stayed here. the Supreme Court in 1898 declared his BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP valid and UNDENIABLE.
Pages: 1 
