It would take me some time but eventually I could put every poster on this thread into one of two categories... the Fogbows, and the Continentals.
I understand and can appreciate your point of view and perhaps the courts or legislative action will codify your position in law.
Whatever was the Founder’s original intent (and we know from the notes taken at the Constitutional Convention that there was unanimous agreement on almost no issue), the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment has altered the view of courts and laws passed since 1865.
The Founders made provision for future generations to alter their thinking on any constitutional issue via amendment and since adoption of the 14th, the Supreme Court has ruled that there are two classes of citizens: born and naturalized: “ALL (no exceptions) 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.” The word “ALL” is definitive.
For example, the Supreme Court ruled in Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 in 1884 that: “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
” Citizens by birth” in the passage above were contrasted with naturalized citizens, with the former class being eligible to be president.
The Supreme Court went on to say in their ruling in Elk v. Wilkens: “This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”