All persons within the United States are obligated to obey the law, yet not all persons within the United States owe political allegiance to the United States.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Framer of the 14th Amendment said:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
This admits that a person born in the United States might not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they might owe allegiance to somebody else.
If birth within the United States was the sole requirement for citizenship there would be no jurisdiction proviso in the 14th Amendment.
Foreigners owe allegiance to their country as do their children.
That legislative history also makes it clear that many of the Fourteenth Amendment's prominent framers also believed the Fourteen Amendment provided that American Indians and their children could not be U.S. Citizens because the U.S. government dealt with them by treaty.
However, as the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out in Wong Kim Ark, British common law bestowing citizenship on the basis of place of birth (except in certain circumstances) was the law in the North American British colonies, and the law in the U.S. predating the Fourteenth Amendment.
The question, then, is whether the Fourteen Amendment was intended to remove citizenship rights that predated the Fourteenth Amendment.