Some ancient history:
Founding Fathers' Attitudes toward Immigrants
The founding fathers were aware of the benefits of encouraging immigrants to settle in the American colonies, but even with the benefits, many of our political leaders had their suspicions concerning immigrants.
Benjamin Franklin had his concerns over the rising number of German immigrants who were pouring into Pennsylvania. He had "misgivings about Germans because of their clannishness, their little knowledge of English, the German press, and the increasing need of interpreters. Speaking of the latter he said, ‘I suppose in a few years they will also be necessary in the Assembly, to tell one-half of our legislators what the other half say.'" (Keely 1979, 9)
On July 7, 1775, the General Washington had issued a General Order that no man should be appointed a sentry who was not a ‘native of the country,’ and three days later he approved an order to the recruiting service ‘not to enlist any person who is not an American-born, unless such person has a wife and family and is a settled resident in this country.’ For service in his own military guard the General permitted only native-born Americans. He inveighed against the relatively large number of foreign officers and adventurers among his troops. ‘My opinion, with respect to emigration,’ he advised John Adams, ‘is that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.’ (Bennett 1963, 7)
Thomas Jefferson favored immigration restriction. In 1782 he stated in part in his Notes on Virginia:
‘But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against any advantage expected form a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which of necessity they must transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours, perhaps, are more peculiar than those of any other. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution with others derived from natural right and reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants. They will bring with them the principles of governments they leave, or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as usual, from one extreme to the other. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely atthe point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers they will share legislation with us. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp or bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.’ (Bennett 1963, 8)
Once the Revolutionary War began with Great Britain, the Continental Congress assumed political authority for the thirteen colonies. The Continental Congress approved in 1781 The Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States.
In regards to immigration laws, the Continental Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, did not claim its authority to regulate immigration. The authority for immigration continued to be at the state level. "Under Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation adopted in 1778, the citizens of each state were made citizens of every other state, but each state retained its own naturalization and immigration laws and standards. This resulted in continued confusion and ineffective legislation concerning immigration." (Bennett 1963, 9)
http://www.oriole.umd.edu/~mddlmddl/791/legal/html/immi1700.html
As written, the 14th Amendment was NOT intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreign subjects.
The Slaughterhouse Cases are the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion is a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the linked source page):
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court
"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."
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.