You still miss the point. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not refer to the mere legal jurisdiction of the laws of the United States, as that would be true of virtually any child born in the United States, even the child of Diplomats.
Diplomats are not subject to our laws. They are not subject to our criminal justice system (except possibly in extremely limited circumstances). The worst we can do is send them home. The same is not true of illegals. We can throw illegals in jail (although we don't do that nearly often enough).
In fact, what this article and others have tried to convey with limited success is that the "jurisdiction" referred to is more than mere legal jurisdiction. It is "complete jurisdiction", that is, a singular claim on the loyalty and affection of the individual.
They've had limited success because it's a preposterous argument. It's absurd on its face.
I don't like the law as it stands. We should change it. But those of us who believe in the rule of law know that there's only one way to do that, and it isn't by bending the law to get the result we want.
Absurd or not, it's what the drafters meant. And it's what the Congress, and the courts of the time, understood without question.
Thinking about the lucid writing of Dave in Post 19, I have to agree with many of his points, and should it be possible to resurrect any record of the debates in the various State legislatures of the time (and it may well be), I think Dave would be persuaded by such a record that indeed, those entrusted with the ratification of 14 did in fact understand the law as intended by its drafters.
The only folks who now don't seem to share that understanding are those that think that linguistic drift should undermine the meaning of words penned long ago; to make them appear "preposterous" to someone reading the language with today's understanding of the meaning of words. Now, to me, THAT'S preposterous.
As for Diplomats, even they are subject to our laws, they are simply immune from prosecution for violations of those laws. You are not the first person who seems to think that our laws against murder don't apply to diplomats. They certainly do. They simply can't be prosecuted in our courts. In fact, thay are not subject to the jurisdiction of our courts.
But the children of non-diplocmatic foreigners are similarly saved from the application of all our laws, for example from a law requiring registration for conscription, or actual conscription itself, should it ever be necessary.
As for you remark about "bending" the law, perhaps you should read up on the history of the 14th, its passage and its enforcement in the courts, right up until Kim. Then you might sing a different tune about just who is "bending" the law.
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866: [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...>/B>
Sounds definitive to me.
Part of the oath of Naturalization
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...