And more to this: In the only clarifying cases on this issue ever adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the Court made it clear that the definition of US persons in Amendment XIV was intended only to include those "subject to its jurisdiction," which does not include illegals, Indians, or the children of foriegn nationals not intending to remain in the United States.
Can you point me to such debates?
And more to this: In the only clarifying cases on this issue ever adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the Court made it clear that the definition of US persons in Amendment XIV was intended only to include those "subject to its jurisdiction," which does not include illegals, Indians, or the children of foriegn nationals not intending to remain in the United States.
That is doubly wrong: first, the cases you are talking about were construing the citizenship provision of section 1, not the apportionment provision of section 2. Section 2 doesn't say anything about "subject to the jurisdiction"; it says "the whole number of persons", which means "the whole number of persons." Second, even if we were talking about section 1, there is no Supreme Court case that says that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they weren't, they couldn't be prosecuted for illegal entry (like diplomats, who are truly "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they have diplomatic immunity).
I thought we supported the Constitution here on FR; I guess some people only support the parts of it they find temporarily convenient.