Explain, then, how a participant in the original legislation clearly thought otherwise:
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...[6]
Further, are you then arguing that British soldiers and mercenaries during the War of 1812 were under the "jurisdiction" of the United States and thereby any children born here to them were also citizens?
How about any children that might have been fathered by the mass murderers of 911 ?
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.
Let's leave the fanciful interpretation thing to others, shall we?
The only question here is who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
I can't answer for conditions back in 1812, but as of today, my understanding of American jurisdiction relevant to this matter is that it encompasses the area within our National borders, excluding foreign embassies and the like, so any children born of the 9-11 hijackers on our soil would become citizens, and it is that same understanding of jurisdiction which has allowed Zaccharias Moussaoui, a French citizen, to be arrested on our soil and tried in our courts - he has plainly fallen under our jurisdiction.