“While their parents had to follow US law while here, they had to answer to a call from their mother country, and as such were ‘under the jurisdiction’ of the mother country, but in a different way.”
Here’s one thing I’ve wondered. If the framers of the 14th amendment truly intended to exclude those with divided loyalties from being citizens, why didn’t they specify “not under the jurisdiction of any other nation,” instead? To the other country, dual citizens would appear to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S., as much as we might say a kid with a German citizen father is under German jurisdiction. One jurisdiction doesn’t cancel out the other.
If the amendment said under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and only the U.S., I’d undertand. But for now, I don’t.
The argument of the dissent is that this is exactly what the composers of the 14th amendment said, that the two phrases are synonymous in meaning and function.
I haven't studied the debate of the period, but these snippets are provided by the dissent in Wong Kim Ark:
The jurists and statesmen referred to in the majority opinion, notably Senators Trumbull and Reverdy Johnson, concurred in that view, Senator Trumbull saying: 'What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybodyelse; that is what it means.' And Senator Johnson: 'Now, all that this amendment provides is that all persons born within the United States, and not subject to some foreign power (for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us), shall be considered as citizens of the United States.' Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Cong. 2893 et seq.
Cong. Globe is the title for the equivalent of what is now the Congressional Record.