IOW, the 14th amendment says more than "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes only the common law exceptions of children born to foreign diplomats, children born during hostile occupation and (the now irrelevant) children born to sovereign indigenous tribes. "Anchor babies" are still subject to U.S. laws and can be prosecuted and incarcerated for such. Unlike with "diplomatic immunity" (diplomats and their children truly are considered outside U.S. jurisdiction) the sanction is not limited simply to deportation.
Within the judiciary, that "anchor babies" are NBC isn't even really debated at this point. Consider:
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. . . . .
* * * The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States. He also has relatives in Mexico." Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983).
IOW, the 14th amendment says more than "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
It does. But for purposes of my reply to the other poster simply demonstrating that "native born citizen" equals "natural born citizen," I didn't need to bother with the noted exceptions since such children are considered neither "native born citizens" nor "natural born citizens."