I edited the post I made below saying you're right. I was tired of your childish, evidence free trolling for a few days.

More evidence how absolutely ignorant and clueless you actually are,

is in the amended post.

STOP the PRESSES, YOU'RE RIGHT, I'm WRONG.

Edit:

I didn't like the way our arguments were going because showing you multiple regulations, and different usages of the term ''subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you refused to admit any evidence as though you're above it.

I showed you US Code, DHS regulations, you kept trying to argue from the absurdity of your own complete ignorance meaning you had to be right.

I decided I didn't want to argue with you any more about this in those terms because you obviously weren't going to listen to reason of any kind in the kind of mindset you'd worked yourself into.

I showed you evidence for what I was saying, you never batted an eye and swore not a word I said was true

while providing ZERO evidence of your own.

So what I did was ask myself ''What's your basic argument?''

Your basic premise is the Supreme Court has always ruled along the lines of New York's Lynch v Clarke, Wong Kim Ark (spelling) etc.

I realized that - yes, it IS true that the SCOTUS has repeatedly referred to a couple of very early rulings.

That much of what you said, IS true.

So, for the time being, I just said ''I'm wrong you're right.''

I knew there are a LOT of highly cogent articles on this subject

and that when things cooled down a little if I felt I was right,

I could come back having looked over a few things.

After looking through the case law again, I thought "It's been a few days, lemme see if I can find one of the really clear historical articles on the 14th that explains why ''subject to the Jurisdiction'' is included repeatedly, in important immigration law.

FIRST search, FIRST page, FIRST return.

There are plenty more well written arguments explaining this.

This is called The Federalist and the article goes back to 2007.

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means by P.A. MADISON on September 22nd, 2007

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

A couple of paragraphs in:

"Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment enacted law, that confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

Thus, the statute can be construed to mean,

"All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates,

that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,”

and that if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866

that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens:

“We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States,

except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham,

said Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant

“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.”

Author's observation: ''If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant."

Showing you voluminous usages of these and other terms in my previous posts, got nothing but arrogant scoffing. No research, just assertions of being right.

Therefore I retreated to allow for things to cool off some. People ask us to not get into these ''I'm a topper/No, I'M a topper'' class arguments.

Like I said before, I don't think you really understand what we're talking about, here.

It's perfectly plain from the language used by the legislators who drew up and ratified the 14th Amendment that regardless of any previous rulings,

they intended the 14th Amendment to

S.P.E.C.I.F.I.C.A.L.L.Y. EXCLUDE CHILDREN of TEMPORARY ALIENS AS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENS.

U.S.I.N.G.

pretty much, those very W.O.R.D.S.

Further down:

"...In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General – who was a Senator during the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause debates – ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment…

Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent..."

"...Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. "

Also from the article: House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated,

“The United States have not recognized a double allegiance.

By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

Should you ever do any research or reading about the subject,

you're gonna learn a whole lot you didn't know. Obviously you didn't have any idea the very people who WROTE and PASSED the 14th had said all this.

The very people who wrote and ratified the 14th, stated repeatedly

"this does NOT make citizens of temporary sojourners' whose allegiance is already to another government, citizens."

A.G.A.I.N: In those very words.

''THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT MAKE CITIZENS of CHILDREN BORN to TEMPORARY SOJOURNERS whose allegiance is already to another. We are NOT creating DUAL citizenships.''