I don’t see how a statement from 1862 of what a “natural born citizen” is has anything to do with the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which was proposed 6 years later and which does not contain the phrase “natural born citizen.”
As an originalist, I think a Constitutional provision (or any other statute, for that matter), should be interpreted in accordance with the original public meaning of the plain language of the document, not at the political ideals of its authors.
If you read his comments CAREFULLY,you will find that he NOT ONLY discusses natural born citizens, but ALSO:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; ...”
CLEARLY, his opinion is that aliens ONLY become citizens “by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions ...”
Illegal aliens ARE NOT compliant, consequently, their children born in the United States ARE NOT EITHER.
FYI: Given his feelings on citizenship, do you think Representative Bingham would have voted FOR unlimited birthright citizenship?
OF COURSE NOT, but he VOTED FOR THE AMENDMENT. This lends credence to the notion that birthright WAS NOT UNLIMITED !!!