Your simplistic reading ignores the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". While you in your mind might think otherwise, this is no small thing.
If you were correct, then the wording could just as well be “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
But, pleae take note: That's NOT what the authors wrote, and for good reason. That's NOT what the authors meant, and its not what the ratifiers understood. YOUR view of this matter is the least relevant one of all.
It is a travesty when yo-yos decide that they can ignore what was meant and substitute their own later-day understandings for the understandings of the consitutional authors, even if those yo-tos happen to be judges. In fact that's even worse. And that's exactly what has happened here.
Now, you may THINK what ever you may want to think, and in fact what you think may be the common perception. In this case it is.
It doesn't change the fact that you can only get there by ignoring, twisting, and subverting the Constitution. Hopefully, one day it will be upheld when a case of first impression reaches the court. It hasn't happened yet in the history of the country. Your bent interpretation has never NEVER been tested in the highest Court in the land.
...the wording could just as well be “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
But, pleae take note: That's NOT what the authors wrote, and for good reason. That's NOT what the authors meant, and its not what the ratifiers understood.
It's interesting that you single that phrase out in your post, John. I was just making a point about that phrase to another poster, though I'm not sure that we intended the exact same thing in our communications.
I referred the poster to your post #11.
The Elk vs. Wilkins decision is the "definitive" word regarding the 14th Amendment. This is because they took into account the intentions of the Framers.
In Elk, the SC specifically stated that birthright citizenship only applied to those that fell completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and owing it direct and immeadiate allegiance.
In Wong, they compltely ignored the ruling set down the Elk decision.
Deplorable.