Sorry, but you are still making two assumptions, at least one of which is disputed by the text of the quote in question. The first assumption is that the author of the quote had the same definition of aliens in mind as that of Jefferson. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't - there doesn't seem to be any definitive way of showing that. And the reason I said Jefferson's definition is irrelevant is because when interpreting any law that is ambiguous, the courts look at the legislative history and at the contemporaneous comments of the drafters of the law to provide context. They don't go back to statements of men long dead at the time the law was drafted unless the author of the law specifically references such as a source or authority for the law.
The second assumption is that, even if the author has Jefferson's definition of aliens in mind that it would somehow change that statement to mean 3 different groups, rather than one group. The structure of the sentence still reflects an intent for the term "aliens" to modify or clarify the term "foreigners". Actually, your argument that the term "aliens" refers to a particular class of foreigners supports the idea that the author only intended to restrict birthright citizenship to the class that he referenced, namely the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers. So this argument still does not support the idea that you are making.
Now I have heard others make better arguments about the intent of the drafters of the 14th that would argue against birthright citizenship. My only point is that focusing on this one quote undermines the argument, rather than supports it.
The author of the 14th amendment used the meaning that Jefferson stated. That was well-researched and presented by constitutional scholar and lawyer Mark Levin.
As betty boop says, do your homework.
The public is not yet fully aware of how the left has bamboozled them in creating a loophole for immigration attorneys to expand their business.
It will all come to a head over the next year and will result in overwhelming support for legislation to clarify exceptions under the 14th amendment. And the public is not going to be taking much more crap from Justice Kennedy and the other black robed subversives. Trump will knock them out with the FDR playbook if necessary.
Senator Howard mentions three classes: aliens, foreigners, and families of ambassadors. Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power; foreigners are overseas people temporarily in the country, as in tourists; ambassadors and ministers accredited to the U.S. government who are in the country to represent the interests of the foreign power that sent them are obviously "aliens" within Thomas Jefferson's meaning.
As were also the Indian tribes, who were regarded as giving their primary allegiance to their tribal governments — which meant they could not or would not give their primary allegiance to the United States.
The children of all four groups were considered ineligible for U.S. citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment at the time of its framing. It all boils down to the matter of allegiance to the United States.
The terms "alien" and "foreigner" are not simply synonyms. Each term has its own particular meaning. TJ's definition of "alien" is specific, exact; "foreigners" is more of a catch-all, generic term. But you conflate them.
Consider this observation from Jon Feere:
Although, as a result of federal statutory law, all native-born Indians are regarded as citizens today, at the time of the 14th Amendment Indian tribes were treated as foreign powers, and members of the tribe were presumed to owe their first allegiance to the tribe. [Thus they are "aliens" within TJ's meaning, and not simply "foreigners."] There was no need to refer specifically to Indian tribes in the Amendment because it simply stood to reason that, for an Indian, mere presence in the United States could not be treated as a transfer of allegiance from his tribe to the United States. Query whether, in the 21st century, it stands to reason that a French tourist who gives premature birth to a child during a two-week visit to Disney World should, by virtue of her presence in Orlando, be regarded as having forsaken her allegiance to France.This French lady is a "foreigner."
The fact that she is also an "alien" within Jefferson's meaning is irrelevant given this state of facts: A mere visit to Disneyland does not even raise the issue of a consensual transfer of allegiance from France to the United States.
Your reading of this issue appears to be rather shallow and devoid of simple common sense. Just because Thomas Jefferson was not alive at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted does not mean that his influence on these deliberations was not deeply felt. (And you cannot demonstrate that it was not.)
What you seem to be doing, dear CA Conservative, with your line of argument, is "creating a loophole for immigration attorneys to expand their business," as Hostage put it. These types are in the business of torturing texts to make them say whatever it is they want them to say. This "textual approach" completely obscures the underlying meaning and rationale of the 14th Amendment.
God knows we have enough of that sort of thing already.