It's already been proven that state and U.S. citizenship laws contradicted British common law in several instances (e.g., not all Black and Native American children born in the U.S. were provided birthright citizenship until the late 19th century at the earliest). And as far as the 14th Amendment I'll refer you to what the drafters, the Senate Judiciary Committee, say it means:
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."Congressional Globe
We all know Obama owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth. The DNC openly admitted Obama's citizenship status is governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 because of his non-U.S. citizen father. The only conclusion we can draw from your claims otherwise is either that you're willfully choosing to remain ignorant, or you're deliberately spreading disinformation to cover for a Constitutionally ineligible president.
It is certain that Kleon made more in his own mind of his reply’s force of logical weight than any other sentient being would be able to. The reason is indeed the “14th”, in its actual wording and in its recorded contemporaneous legislative intent.
Yet I must tender an affection to your good riposte to his reply. That is one must consider how and who establishes by what rules or customs it is determined that one “owes allegiance”.