This is an interesting distinction you’re making (territorial vs nationality principle), Pollster, & I’m not familiar with it (yet). This is beyond- far more technical, than the simple definition of ‘’jurisdiction’’.
You’re an attorney? Or at least a student/ former of law? These are surely legal nuances unfamiliar to mere mortals. Help us out, please. The better people understand the hows & whys of these invaders & their enablers, the sooner we might figure out the most effective way to stop it.
Thank you for your post!
I'm not an attorney, although I have been an expert witness multiple times. I was until recently a professional, mostly political, pollster. Lawyers make a living on subtle nuance, and polling is sensitive to subtlety, so I read for it carefully. I think this particular nuance is important.
In terms of original intent, I do not think those who ratified the 14th Amendment would have considered illegals "subject to the jurisdiction" of our government for the purposes of that Amendment. When the words of the Constitution have a single natural meaning, that meaning should be followed. In this case, there are a large number of equally natural meanings for the literal words, more than just the ones I listed, so the original intent should be the meaning followed. I have seen no evidence that the original intent went beyond children born to legal residents (especially former slaves) of the states.