For all the reasons given by Scalia in various writings, I do not believe the statements of individual members of Congress are relevant to determining the correct interpretation of the Constitution. They may be slightly more important for legislation, but their value for Constitutional interpretation is minimal at best.
A British subject is subject to the jurisdiction of the British government.
Yes they are. But they also are subject to the jurisdiction of the American government if they are within the United States. The only exception is if they have diplomatic immunity.
Luckily Scalia isn't the only originalist to have ever existed.
I suppose the trouble is, everybody is an originalist when it comes to the terms of their medical insurance. I just wish people treated their Constitution with so much reverence. The medical insurance you have is the medical insurance you discussed/read/agreed to at the time, not the new interpretation they're trying to force on you.
The 14th Amendment is absolutely no different.
"Yes they are. But they also are subject to the jurisdiction of the American government if they are within the United States."
No.
Being present is not enough of a hurdle to become a citizen/naturalized. Nobody believes that just standing in a country is a pathway to citizenship.
And Grok's answers are not for legal weight, they're to help us understand that yes, we as Americans did in fact know what this meant without so much consternation.
The schools did this to us. The media did this to us. That paved the way for the judges to do this to us. The progressives did this to us. We've been robbed.
It was not accidental.