[MHGinTN]

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, inserted the phrase:
“... 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 ... Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens ...”

[Conscience of a Conservative]

That quote seems to be suggesting that the child of a foreign citizen is not a citizen at all. This is a position that has been consistently rejected for over 100 years - if the framers of the fourteenth amendment wanted citizenship to attach only to children of people "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof," they would have said that; they didn't. The word "complete" appears only in this one senator's interpretation of the amendment, not in the amendment itself.

Also, that is a quote that deals with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the Fourteenth amendment. It says nothing about the interpretation of the phrase "natural born citizen" in Article 2. Unless, again, you are arguing that the children of non-citizens are not citizens, in which case you'd be ignoring 100+ years of consistent caselaw & statutes.

[Eastbound]

" '. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof."

"Complete" simplifies a very complex issue. Thanks.