“if one IS NOT known to be IN the jurisdiction.”
Which would seem to be any birth which is filed and acknowledged would be accompanied with ‘jurisdiction thereof’ over the child.
“And, “enemies” DID NOT have to be from a country in a declared state of war with the realm. They included strangers who surepticiously resided within the realm WITHOUT the explicit permission of the Sovreign. That is, the Sovreign DID NOT know they were there.”
Does it apply to allies, such as Mexico?
“Per Common Law, ANY child born to such an “enemy” WAS NOT a ‘natural-born subject’ “
Again, the law at present disagrees with you, stating only that one who is born in America and resides in America for the greater portion of their life sufficient to maintain residency is considered to be ‘natural born subject’. Provided that they do not later recant their citizenship by accepting the citizenship of another country.
However, that’s not the argument at present. There’s a difference between ‘natural born subject’, and between ‘citizen’. Citizenship can be acquired through other means.
I’m not going to re-post your response here - too long ...
1. You OBVIOUSLY DON’T KNOW how the Supreme Court works. It takes an issue and rules in a narrowly constrained way. Take the seminal Wong Kim Ark Case. Ark argued that he was a citizen under the 14th Amendment by being born in the US of LEGAL immigrants. The Court noted Calvin’s Case from England as MAJOR guidance to the decision, but in the end, ruled solely on the basis of Ark’s assertion. The Court ruled that YES, a child of LEGAL immigrants IS a citizen of the US.
2. Your assertion that ANY child born in the US is under US jurisdiction is ludicrous and falacious. The Court, in ARK, DISAGREED with you. The Court agreed with Calvin’s Case that a child [born in the US] of an enemy IS NOT a citizen.
3. Just because the Mexican government is an ally DOES NOT MEAN that ALL of its citizens are. Take, for example, Mexicans who may be terrorists - are their children [born in the US] citizens?
4. The English Common Law stated that ANY stranger who DID NOT seek permission of the Sovreign to dwell in ENGLAND was an enemy AND a spy. Their children, born in England, WERE NOT subjects.
5. Subjects [and citizens] owe an allegiance to the Sovreign - and [likewise] the Sovreign has a duty to protect them. BUT, a Sovreign CANNOT be held to hold up his end if an alien DOES NOT make a PROPER application to remain in-country. By international treaties, shipwrecked sailors [starting in the 1200s] were allowed to remain on foreign soil until they could return to their homeland [which might be many years]. HOWEVER, immediately after being shipwrecked, they had to report to the local government. Otherwise, they risked being executed when caught.
Summing up, the ONLY decision EVER made by the Supreme Court concerning citizenship was that a child of LEGAL immigrants is a citizen under the 14th Amendment. And, while the Court asserted that children of “enemies” ARE NOT citizens, the Court HAS NEVER ruled on it and HAS NEVER ruled that illegal immigrants are “enemies”. On the other hand, the Court has ALSO NOT ruled illegal immigrants as friends.
Some day, if one of the laws being proposed as the subject of this thread is enacted, a case of a child [born to ILLEGAL immigrants] WILL come before the Court. THEN, the Court will have to decide whether of not such a child is a citizen.
Until the, keep your backyard constitutional interpretations to yourself. Read the cases, do the legwork - and fill your posts with legal citations. Otherwise, your pontifications on the 14th Amendment are PURE conjecture ...