[dpwiener]

Can you give an example of someone who is born in the US, but who is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment must have had something in mind to write it the way they did.

In reading over the various quotes and comments on this thread, it appears to me that the most reasonable interpretation of that clause is that it was intended to specifically exclude persons born within the physical boundaries of the US but in areas not under its jurisdiction. For example, persons born within foreign embassies (which are considered extraterritorial and under the jurisdictions of other nations) and persons born within Indian tribal reservations (which were not considered within the formal jurisdiction of the US).

That would explain the 1868 quote by Senator Howard referring to "families of ambassadors or foreign ministers", and it would explain the Supreme Court's actions with regard to John Elk. It is not the only possible explanation, but it is certainly a plausible explanation -- one which remains consistent with the long-standing historical interpretation that any baby born in the US is automatically a citizen.

[VRWC_minion]

one which remains consistent with the long-standing historical interpretation that any baby born in the US is automatically a citizen.

However you ignore the issue of being a resident at the time of birth. By example, lets say a woman living in NH gives birth in VT and returns to NH. Was the child ever a citizen of VT with rights to their health care programs ? Answer:No. The child was never a resident of VT at the time of birth.

Questions regarding residence are common in tax law and the answers are not black and white. They lend themselves to being decided by the facts and circumstance in each case.

[WOSG]

In reading over the various quotes and comments on this thread, it appears to me that the most reasonable interpretation of that clause is that it was intended to specifically exclude persons born within the physical boundaries of the US but in areas not under its jurisdiction. For example, persons born within foreign embassies (which are considered extraterritorial and under the jurisdictions of other nations) and persons born within Indian tribal reservations (which were not considered within the formal jurisdiction of the US).

Correct!

But there is an additional aspect to "under the jurisdiction" which includes whether the parents are really a member owing allegiance to a foreign entity. If a barbarian horde invaded Montana, set up a foreign potentate on US land, would their kids be US citizens? Then what of other 'uninvited' persons like illegal aliens? How are they different? The answer is that it can be interpreted different ways, but clearly the 14th Amendment *allows* exceptions where the "jurisdiction" is unclear. Which is why, if we get the Congress to act, we can pass a Constitutionally valid law that defined 'the jurisdiction' to exclude those babies born to women here in the US on tourist visas and those here on now visas at all, ie, illegal aliens. In both cases they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of that clause, no more than diplomats are. But without Congressional action, the presumption of the courts will be the other way in favor of birthright interpretation. JMHO, based on cursory look at the case law. ... For more, go to Vdare.com's article on this subject.