[Publius6961]

This, to me, seems clear enough and beyond any argument; how any court could twist the meaning to mean the direct opposite should be a fascinating story:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

[Publius6961]

Do any legal types out there have a clue as to what court decision established that the children of the persons actually listed could claim citizenship?
Although, clearly, that was not the intent.

[Lurking Libertarian]

This, to me, seems clear enough and beyond any argument; how any court could twist the meaning to mean the direct opposite should be a fascinating story: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Not so clear. If he meant all foreigners and aliens, why did he have to add "families of ambassadors"? The Supreme Court in 1898 held that he meant "foreigners and aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors." This actually makes sense of the language of the 14th amendment-- families of diplomats have diplomatic immunity, and are thus not "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law; families of illegal aliens are subject to U.S. law (which is why we can prosecute illegals for crimes they commit here, but we can't prosecute diplomats if they commit crimes).