I understand that you didn't write this article; however, it's not, as you say, "pretty good." It's wrong. Wrong as it can be.
Let's pick a citation, shall we? How abnout Plyer v. Doe, which the author claims stands for the proposition that there is no birthright citizenship for unlawful aliens. He cites footnote 10. I reproduce it here in whole:
In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [FN10]
[fn10]Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' " Id., at 687, 18 S.Ct., at 471.
Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693, 18 S.Ct., at 473. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouvé, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).
Not only does footnote 10 not stand for what he says, it implies the exact opposite! It implies that there IS birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, and it darn near outright says that there is!
All right, let's pick another cite. The Wong Kim Ark case, which appears to be the leading case on the subject. He says that this case stands for the notion that there is no automatic birthright citizenship. WRONG. From the case:
By the civil rights act of 1866, 'all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,' were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, 'not subject to any foreign power,' were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright; or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children or foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country, nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the civil rights act, 'not subject to any foreign power,' gave way, in the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, to the affirmative words, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' 169 US 649, 689.
Again, from the same case:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance **474 and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. 169 US 649, 693.
Note that it doesn't distinugish between legal and illegal aliens: it says resident aliens--that means a person that is HERE. In the United States. Indeed, from later in the same case: "The fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship....The fact, therefore, that acts of congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the constitution: 'All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'" 169 US 649, 703-4.
Elk v. Wilkins, which the author mentions, is taken misused and taken out of context. Elk was a case about an Indian--who was born on tribal lands--NOT the United States. Indian tribes are separate nations; the person in question was NOT born in the United States. Simple as that.
Anyhow, I could go on and on. This author is wrong, and he's so wrong it leads me to believe that he is intentionally lying to try to bolster his case. Sorry; you'll have to come up with something better than this article to convince me that the plain language of the amendment means something different than what it says.
Encyclopædia Britannica Article
Page 1 of 1
IN LAW, a person's DWELLING place as it is defined for purposes of judicial jurisdiction and governmental burdens and benefits.
One entry found for reside.
Main Entry: re·side Pronunciation: ri-'zId Function: intransitive verb Inflected Form(s): re·sid·ed; re·sid·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French resider, from Latin residEre to sit back, remain, abide, from re- + sedEre to sit -- more at SIT 1 a : to be in residence as the incumbent of a benefice or office b : to dwell permanently or continuously : occupy a place as one's LEGAL domicile 2 a : to be present as an element or quality b : to be vested as a right - re·sid·er noun
3 : not migratory
Imagine that. A person is considered a resident of a place, if it's their LEGAL domicile.
I guess that leaves illegal aliens out, doesn't it?
You're not a resident, if you're migratory according to Webster's? Geez, what could they be thinking? Seriously, how could you believe that a legal document, like the Constitution, wouldn't be concerned with one's legal residence or legal domicile?