[GrandEagle]

OK, I'm not spoiling for a fight here. If an illegal is not "subject to the jurisdiction of" then we have no authority to arrest them, or do anything what so ever with them no matter what they did.
In times past, "subject to the jurisdiction or" is used to include territories and possessions of the U.S. government. This is necessary when the clause applies the them because the Constitution is an agreement between the states, and doesn't include possessions of the US government.
The 14th is very clear unless the Klinton rule "it depend what you mean by sex" rule is applied.
The 14th was never intended to provide cover for illegals to enter and stay. As another poster pointed out, it was intended to correct the issue of what to do with the newly freed slaves. Until then, the states determined who was a citizen. "We the people", for better or worse, have now given that authority to the Federal Government. I simply suggested we correct the wording so that "we the people" are protected from a Federal Government that refuses to do its job and protect our border.

Cordially,
GE

[conservative physics]

Congress has the authority to strip anyone of their citizenship.

So no constitutional amendment is required.

They would technically be US citizens when born according to the constitution... but then would have that citizenship stripped from them by congress.

[jackbenimble]

I absolutely think it is a gray area. I would like to see the Constitution amended and clarified to be in conformance with what the authors intended but I don't think that is going to happen. I think Congress should just take advantage of the gray area and define "and subject to the jurisdiction" as they chose as they have done in the past.