I think this could go on forever, but here goes, one last time....
"owing obedience or allegiance"
The operative word there is "or". Anyone in this country does owe obedience to our power or dominion. Anything less would be chaos.
And I'm not suggesting people can't voluntarily renounce their citizenship. People do it all the time. But it is a formal process and doesn't just magically happen because you reside somewhere else. This country cannot strip someone of their citizenship of ANOTHER country -- what I'm asking for is some proof that their African country of origin stripped them of their citizenship, or they renounced their original citizenship voluntarily. In fact, if you are born a citizen of certain countries, you cannot ever renounce it -- some countries consider you a citizen with all the rights and obligations that implies, despite you obtaining citizenship elsewhere. Does that mean that we would not consider that person's child an American? By your logic, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is defined by being the opposite of "owing allegiance to another country." And if your original country does not recognize your new citizenship, then theoretically you still owe allegiance to it, and there's nothing the U.S. can do about that.
I KNOW why the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. But by the plain words of the Amendment the framers chose NOT to restrict it to African slaves and the children of African slaves. They wrote it to mean just what it says, no more, no less. Any person born here, who is not exempt from our laws (such as children of diplomats) are Americans.
Thanks. It's been fun!
The unavoidable consequence of your own interpretation is that he can't do so while he's in this country. "All persons born" in the U.S., and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (according to your understanding of the term) are citizens. Any one to whom these facts apply can't change those facts about him if he's ever on U.S. soil.
Another inevitable consequence of your interpretation is that a person's citizenship can change just from crossing the border back-and-forth. He's in the country, he's a citizen, he leaves the county, he's not a citizen.
Yet another is that a diplomat's child who's born here, and who later comes back on a non-diplomatic passport, can be considered a U.S. citizen. After all, at that point he's liable to the ordinary judicial process for violations of our laws, and therefore "subject to" our jurisdiction, according to your use of the phrase.
So, how many absurdities are you willing to look at before allowing just a smidgen of common sense to govern how you read this thing?