That may be your own view, but it doesn't square with your interpretation of "subject to".
Being brought to this country does not automatically make you an American citizen (eg. African-born slaves).
Not in and of itself. But the laws definitely did strip them of their former citizenship.
After all, the amendment doesn't explicitly say that "born" and "subject to" have to be concurrent, and therefore it is a matter of judicial interpretation.
There's no room for judicial interpretation there. If they had meant, born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., then that's all they would have said: "All persons born or naturalized subject to [or "under", or "within"] the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens...." It would have gotten across the same point without unnecessary extra verbiage. They clearly are saying, all persons who were born in the U.S., and are subject to its jurisdiction.
Ok, but I'm logging off after this...
"Subject to jurisdiction" means that you must comply with local laws or face the consequences. And that's the case no matter what citizenship you are. Even if you're an illegal alien. If we don't want illegal aliens to be subject to our jurisdiction (in order to deny their children the Consititional right of citizenship), then we need to pass a law to that effect. But again, that would result in a huge class of undocumented persons who could break laws with impunity, and would only face deportation as a consequence -- which is why it's never been done.
WHAT LAWS STRIPPED SLAVES OF THEIR FORMER CITIZENSHIP??? So far, no-one here has explained this. NO COUNTRY CAN STRIP A PERSON OF ITS CITIZENSHIP OF ANOTHER COUNTRY. A country can choose to GIVE YOU citizenship, and they can require you to renounce your former citizenship in exchange for the privilege, but they CANNOT TAKE AWAY what they didn't give in the first place if you don't want them to. And by what mechanism did the U.S. give citizenship to slaves not born here who did not subsequently apply for naturalization (thus, at the time, renouncing former allegiances)? SHOW ME THE LAW. So there must have been many children of slaves whose parents or other forebears were never U.S. citizens (because no such laws existed), who were born here, and were not diplomatically immune. In fact, this would have been the vast preponderance of the people of African origin who were granted citizenship by this Amendment.
So what you're saying is that anyone born here, no matter what the citizenship of his or her parents, who is not diplomatically immune is a citizen. I'm so glad we agree.