Uh NO, Jacob Howard said the purpose was to settle "the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Howard said the citizenship clause was merely declaratory of national law, which was only children born to parents not owing alligence to the United States, were US citizens.
Howard went on to say that subject to the jurisdiction was to be construed "imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
Paul Madison says:
"When one is said to be subject to some nations jurisdiction, this means they are considered as a citizen of that nation. When an alien visits or sneaks into this country they are only under the jurisdiction of local laws and ordinances, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they are not subjects of the nation.
"Consider also that the United States could bar citizens from, say, entering Mexico, but cannot banish an Mexican national from returning to Mexico because such a person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in its exercise of sovereignty over citizens of the United States. "
>You don't have to like that from a policy standpoint, but it's settled law.
Oh? care to point to were this law was settled? You can't point to Kim Ark ruling because that never touched birthright citizenship, and national law continued after Ark to treat children born to aliens as simply alien up to the the 1960's.
So I'd like to see this so-called settled law you speak of.
It didn't? You must have a different copy of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898) than I have sitting on my desk in front of me because not only did it "touch" on birthright citizenship, birthright citizenship was the only issue at hand in the case. It specifically addresses birthright citizenship, and, as the majority held,
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect of the submission of this case... were to present for determination the single question [emphasis mine]... namely, whether a child born in the United Sates, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. [T]his court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
In other words, the Supreme Court has recognized birthright citizenship since 1898. This is settled law, and no court has EVER ruled otherwise. Your argument is a nice one -- just like the pseudo-legalist arguments that Texas was never admitted to the Union or that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, but like those, here again the emperor has no clothes. You need more than a good story to overturn long settled constitutional law.