[Michael Michael]

You better read it out loud, in context, starting about 15 to 20 lines above the statement Howard is listing who is not citizens. Remember to pause between the commas.

I have.

The words 'foreigners' and 'aliens' does not modify the following clause that contains the words ambassadors and ministers.

You're right. It's just the opposite. "Embassadors and foreign ministers" modifies "foreigners, aliens."

It does not include those born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens.

What foreigners, aliens?

Those who belong to the families of embassadors and foreign ministers.

Anyway, I've had enough of your word games. We don't have to parse sentences. We have the following fact about which you persist in obfuscating.

Just after Howard introduces the citizenship clause, Senator Cowan asks Howard specifically what citizenship means. And specifically asks if the child born to non-citizen Chinese immigrants in California are to be citizens of the United States.

Senator Howard does not reply. Instead Senator Conness of California does, and declares that children born to non-citizen Chinese immigrants in California are indeed to be considered citizens of the United States.

Senator Howard is the next to speak after Conness.

Does he offer any objection to Conness' declaration that the children of non-citizen Chinese in California be considered citizens of the United States, and not "foreigners, aliens" as you claim Howard intends in his statement?

If Howard had intended as such, he most certainly would have objected and set Senator Conness straight. However he did not. Nor did any other Senator. Howard simply notes a typo in the amendment.

The debate then became centered exclusively on Indians, in response to Senator Doolittle's proposal that "excluding Indians not taxed" be added to the citizenship clause.

[Red Steel]

What foreigners, aliens?

The subject may have been about Indians, but this does include OTHER foreigners and aliens and is not only about the diplomat and ambassador crowd. Saying it only applies to Indians is being disingenuous.

But Trumbull's words spell out what exactly what it means to be "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Mr. Trumbull: "Of course my opinion is not better than any other member of the Senate; but it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestion of the Senator from Wisconsin [Howard]. The provision is that "all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens."

That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof, are citizens."...

What we mean by the "Subject to jurisdiction of the United States? Not owning allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Not one Senator objected to the meaning of Senator Trumbull's words - no one objected.

A slam dunk! There's is noway you can get around the meaning and intent of "subject of the jurisdiction thereof"

And it doesn't ONLY apply to Indian tribes. Obama has never been subjected to the complete jurisdiction of the United States OR not owning allegiance to anyone else!

Obama was a British subject, a Kenyan citizen, and most likely retains his Indonesian citizenship. Therefore, Obama cannot be a natural born citizen.