Constitutional scholars are divided on this issue. Personally, I think we will need a Constitutional amendment similar to what was done in Ireland. I would rather not leave it up to SCOTUS. We have over 400,000 anchor babies born annually in this country who automatically become US citizens entitled to all the benefits and rights that imbues. They make up a substantial portion of the people on food stamps and Medicaid.
Re the natural born issue as it pertains to the Constitution, an actual case must be brought to SCOTUS and the court must be willing to accept it. So far, they have been reluctant to touch it because it is so politically charged, especially by the sitting President who just happens to be a minority. Removing Obama thru a SCOTUS ruling would have major consequences to the nation, including possible riots and civil disobedience. I don't see it happening.
Are the parents subject to US jurisdiction if they owe allegiance to another country?Not according to the history and intent of the 14th amendment.
It depends on whose alliegence you are talking about. A newly-born child has no alliegence so you would think would look to the parents to determine it. In the US vs Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray invokes English common law judgments from the early years of the Republic, and implies that birth on American soil makes one a citizen regardless of the status of the parents [diplomats and enemy forces in hostile occupation of a portion of the country's territory excluded].
Here is a pretty good compendium of US court cases on dual citizenship It is a complex issue made even more so by the ability of people to travel much more easily around the globe. I favor, like Scalia and Thomas, that Congress and the people should decide who is and is not a citizen, including who is eligible for President, which is why I want a Constitutional amendment to be the vehicle.
Congress passed the 14th amendment and IMO its clear what they meant and it needs the USSC to state it. I am familiar with the old adage its better for two parties to reach an agreement than to send it to a judge whom neither may like the decision...IN this case they get paid the big bucks..riots or not, otherwise we have no Constitution its a facade.and currently the law is being interpreted (as to USC and illegals) wrongly so there is nothing to loose. I would prefer an amendment but wih all the liberals it isnt going to happen.
Another case by the USSC Plyler v Doe needs to be revisited. It was bad case law then and is ripe for change based on notes in the decision...free schooling for illegals