Two of the primary authors of the 14th Amendment said that their intent was to EXCLUDE illegals, aliens, ambassadors, etc...
“Subject to the jurisdiction” is a term that has been around for longer than Europe new of the North American continent! If has ALWAYS meant “allegiance to!” During the dark ages, if a knight plundered another kingdom and raped the queen of his conquered kingdom, his child was automatically “subject to the jurisdiction” of the KNIGHT’s King - because his allegiance followed the father!
Just like Obama! He has allegiance to England - because Kenya was under the jurisdiction of England when he was born; therefore, he is subject to the jurisdiction of England as well as America!
Just because progressive judges have ruled that it means the new meanings ONLY, doesn’t change the original intent!
Europe new of = Europe knew of
Accepting that statement arguendo, the authors should have constructed their Amendment more carefully.
"“Subject to the jurisdiction” is a term that has been around for longer than Europe new of the North American continent! If has ALWAYS meant “allegiance to!” During the dark ages, if a knight plundered another kingdom and raped the queen of his conquered kingdom, his child was automatically “subject to the jurisdiction” of the KNIGHT’s King - because his allegiance followed the father!"
As compelling as that may (or may not be), that is not the applicable English common law that was cited in Ark, to wit...
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin's Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell's State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
Whatever the law was during the Dark Ages, sometime during the Elizabethan Age, things changed in England as witnessed in Calvin's Case, as it was later cited by Gray in Ark.