Wrong. Neither the 14th Amendment nor it's precursor, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 altered the meaning of *natural-born citizen*.
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham , March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., (1866) [page 1291]
Sorry – the Library of Congress disables active links
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
'Subject to the jurisdiction' and 'born within the allegiance' mean exactly the same thing.
Huh?
What you just posted does mean much at all.
All Red Barns are Red.
All Red Barns are Barns.
Not every Barn is Red.
Just because something is red, does not mean it is a barn.
Your posts do not address birth right citizenship to those born outside US Territory at all, what you just posted is true but narrow, and what you posted does not exclude other routes to birth right or NATURAL BORN citizenship.