"The umpire is of the opinion that it is not proved that the claimant was a citizen of the United States. The ground that he is so, is his own statement that he was born at New York, together with a certificate of baptism of a child who was born at New York, Beniguo being one of the names which were given to him; but it is not proved that the child then born and baptised was one and the same person with the claimant. Nor would the mere fact of his having been born at New York be sufficient evidence of citizenship. It is clear that his parents were both aliens at the time of his birth, and it is not shown that they were naturalized or that they or the child remained in the United States. The inference is to the contrary, and the umpire believes that the child in question, even if that child was really the claimant, though born in the United States, was subject to a foreign power and cannot without further proof be considered to be a citizen of the United States"
http://books.google.com/books?id=PM4GAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA2449#v=onepage&q&f=false
Exactly. They were executing the 14th Amendment as written and intended. Trumbull and Howard were quite clear about the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement's meaning in the Congressional Record.
Absolute, total, complete, unmitigated nonsense.
Trumbull and Howard WERE quite clear about the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement.
They intended to exclude the historical exceptions - children of ambassadors, etc., and Indians in tribes. But THEY NEVER, EVER EXPRESSED ANY INTENTION WHATSOEVER TO EXCLUDE THE CHILDREN BORN ON US SOIL OF NON-CITIZEN IMMIGRANT PARENTS.
In fact, the discussion in both houses touched upon such persons, and it was generally agreed that THEY HAD ALWAYS BEEN BORN UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
So when others later came along and interpreted their words to exclude such people, THAT WAS AN ABSOLUTELY CLEAR MISINTERPRETATION.
I'm sorry if you don't like that, but historically, that's the way it is.
Your first quote in 139 is from Samuel Roberts, who was a little judge in Pennsylvania who presided over several counties. He had no national responsibility or stature whatsoever, and was completely contradicted by those who did (e.g., Rawle, Tucker, etc.)
As for your second quote - CONGRATULATIONS. You have successfully found someone who declared people born on US soil to alien parents not to be a citizen, prior to 1880. I didn't think any such cases existed, but they do.
They don't very far before 1880 - I think the declaration you referenced was in 1876. And the judge in question wasn't even an American. It was an international commission, and he was the British foreign minister to the United States. But yes, he misread "subject to a foreign power" in the same way that birthers do, and made a (wrong) judgment on that basis.
The fact is, "subject to a foreign power" really did not say what they intended to say, so that same year when they introduced the 14th Amendment, they changed the wording to "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." As far as I can tell, history does not record exactly why they changed the wording, but it seems pretty obvious to me. "Subject to a foreign power," from a straightforward reading of that term, really wasn't what they meant in the first place.