Chief Justice Marshall wrote the following in The Exchange v. McFadden. Many citizenship cases have cited it or cases that rely on it, including Wong Kim Ark, Elk v. Wilkins, and Minor v. Happersett.
When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant such exemption.
"Unfortunately, the author is incorrect in his conclusion. The definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is long-settled law."
No /SARC detected there so ...
In real life NO law is settled, so clearly it is you who is incorrect.
Since all these citizenship cases wind up in front of a judge or justice they are by definition not settled.
Since Congress enacts statutory changes to laws including Constitutional citizenship they are by definition not settled either.
Since the several States have the Constitutional guaranteed ability to ratify Amendments all these "laws" are by definition not settled.
Since the several States have the Constitutional guaranteed ability to call another Convention all these "laws" are by definition not settled.
Since the ultimate authority, the people themselves have the God-given right and duty to dissolve this farce in toto when all else fails and start anew, well, wait for it, all these "laws" are by definition NOT settled.
If you mean that Marshall decided those five words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are settled, well, you know that is incorrect. Besides the fact that his opinions all preceded the 14th Amendment by decades, your beliefs would require the mad assumption that the authors of the 14th Amendment never heard of John Marshall and his opinion. Dude, even wikipedia got this one right ...
"During debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Howard said:
[The 14th amendment] 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 person."
Furthermore there are even larger once-"settled" elephants in the room - Plessy, just for example.
So you, Barry Hussein Obama, Jorge Ramos, The FOXey News and RNC (R)epublicrats and a few corrupt judges who mis-used the CRYSTAL CLEAR LANGUAGE and ignored the original intent VERIFIED BY THE AUTHOR should be the arbiters here? Not Levin and the rest of the rational world? Hmmm. Who to believe.
Or perhaps you were just being argumentative or contrarian. Problem with that is that it merely promotes the status quo. Who would do that on purpose? Your handle implies Texas so I have to ask, when they finally succeed in turning Texas from "red" to "blue" will you finally wake up then? That *will* be for all practical purposes the end of the electoral road. Forever.
And throughout that paragraph by Marshall is the assumption that these people's sovereign is their foreign sovereign and that they are merely 'amenable' to the jurisdiction of a country being visited and not SUBJECTS of that country they are visiting.
From the paragraph itself: if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.