[Auntie Dem]

An illegal immigrant advocate/exploiter could plausibly argue the terms foreigner and alien only apply to diplomats and their families. But for the comma after aliens I might agree with that argument. I'm no anal grammarian, but the comma indicates to me an intent to separate the parties (foreigners/aliens and diplomats) into separate groups that are both subject to the non-citizen designation. Just my 2 cents.

[dangus]

This is a transcription, so the comma reflects what the transcriber understood the person to mean. Mind you, the Senate offices would approve the transcription. From the broader context, he's listing, not making a parenthetical statement. First, he says the 14th amendment does not create new law, but is only declaratory. Thus, older precedents apply.

"and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States."

At first blush. United States v Wong Kim seems to establish that all children born on US soil, even of aliens, are granted citizenship. But the actual text clarifies an important point:

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.

Now, illegal aliens may not be an occupying army, and as Christians we would pause before labeling them enemies, but the point is that their loyalty remains to their homeland, not to the United States, as they have neither renounced their prior citizenship, nor taken any action towards aquiring U.S. citizenship, nor acquiesced to U.S. law upon entering the U.S. So even if they're not included in the precise wording of who was denied U.S. citizenship at birth ("enemies", "foreign diplomats," etc.), they are certainly included in the reasoning of who was denied U.S. citizenship at birth ("not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction" of the government*.) *In the quote, the government is represented by the King, but the context clearly intends to apply that to the U.S. government.