If you read his comments CAREFULLY,you will find that he NOT ONLY discusses natural born citizens, but ALSO:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; ...”
CLEARLY, his opinion is that aliens ONLY become citizens “by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions ...”
Illegal aliens ARE NOT compliant, consequently, their children born in the United States ARE NOT EITHER.
FYI: Given his feelings on citizenship, do you think Representative Bingham would have voted FOR unlimited birthright citizenship?
OF COURSE NOT, but he VOTED FOR THE AMENDMENT. This lends credence to the notion that birthright WAS NOT UNLIMITED !!!
Read the Senate debate on that clause. Other members of Congress who voted for the 14th Amendment believed that it did grant citizenship to the children of non-citizen immigrants.
This simply shows why originalist judges, like the late Antonin Scalia, do not care about “legislative intent” when interpreting a statute or the Constitution. Legislatures are made up of several members voting for different things for different reasons. They don’t have an “intent.” Originalists look to the “original public meaning” of the language. Unfortunately, with respect to the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, the meaning was in dispute even among the members of Congress who voted to propose it.