I will explain why it doesn’t destroy anything. “ National jurisdiction” means born into citizenship, ie at least one parent was/is a citizen. This is self-evident in the construction of the statute. Regardless, it hardly matters since the meaning of “natural-born” at the time of the adoption of Constitution is all that really matters.You are proof that a little knowledge plus lots of hubris is a dangerous thing.
Borh within the jurisdiction jeans born subject to our laws. Neither parent need be a citizen. Also, both parents could be unknown and it would make no difference. Notobly missing from your analysis is any citation to the constitution, law, court opinion, or state department regulation.
Wong Kim Ark 167 U.S. at 659-60
"Allegiance is nothing more than the the or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is; and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: First, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and, secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, defacto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine: Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns& So the children of an ambassador are held .to be subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince." 3 Pet. 155. -"The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens." 3 Pet. 156. "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth." 3 Pet. 164
Your birther blather is still just birter blather.
Subchapter III - Nationality and NaturalizationPart I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
Sec. 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
8 U.S.C. § 1401 (2016)
§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
[...]
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
8 FAM 300
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY8 FAM 301
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP8 FAM 301.1
(U) ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES(CT:CITZ-1; 06-27-2018)
(Office of Origin: CA/PPT/S/A)* FAM 301.1-1 (U) INTRODUCTION
(CT:CITZ-1; 06-27-2018). . .
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
The child born in a detention center, two two illegla alies awaitihg deportatioh=n, is born a natural born citizen.
Your theory is that the Framers meant for any person born on American land, regardless of parentage, regardless of their actual citizenship, regardless of culture, language, or creed, is eligible to be president.... If that is true WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THE NATURAL BORN CLAUSE?
Wong has been explained at nauseum. You are hopeless.