I like what you’ve posted and particularly thank you for the link at the bottom. It was good reading. But the 14th Amendment wasn’t the total reason for our present law, which is based on case law: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). (See my post #13 for more details.)
I want to add something. The present Govenor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, was born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens of India. They were legal alien residents and their son is considered to be a native born citizen but not a natural born citizen (Jindal is not eligible to be President).
I firmly believe that the Wong Kim Ark case legal determination has been corrupted. Wong’s parents were legal resident aliens who, because of a treaty, could not naturalize as citizens. “The jusisdiction thereof” should not be perverted into covering the babies of illegal aliens.
I'm familiar with Ark, and the only way the finding in Ark can be reconciled with the Constitution goes back to English law and the concept of Intent [as in knowledge, consent, and full disclosure].
Arks parents legally resided in the US, and, could not by law become citizens because of the treaty with the Emperor of China.
But what was their intent? Would they, given the opportunity, BECOME Americans? If their intent was to be American, then yes, their son was a native born US citizen.
Had they intended to stay Chinese without trying to assimilate into their adopted country, then no. Ark would have been born a Chinese national even though he was born here.
[This conclusion was based mostly on Vattel's Law of Nations, BTW]
-----
You're quite welcome for the link. I read your posts quite often and enjoy your insights. We must have a great interest in the same subject matter because we always seem to be on the same threads. ;-)
-----
If you enjoy such writings, are you familiar with St George Tucker's View of the Constitution of the United States ?
IMHO, it's the definitive work for discerning the original Intent of the Founders.
Part of Tucker's annotated version of Blackstone's Commentaries, it was printed and distributed solely for the purpose of explaining the newly created Constitution to the People.
The original concept of Constitutional treason wasn't what we were all taught it was.....
In the United States of America the people have retained the sovereignty in their own hands: they have in each state distributed the government, or administrative authority of the state, into two distinct branches, internal, and external; the former of these, they have confided, with some few exceptions, to the state government; the latter to the federal government.
Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
emphasis mine
The administrative law of government trying to blend it's laws with the civil laws of the People is treason.
Things like health care, for instance.