Please show us where the notes of the 14th refer to A2 qualifications of the constitution and that by the passing of that amendment, it also changed the meaning of A2 qualifications. Even the most liberal of progressive lawyers haven't reached as far as you have. That is why they have for almost 5 decades tried to remove/change the language of A2 qualifications. But hey, you believe whatever fantasy you want. The 14th has 3 criterion, birth or naturalization & "subject to the jurisdiction". Now until immigrants no longer have to renounce any foreign allegiance as a requirement to becoming a US citizen, then ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ means exactly what it was intended by the framers of the 14th, a complete political allegiance, as in NOT owing allegiance to any foreign country and for those of us who were born here, it means FROM BIRTH, not from the age of majority when a person makes that choice freely for him/her self because they were told that some ancient form of feudal law made them a lowly subject instead of a free citizen at birth.
“The 14th has 3 criterion, birth or naturalization & “subject to the jurisdiction”. Now until immigrants no longer have to renounce any foreign allegiance as a requirement to becoming a US citizen, then ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ means exactly what it was intended by the framers of the 14th, a complete political allegiance,”
According to the Supreme Court, “II. 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.”
I guess that’s why the Congress felt compelled to pass a law clarifying the citizenship of American Indians. Unfortunately, the anchor baby issue has never been resolved. I think that its silly to insist that a child of aliens (not a diplomat) born in this country is a citizen by virtue of birth, but it does seem to be the legal presumption that’s in fashion these days. All of this has nothing to do with this thread, so I will defer further discussion to a good anchor baby thread.