Okay, but did you read back the discussion we were having?
I said NBC was vague in the Constitution, and RL replied that it was obvious so there was no need for more definition. So I asked for one, and RL gave me a passage from a SC ruling.
But I noted that it wasn’t comprehensive as it didn’t answer some questions, and if it was a definition (as it was in a SC ruling), it only said this on children of non-citizen parents and citizenship: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
I mentioned in my post that I didn't, and gave the excuses that I was tired and lazy.
I don't differ with your take on Happersett. I thought I was helping by connecting your view (nothing in there about the status of the parents) with the "subject to the jurisdiction" thing (which is a status of the parents qualifier) that appears in the 14th amendment. That was the only point of my post.