Does it mean merely subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States? That is, subject to the laws of the United States as is virtually everyone on US soil including aliens who are here illegally, or are here for the purpose of bearing a child to make it an American Citizen, or does the "jurisdiction" of the United States mean something more than that? Such as the FULL and COMPLETE jurisdiction, requiring an allegiance that comes from a permanent lawful commitment to make the US ones home, the place where one permanently and lawfully resides. I believe this latter interpretation is compelled by the citizenship clause, text structure, and history, as well as by Common Sense.

If "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means nothing more than the duty of obedience to the laws of the United States then why did its framers choose such a strange way to say that? Why didn't they just say "subject to the laws of the United States"? Doing so would have been quite natural given that this straightforward unambiguous language is used in both Article VI and Article III of the US Constitution.

The clause also makes sure that it makes Citizens the newborns in both the United States and of the "states wherein they reside", that is where they live, their home, these words standing alone implies lawful permanent residence, and it plainly excludes tourists, as well as other lawful visitors, as well as illegal aliens who are prohibited by wall from residing within a state although they all must obey our laws.

Second, the history of 14th Amendment, the clause was framed by the 39th congress to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had been passed by that same congress just two months earlier. The 1866 act explicitly denied Birthright Citizenship to persons "subject to any foreign power" and to "Indians not taxed". It is clear in the debate in the 39th congress that congress decided to replace this language with "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" NOT because congress suddenly and without any comment decided to radically broaden the scope of Birthright Citizenship but rather that Congress was concerned that the phrase "Indians not taxed" generated uncertainty about the children of Indians, primarily rich and poor Indians.

The dispute is best captured I think by this comment from Senator Trumble who wanted to replace the words "Indians not taxed" even though he was the principle author of those words in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Senator Trumble had this to say: "I am not willing to make citizenship in this country depend on taxation, I am not willing, if the Senator from Wisconsin is, that the rich Indian residing in New York shall be a citizen and the poor Indian residing in the state of New York shall not be a citizen."

>>509521071
Senator Trumbles language illuminate two important points about the intended meaning of the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by its authors. First, they intended that the children of Tribal Indians who resided on reservations and owed their direct allegiance to their tribes would not be entitled to Birthright Citizenship, but the children of assimilated Indians, who had left their reservations, who had established a PERMANENT RESIDENCE among the body politic of the states would be entitled to birthright citizenship.

Second, it is not at all plausible that the framers of the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment intended that tribal Indians to be able to evade this limitation on Birthright Citizenship for their children by the simple expedient of leaving the reservation long enough to give birth to a child.

The KEY DISTINCTION between the tribal Indians and the assimilated Indians was ALLEGIANCE. Tribal Indians owed their direct allegiance to the Tribe while an Indian who had established a permanent domicile within the state and assimilated into the body politic committed his PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE to the United States and thus entitled his children to Citizenship at Birth.

>>509521016 (OP)
Look up what an Outlaw was when the constitution was written and suddenly it makes perfect sense. If you aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the law, like you enter illegally or are declared an outlaw - then murdering you isn't a crime.

The fact that basic historical facts/standards are so easily glossed over and ignored by legal historians/scholars shows just how retarded they truly are.

Seriously just go watch a video or read an article about what it meant to be an outlaw (which was definitely still a thing in the 1700s and 1800s even) . Once you understand it suddenly that line is very obvious

The Supreme Courts decision at Elk v. Wilkins confirmed this understanding, ruling that the clause requires persons to be "COMPLETELY subject to the POLITICAL JURISDICTION" and "owing direct and immediate allegiance to the United States"