"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Flopper]

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it. The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.

What does that mean, Oldglory1? SCOTUS understands far better than you.

Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it. It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.

It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.

The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason. No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.

Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote. Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.

They could hardly have missed it. It's in the first sentence.

 

[Flopper]

What does that mean, Oldglory1? SCOTUS understands far better than you.

Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it. It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.

It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.

The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason. No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.

Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote. Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.

See- that makes sense under the 14th Amendment. I would put it another way- deport the parents- let them decide whether to bring their American citizen child with them, or leave the child with legal family or abandon the child for adoption.

The problem is how the anchor baby concept works. The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here. In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents.

The "anchor baby" concept does not work, never has, and never will. As I have said before, there is always a grain of true in any good myth and the "anchor baby" myth is no exception. Republicans in congress and the conservative media have chosen to make the "anchor baby" myth a key issue in the immigration debate.

• The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here. There is a bit of truth here. In the unlikely event a parent is tapped for deportation, the parent may apply for cancellation of deportation if the child is a US citizen and that parent provides the financial support for the child. This rule does not apply to all family members. Further, the number of cancellations of deportation is capped at 4,000/yr. With the exception of one year, the actual number of cancellations has been much less than 4,000 which is only .03% of the number of estimated undocumented immigrants in the US.
• In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents. According to the rules of the immigration service, that "anchor baby" can not sponsor anyone. Once the child reaches 21, they may sponsor their parents or children without a significant wait. For other relatives and friends the wait is a minimum of 3 years and is not valid for a person living illegally in the US.

If you think this is why young women risk their lives and well being to enter the US illegally, think again.

 

[Oldglory1]

The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept Plyler.

However, SCOTUS does. It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.

So screech and leech. It makes not a difference.

Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens. Nativists? We have no problem with legal immigrants nor their kids here so you were sayin? The only ones screeching in here are those who refuse to look at what arguments were made about birthright citizenship when the 14th was ratified. They like you, refuse to at least admit it and join the movement to change it because it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in dollars. So just what is your agenda?

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

The wetbacks and packies just take jobs, food, and other resources from tax paying AMERICANS.
If they want freedom, they should convert to our religion, kick the Islamic jihadists out of their own nation, and work for a living instead of living off my tax dollars!!!

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food

 

[Oldglory1]

As is the case with those who seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights solely as a consequence of unwarranted hatred toward gay Americans, so too do those who seek to deny American citizens born in the United Stats their citizenship rights solely as a consequence of unwarranted hatred toward Hispanics, and the fallacy that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment acts as an 'incentive' for those to enter the United States absent authorization.

Fear of change and diversity, along with animus toward a given class of persons, does not justify seeking to deny citizens their civil liberties.

There is nothing in the Constitution that approves of or denies gay marriage so you are comparing apples to oranges here. Oh stop with the race card. No one hates Hispanics that are here legally and it isn't only illegal alien Hispanics that are giving birth on our soil. It's not a fallacy that birthright citizenship attracts illegal aliens. Even heard of birth tourism which is what many Asians do to gain citizenship for their kids? Who in their right mind would desire change that includes illegal immigration into their country by the millions? Mexicans enjoy the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country by far not to mention that they are the largest group here illegally also. Do you call that diversity?

These anchor babies are not citizens according to the writers of the 14th no matter what you claim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept Plyler.

However, SCOTUS does. It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.

So screech and leech. It makes not a difference.

Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens. Nativists? We have no problem with legal immigrants nor their kids here so you were sayin? The only ones screeching in here are those who refuse to look at what arguments were made about birthright citizenship when the 14th was ratified. They like you, refuse to at least admit it and join the movement to change it because it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in dollars. So just what is your agenda?

You have an opinion, yes, but you are not an authority on the matter.

Continue your movement. It will continue destined for failure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food

An unchristian remark by you, and, yes, white women on welfare have children out of wedlock as well.

 

[Oldglory1]

The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept Plyler.

However, SCOTUS does. It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.

So screech and leech. It makes not a difference.

Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens. Nativists? We have no problem with legal immigrants nor their kids here so you were sayin? The only ones screeching in here are those who refuse to look at what arguments were made about birthright citizenship when the 14th was ratified. They like you, refuse to at least admit it and join the movement to change it because it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in dollars. So just what is your agenda?

You have an opinion, yes, but you are not an authority on the matter.

Continue your movement. It will continue destined for failure.

And as a loyal Americans why wouldn't you want to join that movement since it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in tax dollars? It's not like the Constitution hasn't been modified before. What's your agenda?

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food

An unchristian remark by you, and, yes, white women on welfare have children out of wedlock as well.

Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food

An unchristian remark by you, and, yes, white women on welfare have children out of wedlock as well.

God is full of hate for many people., mostly those who are different than us

 

[Flopper]

The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept Plyler.

However, SCOTUS does. It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.

So screech and leech. It makes not a difference.

Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens. Nativists? We have no problem with legal immigrants nor their kids here so you were sayin? The only ones screeching in here are those who refuse to look at what arguments were made about birthright citizenship when the 14th was ratified. They like you, refuse to at least admit it and join the movement to change it because it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in dollars. So just what is your agenda?

You have an opinion, yes, but you are not an authority on the matter.

Continue your movement. It will continue destined for failure.

It reminds me of the Birther Conspiracy but will less substance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And since there is no substance to the birfer beliefs, the nativist anchor-baby wailing is merely wailing.

 

[Flopper]

And since there is no substance to the birfer beliefs, the nativist anchor-baby wailing is merely wailing.

That seems to be case. I think their logic run something like this. If we could just deny these children citizenship, then the hoards of Latin Americans wouldn't come to the US to seek jobs, to be with their families, and to escape crime and violence. 11 million illegal immigrants would pack up and go home.

 

[Conservative65]

The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept Plyler.

However, SCOTUS does. It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.

So screech and leech. It makes not a difference.

Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens. Nativists? We have no problem with legal immigrants nor their kids here so you were sayin? The only ones screeching in here are those who refuse to look at what arguments were made about birthright citizenship when the 14th was ratified. They like you, refuse to at least admit it and join the movement to change it because it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in dollars. So just what is your agenda?

You have an opinion, yes, but you are not an authority on the matter.

Continue your movement. It will continue destined for failure.

It reminds me of the Birther Conspiracy but will less substance.

You remind me of a traitor to his country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh.

 

[protectionist]

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

FALSE!

Of course it's important what Howard meant when he authored the 14th amendment. What he meant is what the 14th amendment always has been > NO ANCHOR BABIES.

 

[protectionist]

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

The language does exclude children of illegal aliens. It is just that you and a few others in here refuse to see it.

 

[protectionist]

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

NONSENSE, and you are a traitor to this country to approve of this massive invasion of our land, after 407,000 US troops sacrificed their lives in World War II, to prevent exactly that.

 

[protectionist]

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

Parents can be legal resident foreigners. The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents. I said we will have to agree to disagree on the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.

The problem is there's no 'problem' to correct – the disagreement doesn't concern the 14th Amendment, it concerns the errant proposition that citizen children born in the United States should be unlawfully denied their citizenship merely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status, an undetermined immigration status, as one is not 'illegal' until adjudicated as such in a court of law.

There is no "their citizenship" as you call it, and they are not "citizen children". They are illegal aliens, just like their parents. And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border. It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.

 

[protectionist]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Absolutely false. The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so. It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.

Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly

Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.

If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”? Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.

14th Amendment Site

He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.