More on the 14th

 It's possible that law-profs at Marquette University read opinions which run counter to theirs.

So here's a solid for them.

...Someone from Great Britain visiting the United States is subject to our laws while here, which is to say subject to our partial or territorial jurisdiction. He must drive on the right-hand side of the road rather than the left, for example. But he does not thereby owe allegiance to the United States; he is not subject to being drafted into our army; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason (as opposed to ordinary violations of law) if he takes up arms against the United States, for he has breached no oath of allegiance.

So which understanding of “subject to the jurisdiction” did the drafters of the 14th Amendment have in mind? 

Happily, we don’t need to speculate, as they were asked that very question. They unambiguously stated that it meant “complete” jurisdiction, such as existed under the law at the time, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which excluded from citizenship those born on U.S. soil who were “subject to a foreign power.”...

The essay also mentions the dicta in Slaughterhouse Cases:

...“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” 

Then mentions Elk:

...It then confirmed that understanding in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins, holding that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase required that one be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”...

All that is aside from the inanity of granting citizenship to a person who is ILLEGALLY within the US, a construct which would demonstrate certifiable insanity in the holder thereof.

Finally,

...More fundamentally, this understanding of the Citizenship Clause is the only one compatible with the consent of the governed principle articulated in the Declaration of Independence. ...

Might take more than an MU law-prof's smarts to grok that, but we'll leave it to them. 

One more thing:  The Supremes NEVER ruled on 'birthright citizenship from illegal moms.'  There IS a ruling, but the parent(s) were legal aliens.