@georgiarecorder.com does great work covering Georgia

So private persons, entities, states or municipalities can give "permission" to be here, even if contrary to Federal Law? If that so, undocumented immigrants residing in "sanctuary cities" are here with "permission" such that their children are citizens, correct?

Enslaved persons brought into the U.S. after Jan 1, 1808, the effective date of the Federal law banning the slave trade, were not here with the "permission" of the U.S. Govt. Under your theory, what is the citizenship status of their children and descendants?

Prediction: Alito+4 find that Wong Kim Ark was "egregiously wrong when decided" (the current standard for overturning Sup.Ct. precedent), and the dissent had it right all along based on history and tradition...

I'm don't see how it can be irrelevant. The Citizenship clause of the 14A was drafted specifically to overturn Dred Scott, which held no black person could ever be a citizen. I am trying to understand how your interpretation squares with this original purpose.

Were those enslaved people who gave birth before emancipation present in the U.S. "with consent"? If not, what is the citizenship status of their children and subsequent generations?

Alternatively, how does property "owe an allegiance" to any county?

Why did enslaved persons who were here against their will owe "complete allegiance" to the United States?