You are misinterpreting what it means to be "subject to the juridiction thereof".
"The language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen. The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully). Such was the view of those who authored the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause; of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases and the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins; of Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional treatise writer of the day; and of the State Department, which, in the 1880s, issued directives to U.S. embassies to that effect."
https://www.newsweek.com/some-questi...pinion-1524483 Originally Posted by friendly fred
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...im_Ark#Dissent
this is a much later case than the 1872 case. it took place in 1898 and was a 6-2 decision.
it cites a number of other immigration cases.
you'd lose if you tried to bring that argument to the court. the court back then disagreed those cases were relevant to wong or in this kamala.
The question of the citizenship status of U.S.-born children of alien parents had, up to this time, never been decided by the Supreme Court.[77][99] The U.S. government argued that Wong's claim to U.S. citizenship was ruled out by the Supreme Court's interpretation of jurisdiction in its 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases ruling,[75] but the district judge concluded that the language in question was obiter dictum and not directly relevant to the case at hand.[77][100] The government also cited a similar statement in Elk v. Wilkins, but the judge was not convinced by this argument either.[101][102]
