Hi Betty. Go here and then to the article via the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326031/posts
In it, the author discusses the different understanding that existed regarding “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Civil War era. So, while you are correct, the culprit might not be poor drafting.
YOU are subject to US jurisdiction in the US and abroad. For example, you MUST file income reporting paperwork. (And a host of other requirements.)
Now, a hypothetical illegal Mexican living in the US goes abroad. Must he file income reporting paperwork with the US IRS? Of course not. Why not? Because his sovereign is not the US...the original understanding of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. It defined an individual’s sovereign.
Nor malfeasance either.
Thank you for the link to Hans A. von Spakovsky's excellent article, published January 14, 2011 at Fox News' Opinion column. I didn't see it the first time around, but am grateful to find it now.
It confirms that my "instinct" about this issue is correct. That ultimately, citizenship boils down to allegiance to the nation one wishes to join. Allegiance is not a "biological fact"; it is an "inherited," cultural fact.
Thus I am definitely in the school of thinking that holds jus sanguinis — from the Latin, meaning "law of the blood" — is a better criterion for determining citizenship than jus soli doctrine ("law of the soil").
The latter gets you mobs of freeloaders at enormous taxpayer expense who care not a hoot about American principles and values. So they have nothing to give their "allegiance" to. You can't make citizens out of unsuitable material — people who don't care about or share fundamental American values to which they can pledge their allegiance.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear brother in Christ, and for the outstanding link!