The point is not about who is a citizen. The point is about who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the answer is both citizens and residents.
31 CFR 515.329 - Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The term person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;
(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.]
[50 FR 27437, July 3, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003]
The point is regarding what is the correct meaning of the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment.
That it has nothing to do with being subject to the laws is demonstrable by the fact that Indians were subject to the laws, but apparently not "subject to the Jurisdiction thereof".
Had they been "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", they would have been citizens.
Again, this demonstrates that "subject to the Jurisdiction" does not mean the same thing as "subject to our laws."
And once again, Foreign Indians, (the bulk of illegal immigrants) are less subject to our jurisdiction than were US born Indians, and if US born Indians couldn't be citizens, then by no stretch could the children of foreign Indians be citizens.