“using the ‘under the jurisdiction’ clause to limit it to those born to legal residents “
“No we can’t.”
Congress can define ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ to exclude for example those on tourist visas and illegal aliens, in the same manner as diplomats are excluded.
The case could be made, it may not fly with SCOTUS, but Congress has power to make law under the 14th amendment to implement it and could try to do so.
“Illegal aliens are not outside U.S. jurisdiction.”
Neither are diplomats from that perspective. One could make the argument that they are outside the law and thus are not ‘under the jurisdiction’ ... analogy - would invading barbarian armies get citizenship too?
“Congress can define ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ to exclude for example those on tourist visas and illegal aliens, in the same manner as diplomats are excluded.”
No they couldn’t, because the latter have qualified immunity whereas the former do not. Unless we were to extending diplomatic privileges to aliens. But we won’t, ever, because we don’t want to. We want them to be subject to our jurisdiction, as they always have been.
“Neither are diplomats from that perspective.”
Yes they are. it’s called qualified immunity. To say nothing of the age-old traditions of international relations.
“One could make the argument that they are outside the law and thus are not ‘under the jurisdiction’”
No one couldn’t. Not unless we suddenly dumped them all out of the system and radically changed their status, which we won’t do. They are quit clearly inside the law under current conditions.
“analogy - would invading barbarian armies get citizenship too?”
Apparently you’re unaware of that invading armies, along with diplomats and native tribes, are among the conventional “above the law” groups. They belong together for obvious reasons, reasons which exclude illegals, which I believe are too obvious for me to go into. The only relation illegal immigrants bear to invading armies is in the fever-addled minds of hyperbolists.