Yes, but that is completely consistent with the "diplomatic immunity" view of the Amendment. A person with diplomatic immunity is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" even if they are within the jurisdiction of the State or USA.
And an illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States when he leaves the United States, while our citizens are.
Except for Criminal jurisdiction, where everyone on the planet is "subject to our jurisdiction" if they break a US law.
Which of course is an absurd interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction", but it also happens to be the one people are claiming should apply.
It’s not the end of the analysis, I agree.
But you start from the position that “it means more than simply being here”.
And what about Mexican citizens who happen to be having dinner in Nogales, Arizona on a Friday evening who then Unexpectedly! have to run to Holy Cross Hospital to drop El Nino Americano?
Because they are “subject to the jurisdiction” if a Santa Cruz County Deputy Sheriff decides to pull them over for speeding?
FYI: the Mexican government claims that ALL Mexicans “abroad” are Mexican citizens and provides citizenship, advocacy and court assistance through their 55 consulates strategically located through out the United States as any good occupying empire would do. Mexicans Abroad routinely vote in Mexican elections at these Invasion outposts!
Now why doya think they do all that for these people NOT “subject to their jurisdiction” according to you and El Reconquistador Cesar Cuahuatemoc Garcia Hernandez, the Real American?!
It is to laugh. You’re engaging in word games. If we buy your line, any invading army can just walk in - as long as they aren’t wearing a uniform - and declare themselves “residents”. Try proving they’re in an army: since they were never sworn in, their is no requirement for them to disclose such, and that means they can have 8 kids who you claim are “Citizen of the DisUnited Estates”.
PS the above case is not imaginary. In fact, it’s routine. As far back as the early 1980s, Mexican women in all the border towns waited on the other side until they had the first signs of labor and then they would get a taxi into the US and go to the farthest hospital they could, like Harbor General in San Pedro. The further north they were, the less likely that a CBP agent would be to force them back across the line. Friend of mine worked the ER back then and told me about it as early as 1985.
And after all this, you cling to the juvenile version of “subject to the jurisdiction”, as if these people had no other nationality, no place they have any ties to?
Again - please go back and read John Eastman’s careful delineation of the distinction between territorial and political jurisdiction, along with Sauer’s overwhelming evidence of the views of the Senators on this point in 1866 and 1868.
You have your opinion, but there’s an army of attorneys on the other side who don’t share it, or the opinion of the Chinese Maybe American girl the American Communist Liars Union put up on the other side.