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.
My FReeper friend X answered this much more succinctly than I have often done, so I'll quote him on this.
Trump Says Birthright Citizenship Was Only for the Children of Slaves. He’s Wrong.
X said: That we could have had the amendment for 50 years or so without America Indians being citizens suggests that Trump may, odd as it may seem, have been right.
I went ahead and asked Grok, and sure enough, the answer could not have been more obvious.
Yes, members of Congress in 1866 (the Amendment was proposed by the 39th Congress in June 1866 and ratified in 1868; the relevant debates occurred then, shortly after the Civil War ended in 1865) understood the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause with precision and clarity.Key evidence from the Congressional Globe (the official record):
Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of the related Civil Rights Act of 1866, defined it as “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof” — i.e., “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” He contrasted this with Native Americans in tribal relations (treated as owing allegiance to tribes, like foreign powers) and temporary residents.
And who indoctrinated Americans today(2026) to no longer have knowledge of what this phrase means? Who owns the schools k-12 and universities.
Progressives. The progressives did this to us.
Progressivism is America's Cancer.