Wong Kim Ark and later cases shows that illegal aliens are subject to the laws of the United States.
Jurisdiction Clause
https://legalclarity.org/what-does-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-thereof-mean/
Under the rule established by Wong Kim Ark and reinforced by later cases, birthright citizenship applies to children born in the United States to lawful permanent residents, temporary visitors, and undocumented immigrants alike. The parents’ immigration status does not determine whether their child is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
The Supreme Court addressed the status of undocumented immigrants directly in Plyler v. Doe (1982). That case involved a Texas law denying public education to children who were in the country without authorization. The Court struck down the law and held that the 14th Amendment’s protections extend to every person within a state’s territorial boundaries, regardless of how they entered the country.6 The Court reasoned that a person’s unlawful entry does not place them outside the jurisdiction of the state where they physically reside. If you are present in the United States and subject to its laws — meaning you can be arrested, taxed, and prosecuted — you are within its jurisdiction.
From Wong Kim Ark.
I think the key part in the ruling that explains this is below.
His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”
Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Plyer vs Doe (1982)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/
Argument for Ark and chidren of LEGAL residents of the U.S. but not citzens:
Since around 1900, (SC) rulings have become less and less valid because SC has gradually moved away from basing their decisions on the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. But their ruling on NBC appear to be based on sound application of the Constitution.
In Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938, the Court of Appeals noted as part of the basis for their decision that...
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, 1898 [the Court found that] [W]hen the Constitution was adopted, the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.
It appears the Court of Appeals in Elg (1939) agrees with Ark (1898) decison.
(Both Marie Elizabeth Elg and Wong Kim Ark were born on U.S. soil to parents who were here legally but not U.S. citizens. )
Again, the Constitution is properly applied as written and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and intended. What matters is what the ratifiers of the Constitution considered an NBC was. The Supreme Court decisions based on the good-faith and sound finding of original understanding of NBC in the Constitution is, therefore, legal precedent concerning NBC.
Some argue that the term "NBC" is not specifically used in Ark or Elg, but these cases revolve around citizenship based on birth on U.S. soil, which is exactly what NBC is. An NBC is a citizen automatically because he was born on U.S. soil. He is “naturally” and automatically a citizen needing no further processing to become a U.S. citizen. He becomes a citizen under “natural” (birth) circumstances, exactly as Elg, Ark.