"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject ( citizen ) to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."No. No. No. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children of foreign ambassadors born in the US. It does not mean "citizen". And the clause has nothing to do with being a citizen of the US, so it is a really bad source to try to redefine citizenship for the rest of the Constitution, even if you HAD properly understood it. And it doesn't matter anyway after "US v Wong Kim Ark"
When the Senate was debating this matter, they made it perfectly clear that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.They didn't put it in the Constitution, whatever you think they presupposed. And what you think they presupposed is suspect based on your reading of the text of the clause.
The US government does not recognize the claims of citizenship by other countries. It grants citizenship and revokes it on its own terms. If another country happens to consider you a citizen, it doesn't matter to the US government. Iraq has so far recognized ALL Iraqi diaspora everywhere in the world as it's citizens having the right to vote in national elections. Are you saying that suddenly made an American born to two naturalized Iraqis unqualified for President? You still have not resolved this paradox however many times I've offered it.
It excludes more than that. It excludes foreigners, aliens and Indians as well as ambassadors. And, since they clearly considered that a baby could be born on US soil and still be any of those things, the status obviously devolved from a parent. "Fully and completely" determines that both parents must be US citizens.
The US government does not recognize the claims of citizenship by other countries.
You just admitted that it does with the ambassadors.