There you go again. I've provided you with the decision of the Supreme Court in
Elk v. Wilkins penned by Justice Gray himself. You have no difficulty with his being authoritative elsewhere as in
Wong Kim Ark. But you do here, and that is curious.
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means political allegiance, not some simplistic notion of liability for fine or arrest for jaywalking. That has been made clear by numerous authorities, including the "father" of the 14th Amendment himself.
Your use of jurisdiction doesn't appear anywhere in any legal dictionary, nor any common dictionary, nor in the Constitution. Elk and
Ark were both correct, because at the time Elk was actually NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US, being born on an Indian reservation (which had its own legal system and jurisdiction); Ark is correct because a foreigner who has a child in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the US (provided they are not an ambassador or other foreign Government official).
The two are not in conflict; they are quite consistent. If you're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (which is the case for anyone on our soil, except for ambassadors or other foreign government officials), then you become a citizen.