“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is no absolute than “shall not be infringed”
See post #2. The writers say it clearly that it does NOT encompass foreigners in the USA for any reason.
Yes, “Subject to” it a solid statement. You might not understand it, but foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
We can forget striking down “birthright citizenship.” Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts would never agree to that. They don’t even think Chicago deserves National Guard troops.
I think we are in agreement.
Some here think if you can get arrested, then you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. (Basically posters like woodpusher claim only diplomats and hostile enemies are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.)
I disagree with them. (See my post about Indians not taxed.)
I am in the camp that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means sole jurisdiction. As in, the parents could have no foreign allegiances.