I never said it made someone a citizen. Good grief. Learn to read.
The Constitution said that if you are born in the borders of the United States and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a citizen. Two criteria.
If you can be arrested and convicted and sentenced, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Therefore, if you are born in the United States, and the United States can put you in jail, you are a citizen of the United States.
Both of those must be met.
A Diplomat’s child does not meet both of those requirements.
The child of an illegal alien who was born in the United States does.
That means we need to change the Constitution.
I do agree with your assertions with respect to "jurisdiction", but I'm not entirely convinced that the Constitution needs to be changed, although that would certainly eliminate all doubt.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court decision that gave young Ark (a baby born to explicitly foreign nationals, US citizenship), the Court draws no distinction between someone here legally, or illegally. Why? Primarily because the concept of "illegal alien" wasn't quite as developed then, as it is today. In large part, the Court presumed that so long as you weren't a child of a diplomat, or the child of an invading army, then your parents were here "legally". In any event, that doesn't mean a future Supreme Court case couldn't draw that distinction. I think given the make-up of the Court, it's possible they could - although, Kennedy doesn't give me great confidence in this regard.
The Congress could also move to narrow that distinction, legislative. Surely, such legislation would be challenged, and either struck down or affirmed by the Court. So, back to your original point, this is going to end up back at the Court unless the Constitution is amended.
See my answer in post 62. This is complete idiocy and we are the only country on the planet with this citizenship-debasing mindset.