I think the point though is that that illegals choose NOT to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US. Whether or not they can be prosecuted for crimes is irrelevant. They are purposely AVOIDING being under the jurisdiction of the United States.
It's intent. Someone on a visa for example chooses to subject themselves to the jurisdiction. In other words, they are taking a legal route to be here and fully accepting the jurisdiction of the United States over them and have legally made that choice.
Define jurisdiction for purposes of citizenship and presto, issue resolved.
Also o’blowhard forgot the FACT custody follows parents not child. The child’s citizenship does not matter. Deport the parents and the child goes with the parents.
But whether or not you are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. does not depend on whether one chooses to be subject to jurisdiction. To use the example of a diplomat again, a diplomat may choose to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (if arrested, the diplomat can choose not to assert diplomatic immunity, though most obviously do not make that choice). But, even if the diplomat chooses to subject himself to U.S. jurisdiction, that does not mean that a child of the diplomat is a U.S. citizen.
Choice is irrelevant - whether or not someone is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a function of law, not that person's choices.
I don’t think that’s how it works, but I’m in no way a lawyer or legal scholar.
That’s what’s confusing to me about this. Perhaps the phrase had a clear and specific meaning when the amendment was written, which should take precedence in a SCOTUS case?
I just ... when I read the amendment, I have a really tough time understanding how it can be read any other way than birthright citizenship for everyone.