All the things you say are true, but deliberately dodge the point. The point is that the 14th amendment "jurisdiction" does not mean the same thing as criminal law "jurisdiction." If it did, Indians would be citizens, because they were most certainly subject to criminal law jurisdiction.
But we know for a fact Indians were not citizens. Therefore Criminal Law Jurisdiction is not the meaning of the term "Jurisdiction" as referred to in the 14th amendment.
Indians ARE citizens.
According to the Dred Scott decision, blacks, whether free or enslaved, could not be citizens and had never been citizens. Were blacks “under the jurisdiction” of the United States prior to 1868?
We are talking at cross purposes. You are discussing citizenship and I am discussing non-citizens being under the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning subject to our laws.
If the constitution was a document of a kingdom, it would not say jurisdiction. It would say “subject of sovereign.” That is a better way to think of it.
A person who is a citizen of another country is treated under our laws, but ther loyalty lies with their “sovereign.”
Using the examples of the immigrants of the old west, it was the judgement that they came here with the intent to immigrate, that they held no allegiance to the country they left, and subjected themselves to conscription at great peril.
This does not fit the situation of a pregnant immigrant who rushes across the border to give birth in a border town.