I get what you are saying, but the 14th Amendment pretty much grants U.S. citizenship to everyone who is born here. I understand that the intent of the writers was to make sure that former slaves would be citizens, but the language of the amendment itself and how courts have chosen to parse it means that anyone whose mom managed to give birth on U.S. soil (except for diplomats) is a citizen.
To correct this will require a Constitutional amendment, or a SCOTUS ruling that the words in the 14th don’t mean what they say.
OK, let's look at VPOTUS (K. Harris). Her parents obtained passports from their foreign jurisdictions (India, Jamaica) and applied for visas to stay in the U.S., where they birthed Kamala. Both foreign jurisdictions provide citizenship thru Kamala's parents.
Are you trying to tell us she is a Natural Born citizen of the US, despite the foreign jurisdiction, and despite the Senate definition from its resolution?
Han, let me correct that. The text itself DOES NOT say anyone born here is a U.S. citizen. It's only the courts and other politicians who have twisted it to mean that.
The text "persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means if you ain't a U.S. citizen or under U.S. rules when you were born here then this doesn't apply to you. "Jurisdiction" doesn't just means geographic boundaries of an official (i.e. one city's police jurisdiction at the highway and the other side is another police jurisdiction). Jurisdiction also applies to many other categories, such as legal scope or accounting scope (i.e. a worker in the accounting department has jurisdiction over the financial aspects of the company but not the company's marketing). The same applies to which people a government or entity has jurisdiction over. If you take a week's vacation to go with the kids in your church on a mission trip that includes youth groups from many churches, you probably have jurisdiction over the kids you came with but probably no or limited jurisdiction over the other kids. You can give advice to the leaders of other kids, but your word doesn't trump the authority of other leaders who came with those other kids. Former slaves born here were subject to the U.S. because they weren't subject to the laws of any other nation. But if another nation has a legal claim on your citizenship, you are subject to their jurisdiction not the United States' jurisdiction.
Even tourists who are here and therefore have to abide by our laws aren't "subject" to our "jurisdiction". If they feel like they're being treated unfairly they can take it up with their embassy. U.S. citizens born here (and at the time slaves born here) have no foreign embassy here they can go to (they're not subject to the jurisdiction of another nation). That's what the 14th Amendment means "persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
For context, the 14th Amendment came out of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which has the language: "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power".
Even American Indians and their children didn't become U.S. citizens until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (because everybody knew the 14th Amendment didn't include them, they were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe as a separate nation from the U.S.).
At the end of the day, the legal basis for anchor babies is not the 14th Amendment, but the 1965 Immigration Act. That's the law that has to be overturned, and it can be overturned with another congressional act -- no constitutional amendment required.
"Subject to the jurisdiction" is not as clear cut as to scope as most people think. Of course SCOTUS took it as "if you must abide by the laws, and diplomats don't have to abide by the laws, then you are subject to the jurisdiction."
Fine and good, make them sign up for the draft, file income taxes, and so on - because if they aren't obliged to sign up for the draft, they are not subject to the jurisdiction - that's an alternative take on the meaning.