"... and subject to its jurisdiction", found in the US Constitution, is a grammatical appendage that is REQUIRED to be true for the the whole sentence to be true. If the parents don't have US citizenship when kids are born, they are not subject to US jurisdiction, they are subject to their parent's jurisdiction(s), like Harris.
Do you understand what it means to be subject to a country's jurisdiction?
Do you think illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction? The very categorization of "illegal alien" implies that those in that category are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because they can be charged for breaking the law. They are governed by our laws, and thus are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
"... and subject to its jurisdiction", found in the US Constitution, is a grammatical appendage that is REQUIRED to be true for the the whole sentence to be true. If the parents don't have US citizenship when kids are born, they are not subject to US jurisdiction, they are subject to their parent's jurisdiction(s), like Harris.
That's nonsense.
"subject to its jurisdiction" means subject to its laws. If your position were correct, any alien could kill your kids and dog, rape your wife, and just walk away facing no prosecution because he would not be subject to the laws of the United States. Were you, without diplomatic immunity, to travel to another country, say Mexico, and get caught committing a crime against Mexican law; while you sat in a Mexican jail you could ponder being in the total and complete jurisdiction of Mexico.
As directly held in Wong Kim Ark, the child of two aliens, if born within the territory of the United States, is not only born within the jurisdiction, but is born a United States citizen.
We have already had two Presidents born of one or more alien parents, and two Vice-Presidents born of one or more alien parents. For each, at a joint session of Congress, the votes were tallied by the tellers and the result announced by the President of the Senate. Any objections posed did not succeed.
And then they were administered an oath. Chester Arthur was sworn in as Vice-President by William A. Wheeler, Vice President of the United States. Kamala Harris was sworn in by Sonia Sotomayer, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Presidents are usually sworn in by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Following the assassination of President Garfield, President Chester Arthur, at his residence in New York, was administered the oath by the Honorable John R. Brady, Justice of the New York State Supreme Court. Two days later the oath was administered in Washngton D.C. by Morrison R. Waite, Chief Justice of the United States. President Barack Obama was administered the oath by John Roberts, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Congressional debate on the 14th Amendment engaged in much hairsplitting about exactly what was meant before the text was approved for presentation to the People for ratification. And then the People ratified the plain black letter text that was proposed to them. They ratified the words with the common meaning applied to them at the time, except for legal terms of art which connoted specific defined meanings. Nobody's intent was ratified. Debating points were not ratified.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
169 U.S. 704The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.
[...]
169 U.S. 705
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.