All persons in the United States are subject to the criminal code of the United States. All persons in Canada are subject to the criminal code of Canada, etc.
You are confusing criminal code with general jurisdiction. Everyone in the USA is subject to the US criminal code.
If you think a person who commits a crime is subject to all law in the USA, you would be wrong. They are subject only to some law. For example, tourists are not subject to US Income Tax. Persons under commercial visa are not subject to the Selective Service Registration laws.
Again all persons in the USA are subject to criminal law except for certain diplomats having diplomatic immunity but even they are subject to deportation laws.
When the phrase “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is interpreted, it means in the context of citizenship matters of ALLEGIANCE, not crime.
But not all persons in the USA are subject to citizenship laws in matters of allegiance. With respect to the jurisdiction of citizenship questions, not all people born in the United States are subjects to its jurisdiction of rulings related to citizenship status.
A child is subject to the laws of its parent’s jurisdiction with respect to questions of citizenship. US Jurisdiction is not conferred on a child because it was born in the US although it has been abused in this way.
Birthplace citizenship was never part of the original Constitution. Madison resolved the question of children born while aboard a ship on the high seas or abroad. For example, children born abroad of a US Ambassador were considered natural born. Citizenship was conferred by birth, not by place. Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for US President in 1964 was born in a territory that later became the State of Arizona. But his citizenship was never under question because his father was a US Citizen.
Citizenship has always been by parents not by place, or by naturalization until the Civil War when a special provision had to be made for freed slaves.
The 14th Amendment had to addressed the plight of freed slaves. Their parents were not citizens yet their parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in terms of allegiance and law.
So the amendment was crafted correctly as a Civil War Amendment of TWO PARTS:
1) Born in the United States AND
2) Subject to the jurisdiction thereof
This was written for former slaves. The phrase is two parts, not one part.
An illegal alien is not under jurisdiction of citizenship laws in matters of allegiance. The alien’s allegiance is to a foreign state. The jurisdiction of the alien’s children follows that of the parents no matter where born, whether on an airplane over Canada, on a ship on the open ocean, in a tent in the Grand Canyon etc. The place is not important, it is the parent that determines citizenship of the child.
The 14th was not written for illegal aliens and their children. The abuse of the 14th in this regard has been promoted by immigration attorneys looking for a loophole when no one was looking. Now the people will require government to look and close the loophole. Immigration attorneys can expect to howl at such a movement because their livelihoods are affected. They will need to move on to other specialties.
Of course tourists are subject to US Income Tax. If they derive income in the US they have to pay taxes on it like anyone else.
Persons under commercial visa are not subject to the Selective Service Registration laws.
I don't know about "commercial visas" but I do know that if Congress has passed a law saying commercial visa holders are subject to conscription law, then they are. Just because our legislature may have chosen to exclude certain classes of persons from a particular law doesn't mean they aren't subject to our laws. They are subject to every law that pertains to them.
When the phrase “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is interpreted, it means in the context of citizenship matters of ALLEGIANCE, not crime.
But not all persons in the USA are subject to citizenship laws in matters of allegiance. With respect to the jurisdiction of citizenship questions, not all people born in the United States are subjects to its jurisdiction of rulings related to citizenship status.
What?
Birthplace citizenship was never part of the original Constitution
That's an interesting argument coming from someone advocating an Article V convention to amend the constitution. Do you think amendments are less a part of the Constitution than the original words?
An illegal alien is not under jurisdiction of citizenship laws in matters of allegiance.
I'll take your word for that, whatever it means, but they certainly are under the jurisdiction of our laws which is what 'jurisdiction' means in this context.