Oh, please, that's a strained reading of the language (to put it politely):
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The subject of the sentence is "persons." And those persons are said to be "born or naturalized" AND "subject to (U.S.) jurisdiction. "Subject to" refers back to "persons." There is no mention or hint of "land" being in view here.
If that sounds too abstract, let’s look at simple examples
The passage from the WKA opinion I quoted in my subsequent post renders all your speculation here moot.
Foreigners, even those in the United States, are only the jurisdiction of the United States where that jurisdiction has been granted by their home country under the terms of their entry.
This statement is flat-out wrong. Are you suggesting that the U.S. can exercise jurisdiction over an alien (arrest, prosecute, apply all other laws) ONLY IF that country of that person's nationality has bestowed that jurisdiction on the U.S.??? Here I'm moving from "strained" to "ridiculous."
Ridiculous is your normal state of being.
The history of Law regarding citizenship for children born to Indians is that they were not citizens, and this is pretty much acknowledged by everyone who is worth the trouble to consult.
We "arrested, prosecuted, and applied all other laws" to Indians. Consider your argument blown to bits.