The point is regarding what is the correct meaning of the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment.
That it has nothing to do with being subject to the laws is demonstrable by the fact that Indians were subject to the laws, but apparently not "subject to the Jurisdiction thereof".
Had they been "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", they would have been citizens.
Again, this demonstrates that "subject to the Jurisdiction" does not mean the same thing as "subject to our laws."
And once again, Foreign Indians, (the bulk of illegal immigrants) are less subject to our jurisdiction than were US born Indians, and if US born Indians couldn't be citizens, then by no stretch could the children of foreign Indians be citizens.
If you can find an example of someone who is resident in the U.S. in the year 2015 who is not a citizen, doesn’t have diplomatic immunity and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, I would be most interested in hearing about them.
Illegal aliens are required to register for the draft and they are counted for census purposes.
Subject to the jurisdiction means that a legal entity, such as a court or the government of a country, has the right to exert physical control over as well as apply and enforce its laws against a person. It is a stipulation contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that defines who is eligible for citizenship. The precise meaning of the phrase has been the subject of debate by scholars and lawmakers, and has been defined in particular situations by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution confers automatic citizenship on anyone who is “born or naturalized within the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Establishing whether or not a person was born or naturalized in the U.S. has historically been relatively easy. The question of whether a person born or naturalized in the U.S. is also subject to its jurisdiction has been less clear when applied to certain populations.
In court cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it does not apply to children of diplomats, ministers, consuls, or embassy staff. As foreign nationals in the U.S. on the business of their governments, the parents and children owe their allegiance to their home country. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., and are immune from most laws and from prosecution.
A child born in the U.S. to parents who are not on assignment by a foreign government is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and is considered a citizen. The parents could be traveling in the U.S. or be in the process of legal or illegal immigration. In legal terms, the distinguishing point is not whether the parents are citizens of another country, but whether the parents are active agents of a foreign government, immune from the laws of the U.S. If the parents are in the U.S. of their own free will, the child born in the U.S. is considered a U.S. citizen.
This interpretation of the subject to the jurisdiction part of the citizenship clause is hotly debated. It grants automatic U.S. citizenship to children who are born in the U.S. to parents who are citizens of another country. The loophole effectively allows illegal immigrants to have children in the country who automatically become citizens, making it much more complicated to deport families with mixed legal status. Opponents of this interpretation argue that the illegal parents are no more subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. than the diplomat, since the U.S. would deport them back to their own country rather than exert legal jurisdiction over them, and the children should have the same status as the parents despite their birth on U.S. soil.