More so than Itinerant foreigners. You aren't helping your claim with this line of reasoning.
We are talking at cross purposes. You are discussing citizenship and I am discussing non-citizens being under the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning subject to our laws.
And you have given us another example of people being born in the United States, but who were not citizens. How is that supposed to help your argument?
Oh, It's another distraction from the salient point; That being subject to our laws does not mean the same thing as "jurisdiction" in the meaning of the 14th amendment.
Yes, talking about something that has nothing to do with the main fallacy of your argument helps you, because it gets people off into the weeds rather than focusing on a fact that contradicts your assertions.
Do you know of a judicial ruling or an act of Congress that separates “subject to the jurisdiction of” from the law?
On the other side of the issue is: Plyler v. Doe
457 U.S. 202
Argued: December 1, 1981
Decided: June 15, 1982
Opinion, Brennan
Concurrence, Marshall
Concurrence, Blackmun
Concurrence, Powell
Dissent, Burger
Syllabus
Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202