Excuse me, but subject to the jurisdiction of a country, does indeed mean that person is a citizen of that country, and no other (unless a dual citizen in which he can subject to jurisdiction of both.) People often get subject to jurisdiction and subject to law mixed up. If you are living in another country, you are indeed subject to its laws and can get yourself deported, imprisoned, or fined (or all three) if you break those laws; you may be liable for some taxes. You are not under their jurisdiction, however. You are not issued a passport that country, you do not vote in their elections, you are not ordinarily subject to any taxes of that nation (unless you physically present in that country or hold property there, in which case you may have some tax liability) you are not required to serve in their military, you do not have the protection of that country’s embassy/consul when abroad, for examples.
The presence of "two rules," one established by Wong Kim Ark, and the other by it's dissent (which looks like what you described) leads to all manner of communication breakdown in these academic discussions.