So any country you visit changes your citizenship in that jurisdiction, regardless of any treaties, until you travel to another jurisdiction? Sounds like you're mentally deficient about birthright citizenship and 'jurisdiction', and how treaties affect your rights when traveling. You can't seem to distinguish a country's sovereign birthright jurisdiction from its laws.
Traveling in another country does not change your citizenship, and you are still at a loss to explain why aliens traveling here are entitled to birthright US citizenship just because they are obeying our laws.
"Being subject to a country's jurisdiction" and "Being the citizen of a country" are two different things.
In general, if you are subject to a given entity's jurisdiction, then that entity has the right to exert judicial and legal control against your person, and make you subject to their laws. Thus, if you are subject to a country's jurisdiction, you are subject to that country's laws.
That is an entirely different question from citizenship, as the determination of who is and is not a citizen is up to that country to decide. (For example, a given country could, hypothetically, say that only men of a certain age who own property or have completed some level of civic/military service are citizens.)
Traveling in another country does not change your citizenship
Of course it doesn't. I have not claimed this.
you are still at a loss to explain why aliens traveling here are entitled to birthright US citizenship just because they are obeying our laws.
Please kindly point out where I said anything remotely approaching this.
Aliens (who are not already immune from our jurisdiction, such as by virtue of being a diplomat) cannot obtain birthright citizenship because they've already been born; their only option is naturalization.
However, if their children happen to be born within the sovereign territory of the United States, then said children are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Hence, their children would be considered natural-born citizens.
This has been the consistent interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment ("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."), and is still the binding precedent as of 'United States vs. Wong Kim Ark'.
If you are concerned that this interpretation of the 14th Amendment was somehow contrary to the understanding of who natural-born citizens were prior to its ratification, then the surrounding facts and/or findings in the Antebellum cases of "McCreery's Lessee v. Somerville" (SCOTUS, 1824), "Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor" (SCOTUS, 1830), and "Lynch v. Clarke" (New York, 1844) should suffice to prove that children born of aliens (even those temporarily present in our sovereign territory) were nonetheless still considered natural-born citizens of the United States, as traced to what was then the common understanding of "citizenship by birth" inherited from the English Common Law.