You keep on saying the same thing. But it is not true. The meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to USA law.<quoted text>"and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" means the Constitution.
We are a Constitutional Republic, meaning the Constitution has jurisdiction over the US Government. No Constitution, no United States of America.
This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
And ditto for this ruling:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
The courts and the US Supreme Court have ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen at birth except for the children of foreign diplomats. You are simply wrong.