Allegiance or hostility to the place in which you reside and give birth matters to the determination of the citizenship of the children
Nothing else needs to be said. Purposeful misreading of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause to allow anchor babies has been the cause of more harm than almost anything else in the history of this country.
I wonder who is behind such a thing...
I climbed down a rabbit hole on this issue this morning and it is very deep and old law about who gets to be a citizen and when. It goes as far back as 1608 (and even farther) regarding whether or not a Scotsman was an English subject after James VI of Scotland took the English throne in 1603:
"Aliens, on the other hand, did not owe allegiance to the King and accordingly had few rights, although an alien could become a denizen, which meant that he had been "enfranchised here in England by the Prince's charter, and enabled . . . to do as the King's native subjects do: namely, to purchase, and to possess lands, to be capable of any office or dignity." Calvin's Case (1608) (uniset.ca)
Hostility or adversity to the laws of the place where you reside has always been a factor for determining citizenship of the children, and so will necessarily affect the interpretation of being "subject to the laws thereof". Subject to (required to comply) and subject to (duty of allegiance to) are not the same thing. The argument that stealing a wallet in Japan confirms your entitlement to the benefits of that country is the stupidest argument I've heard in a long while. There is much more ground to cover on this issue.
"By adhering to the new government, they may indeed acquire all the rights, and be subject to all the duties, of a subject to such government. But it does not follow that they are thereby absolved from all allegiance to the old government. A person may be, what is not a very uncommon case, a subject owing allegiance to both governments, ad urtiusque fidem regis. But if he chooses to adhere to the old government and not to unite with the new, though governing the territory of his birth, it is far more difficult to affirm that the new government can compel or claim his allegiance in virtue of his birth ... " Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (supreme.justia.com)
Dumping a litter of puppies in a certain place doesn't make your spawn "subject to" a duty of allegiance or loyalty to the local sovereign, especially when the bitch giving birth expressly and unequivocally rejected the laws of that jurisdiction in order to be there in the first place.
Sorry for the long winded rant but so many of the arguments on this issue are stupid. We don't have to be lawyers to know something is wrong with the idea that hostile and illegal persons should be gifted the entitlements and benefits of the place they are crapping on.
No need to apologize. I agree with you. I'm always open to a well-written tirade!