> Wong Kim talks of invaders who are working under a different set of laws because they’re part of a military invasion, not a clandestine operation. They can’t be tried because there is no American presence on the invaded territory.

Whether the U.S. has jurisdiction over territory has nothing to do with whether it can enforce its jurisdiction as a practical matter. If someone blew up a court in a particular district, that would not mean that the court, as a legal entity, ceased to have jurisdiction. By your reasoning, if Mexico invades Texas, children of Mexican servicemen born on U.S. soil would qualify as U.S. citizens. I don't think that's correct.

> I think you’re stretching the definition of jurisdiction with the diplomat stuff. Sure they’re expected to follow laws, but with only a few exceptions if they break laws they just got sent home, not imprisoned.

Being immune from prosecution is different from not being subject to the law. Diplomats are subject to the laws just like anyone else. They have immunity from prosecution for crimes. But the U.S. can request the immunity be revoked, and if that happens, they can be prosecuted for crimes that occurred while the had immunity.

And diplomats can be sued in civil cases in U.S. courts for their commercial activities. They are very much subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, even if we can't always prosecute them for crimes.

"US jurisdiction" also includes foreign heads of state residing in, and present in, their own country. I don't think a theoretical definition of jurisdiction is tenable; only a realist one.

Illegal immigrants are also working under a different set of laws because they are citizens of another country. Ask yourself this: where would an illegal immigrant apply for a passport? Just like an invading army, citizens of other countries are obligated to follow the laws of the countries where they have citizenship in addition to any laws that may be imposed on them by being present in the US.