Criminals are not subject to our laws. We have right to free movement, free speech, and free assembly. They have right to a cell, quiet hours, and not grouping up too densely in the yard.
The laws don't grant us rights, we have natural rights that are defended by laws.
You seem to be unclear on what "subject to" means in this case. When someone is "subject to" a law that means they will suffer the consequences if they violate the law. By calling someone a criminal, you are implicitly declaring that they are subject to the law. If you say "I am not subject to your laws" you are declaring that the law does not apply to you and you can go about your business.
A Thai citizen can have sex with a minor and he's neither a criminal nor under our jurisdiction. An American can go to Thailand and do the same and he's a criminal, but not under our jurisdiction (he'd have to voluntarily return or be extradited). A foreign diplomat can be under our jurisdiction but not a criminal for doing the same as an American.
So an alien having committed a crime doesn't mean they are under our jurisdiction ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof").
For example, what's the difference between a criminal alien unknown to the government who is still in the country vs one who has since returned home? From the government's perspective nothing is different - until the former is discovered and so becomes under our jurisdiction - which is effective just like if the one who returned was extradited back to face prosecution here.
Also, in America only "certain unalienable Rights" come from God/nature, not all rights. Citizenship is not inalienable; in fact naturalization is delegated to Congress by the Constitution.
Criminals are not subject to our laws. We have right to free movement, free speech, and free assembly. They have right to a cell, quiet hours, and not grouping up too densely in the yard.
The laws don't grant us rights, we have natural rights that are defended by laws.
You seem to be unclear on what "subject to" means in this case. When someone is "subject to" a law that means they will suffer the consequences if they violate the law. By calling someone a criminal, you are implicitly declaring that they are subject to the law. If you say "I am not subject to your laws" you are declaring that the law does not apply to you and you can go about your business.
You're conflating crime and jurisdiction.
A Thai citizen can have sex with a minor and he's neither a criminal nor under our jurisdiction. An American can go to Thailand and do the same and he's a criminal, but not under our jurisdiction (he'd have to voluntarily return or be extradited). A foreign diplomat can be under our jurisdiction but not a criminal for doing the same as an American.
So an alien having committed a crime doesn't mean they are under our jurisdiction ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof").
For example, what's the difference between a criminal alien unknown to the government who is still in the country vs one who has since returned home? From the government's perspective nothing is different - until the former is discovered and so becomes under our jurisdiction - which is effective just like if the one who returned was extradited back to face prosecution here.
Also, in America only "certain unalienable Rights" come from God/nature, not all rights. Citizenship is not inalienable; in fact naturalization is delegated to Congress by the Constitution.