I have been searching for a cogent way to explain it. I found it in another forum posted by someone else:
"You should know by now that the 14th Amendment contains the phrase "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
An "AND" clause requires both sides of the clause to be true for the conclusion to therefore be true. Children of illegal immigrants are subjects of the jurisdiction of a foreign power, not of the United States, and therefore, they are not citizens of the United States, they are citizens of their parents' nations.
There is absolutely no historical precedent for citizenship being granted merely on the basis of having been born on U.S. territory. Thanks to this deliberately broad interpretation, we now have nonsense like a global birth-tourism industry where people from all over the world come to have their kids here to claim all the benefits of U.S. citizenship. Never in the wildest dreams of the authors of the 14th Amendment did they imagine that those words could be seriously interpreted as loosely as you suggest."
It has been settled law for over 100 years.
Has there been any courts that have ruled this way?
While I whole heartedly agree with the sentiment of this interpretation, I do not know that it is true. If it IS true, then any objection to deporting illegals and their born here kids evaporates and would be a Great Good Thing.
But I have not seen it. Indeed, the idea that the kids of illegals are citizens seems to be the interpretation du jour.