THAT IS CORRECT
and ‘reside” is not the constitutional standard
the court has the duty to decide cases on the constitution...and if it chooses to ignore the constitution and instead decide cases on substitute language ,,,the court only increases the contempt it is so widely held in
theres no point in having a constitution if the court chooses to disregard and/or disobey it in deciding cases. such decisions are in violation of the justices’ oaths of office. they destroy the social compact of our nation. and they are at their core fundamentally immoral.
as Founder of our republic and POTUS after George Washington explained, ‘Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.’
there is a constitutional process available if anyone wishes to amend the constitution as it is presently written. that would be the moral and just way for ‘birthright citizenship’ advocates to proceed.
proceed.
This is a direct quote from Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Can someone be considered to "reside" in a location where their presence is illegal, and they are subject to lawful removal at any moment? If the answer to that question is "yes", then we lose and illegals will be considered citizens at birth. I'd suggest the correct answer is "no".
I think the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" argument is simply weak. I believe the most plain reading of that Clause is that it excludes the children of diplomats and agents of foreign governments that have diplomatic immunity. That was a well-established concept at the time the 14th was written amendment and ratified, and those people are in fact not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I believe that is all that Clause means.
I also don't think the subjective intent of whomever drafted the amendment overrides the plain meaning of the words used. That is particularly true when interpreting constitutional provisions rather than legislation.