“You keep ignoring the operative phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Is there a Supreme Court ruling that affirms your interpretation? No? That’s a shame.
“This is not true. The citizenship of such a child of illegal immigrants has never been decided.”
It has been decided, by the states in the 14th Amendments, not the courts.
“Why are you afraid of the Court visiting this issue?”
Where did I say I was afraid of anything? Take it up to the Supreme Court, and see what they say. Until they rule, or the states successfully amend the constitution, the law states that they are citizens.
“You, OTOH, seem to believe that it is your interpretation that is the final arbiter.”
It has been ratified by all 37 states that were in the union at the time. Ohio and New Jersey were the last two, both of whom ratified the 14th Amendment in 2003.
I abide by the decision of those 37 states to confirm the 14th Amendment.
“This situation is akin to a woman breaking into an unoccupied house, giving birth in the house, living there for lets say 18 years with the child, then being found to be trespassing.”
How so? I’ve stated that the state has an interest in deporting the mother. The state also has an interest in the welfare of the child.
“Your position would remove the mother from the premises, but let the child remain simply because he was born there. ABSURD !!!”
Absolutely, if that is what the mother chooses. The alternative is that the mother would choose to bring her child along with her, and they both would leave the country.
The child would retain their citizenship rights, and could return when they have reached the age of majority. Otherwise the child will be placed into adoption.
Is it a perfect solution? No. 80 percent of the time it will result in the exact same result as yours.
By your reasoning, United States v. Wong Kim Ark would never have gotten to the Supreme Court. All Ark would have had to say is, "It has already been decided by the States through the 14th Amendment."
In Marbury v. Madison, the Court asserted the right of judicial review. As Justice Marshall wrote:
" ... it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. ..."
NOW, since you don't know how the Supreme Court works, I'll tell you. The Court rules on the facts presented in a particular case - not all of the permutations. No "If its Tuesday it must be Belgium, except in months that end in 'R'" scenarios. Just the facts presented before it.
Need proof? Lets look at Wong Kim Ark. I'll start with the ruling paragraph at the end of the opinion:
" ... The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
And what are the facts alluded to in the ruling paragraph? Lets go back to the beginning of the opinion:
" ... The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco ..."
And, what was that single question allude to by the Court? Lets go back again to the beginning of the opinion, just after the facts:
... "The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ..."
Hmmm - didn't I see that the Court said that it ruled ONLY rule on a single question? YES, I DID. And, notice that [in the question] the parents have permanent domicil within the United States.
So, there WAS NO RULING on the child born in the United States to illegal aliens.
And, FYI, permanent domicil, at law, can only be established through legal residency. Which, per federal law AND English Common Law, cannot be established by illegal aliens since they are subject to deportation when identified. Wong Kim Ark's parents WERE NOT subject to deportation since they had LEGALLY registered upon their initial entry into the United States. Thus, they were able to establish permanent domicil.