[Socon-Econ]

It’s not an open question if we consider legislative intent — that the 14th Amendment was adopted for freed slaves, not to create a birth tourism industry or to grant citizenship to children of invaders or sneak-ins.

[j.havenfarm]

You can say that again!

But, seriously, you don’t start there. In construing a statute, you start by looking at the statutory language. Interpret it according to the ordinary and popular sense in words are used. If possible all provisions are given equal weight, and the whole is interpreted together so that no part is regarded as surplus. Only after you go through that do you get to legislative intent

“…subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is pretty awkward to modern ears, so I do think you get the intent. I just don’t think that SCOTUS is going to have the guts to pull the trigger on the proper interpretation

[1Old Pro]

the 14th Amendment was adopted for freed slaves, not to create a birth tourism industry or to grant citizenship to children of invaders or sneak-ins.

Clearly.