[astyanax]

One more point. It all comes down to original intent.

Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.

Now, if you want to go along with the opinion of a couple of judges "interpreting" the law over the intent of the actual framers of the law, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

We disagree. I’m Ok with that. But you have to understand that a Supreme Court verdict carries “precedent” with it.

The decision of Ark v. U.S. holds the answer to the current question.

If another case goes before the Supreme Court, the Ark decision will be one of the cases that the current Court will use in determining the new case.

Could it be overturned? Sure, although a 6 to 2 decision carries a lot of weight in it.

Would a Constitutional amendment work? Absolutely!

So why not just amend the Constitution? Amend it and this question ends. Right?