It means ending birthright citizenship period including those here on legal visas like tourists and foreign students. We have 50 million visitors a year and there are 900,000 foreign students in our universities.
The Constitution is clear in it’s language.
The 14th amendment starts with this sentence.
“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.”
Now, the problem is that it does not matter to this language if a person is legally or illegally in the country.
It. Does. Not. Matter.
The language gives no other instruction. If an ‘anchor baby’ is
1) born... in the United States
and
2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof
they are, by virtue of the Constitution, a citizen at birth of the United States.
The second point confuses people. They think that if someone is here illegally, they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but that isn’t true. Illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the United States. They can be arrested and charged with crimes by courts appointed by the United States.
So what does the second point refer to? People who have diplomatic immunity are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, i.e. they cannot be charged with a crime nor stand trial under a court appointed by the United States. Because they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States, any child born to them is NOT a citizen of the United States, even when born here.
Now, I would 100% support an amendment to the Constitution that declared that anybody born to a mother who did not have legal right of permanent residency must be naturalized to become a citizen of the United States, but the way the Constitution reads now, an illegal alien who gives birth in the United States, gives birth to a United States citizen.