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. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/Trump's executive order has directly tackled the question of birthright citizenship in the US under the 14th amendment and set in motion a legal case to define the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' qualifier, reopening the precedent set at US v Wong Kim Ark in 1898 to resolve how it should, or shouldn't, apply to illegal aliens. Trump's order now declares that citizenship is not extended in the cases of
1. When both parents are non-citizens/lawful permanent residents and the mother is illegally in the united states at the moment of birth
2. When both parents are non-citizens/lawful permanent residents and the mother is temporarily, but legally, in the united states at the moment of birth
This opens two bars of legal criterion that the courts will have to examine. That is, credible courts and eventually the supreme court, not the portland activists in robes who just set in motion appeals without bothering to read it. The question hinges on what the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' line means. In the expansive view that birthright citizenship cares only about Jus soli and nothing more, that it applies to a madwoman 9 months pregnant who runs across a line in the sand and squeezes one out- then we've effectively negated the 'subject' line entirely. It means nothing, for it doesn't exclude anyone. The parallel in argument would be the second amendment and DC v. Heller, which established the line 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' was mere preample that established a reasoning, not a constraint. But simple linguistics shows the difference. 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is a clear qualifier and condition, not a cause or explainer. So I'd say that argument is right out the fucking window. But the expansive definition is the one held by the democrats.
When we get into the case of illegal alien vs temporary visa, it gets a lot murkier how and where it could come down. Even with the concept of jus soli explicitly in mind, the court of 1898 recognized the exclusion of children born to foreign rulers and diplomatic staff during their visits as non-citizens. As well as those born on foreign ships during travel, or enemy forces at times of war occupying a territory- and indian tribes as sovereign entities. But the simple fact is, "illegal aliens" did not exist as a concept. No self-interested nation would ever let millions of people flood across their borders unchecked, if you tried that in the 19th century you'd probably get shot. Its reason to argue that this condition simply hasn't been argued. Wong Kim Ark dealt with the contemporary questions of citizenship, whether it should apply only using jus sanguinis, the blood right of fathers. So it isn't too authoritative on this question.