Trump is wrong.
Thus the Fourteenth Amendment begins, “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.” This is the common-law doctrine of jus soli, and the meaning of the language is straightforward.
To the extent an alternative reading exists, restrictionists claim the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause creates ambiguity about the Amendment’s true meaning. Alien parents supposedly owe allegiance to a different sovereign, and therefore they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and therefore their U.S.-born kids are not entitled to citizenship.
But “jurisdiction” defines the territory where the force of law applies and to whom—and this principle is well settled to include almost everyone within U.S. borders, regardless of their home country or the circumstances of their birth. It does not include foreign diplomats, who enjoy sovereign immunity, and foreign military invaders, who are supposed to obey the laws of war. By the circular restrictionist logic, illegal immigrants could not be prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.
Members of the 39th Congress forcefully debated birthright citizenship, with opponents arguing it would benefit the ethnic targets of the day—Indian tribes, Chinese laborers building the railroads, “gypsies.” They did not prevail. In 1898 the Supreme Court confirmed the Amendment’s original meaning in Wong Kim Ark, which recognized the citizenship of a San Francisco-born man of Chinese descent, and it reaffirmed this understanding as recently as 1982 in Plyler v. Doe.
Born in the U.S.A.
Being in the jurisdiction is only one requirement and in the ONLY birthright citizenship case the SCOTUS has ever ruled on, US v Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS stated that there are additional requirements other than being born in the US.
What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:
"118 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 parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China,
but have a permanent domicile 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."
http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark
But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?
"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary
dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his
legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.
Law Dictionary:
What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)
And SCOTUS also recognised in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.
"93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens,
with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of
children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent,
includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."
But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?
That is addressed in Section 96:
"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States,
so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here;
and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892)
144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893)
149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895)
158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896)
163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."
Do you know what the word 'AND' means, Toro?
An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore their children born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.
There will be no mass deportation.
