[vessenes]

SCOTUS ruled on this over a hundred years ago, in the case of a child born in the US of Chinese immigrants who went to China in his 30s, and was denied re-entry. Denial theory: Chinese citizens are subject to the Chinese emperor annd therefore aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

SCOTUS response: “LOL”. 6-2 (1 abstention) in favor of him being a citizen. The majority assent lays out pretty clearly that the jurisdiction language was to except diplomats and Native American tribespeople who had different treaties and status.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling is super, super, super clear that it would only be in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances that the 14th wouldn’t apply. For instance, two people in an invasion force sent by King George to take back the colonies have a baby with each other on US soil: probably not a citizen. Even then, if those two were in prison and had the baby: probably a citizen. Baby of two diplomats: not a citizen (called out in the ruling).

The dissent says: The 14th was really about Dredd Scott, and giving former slaves born in US soil full citizenship rights, and therefore “jurisdiction” is obviously only for naturalized citizens: Mr. Ark didn’t seek citizenship and therefore didn’t have it, since he wasn’t a former slave or child of a former slave, the 14th doesn’t apply.

The current attempt to reframe the 14th while including the Ark ruling relies on the very novel idea that anyone in the country without permission is not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. ICE’s actions clearly bely that take. It’s not a tenable angle to try and get rid of birthright citizenship, full stop.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

This is a good example and it puts the current de facto interpretation of the law very friendly towards birthright citizenship.

However, as you well said, this is the interpretation of the amendment at the time based on that particular case.

The SCOTUS ruling is based the understanding of the 14th amendment for that particular case. Laws are re-interpreted based on originalist or expansionist understanding of the law at the time is was written. It could very well be that this was one of the latter examples, and that there is ample evidence of it that simply didn't make it to Ark. A legal scholar will need to do the work to really understand what was the intent of the 14th as it was written, and present its case to SCOTUS to persevere. The administration could really be attempting to reframe without any legal basis, and if so, the EO won't survive, and we will be able to move on with a full understanding of the 14th.

[vessenes]

I hear that, and this is no doubt headed to the Roberts court. That said, this would to my eyes need to be interpreted as an expansionist "new interpretation" decision by all counts if we're getting rid of birthright citizenship; caselaw, US practice before and after the Ark case (for 100 years!) and the UK Common Law basis of US law (done away with in the 80s by a new law: see https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/7... for much, much more detail), which had hundreds of years of birthright citizenship all point pretty strongly at this being unilaterally understood a certain way here in the US so far.

That Yale article points out European countries have more traditionally relied on "jus sanguinis" -- parentage-based nationality, where UK, US and LatAm countries are mostly "jus soli" with "sanguinis" additions for, say, kids born in foreign countries to nationals.

Anyway - it would be pretty surprising to hear that this is not a reframe. I'll be reading the case with interest.