In The United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) it is stated in the majority SCOTUS ruling that (emphasis mine):
>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 and their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during 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.

For a person born within the territory of the United States to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it appears from the above passage that the person MUST at birth owe a sufficiently direct duty of allegiance to the sovereign in return for the sovereigns reciprocal obligation to protection. The child of members of an Indian tribe who owe direct allegiance to their tribe does NOT qualify, although clearly born within the territory of the United States.

NOR DO THE CHILDREN OF ALIENS WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.

Wong Kim Ark SUPPORTS My and the Governments arguments.

Contrary to what many jews will say in this thread there is NO RULING from SCOTUS that states that the children of illegal aliens are citizens, that is NOT what the 14th amendment says either and it is NOT what the author of Clause 1 of the 14th amendment says in constitutional record, and it is NOT what SCOTUS precedent says in Wong Kim Ark.

>Here is how it stands today:

1: The Trump Administration is arguing from the position of UPHOLDING the US Constitution and SCOTUS precedent.

2: Precedent set by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark states that children of LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS have citizenship.

3: The author of 14th Amendment Clause 1 Senator Jacob Howard, specifically excludes the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship when he offers his definition of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

4: On June 27th, 2025 SCOTUS ruled that the National Injunctions that were placed against Trumps Executive Order were unlawful and thus the Trump Administration was granted the ability in 28 States to enforce his Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship.

>Trumps Executive Order is as follows:
“policy of the United States” to no longer ISSUE or ACCEPT documentation of citizenship in two scenarios: “(1) when [a] person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when [a] person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

THEREFORE a ruling is required by SCOTUS NOW to clarify if the children of illegal aliens are covered under the 14th amendment and given all of the historical context and precedent set by previous SCOTUS majority opinions... the answer is CRYSTAL CLEAR that they are NOT protected under the 14th Amendment.

Contrary to what many jews will say in this thread there is NO RULING from SCOTUS that states that the children of illegal aliens are citizens, that is NOT what the 14th amendment says either and it is NOT what the author of Clause 1 of the 14th amendment says in constitutional record, and it is NOT what SCOTUS precedent says in Wong Kim Ark.

>Here is how it stands today:

1: The Trump Administration is arguing from the position of UPHOLDING the US Constitution and SCOTUS precedent.

2: Precedent set by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark states that children of LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS have citizenship.

3: The author of 14th Amendment Clause 1 Senator Jacob Howard, specifically excludes the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship when he offers his definition of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

4: On June 27th, 2025 SCOTUS ruled that the National Injunctions that were placed against Trumps Executive Order were unlawful and thus the Trump Administration was granted the ability in 28 States to enforce his Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship.

>Trumps Executive Order is as follows:
“policy of the United States” to no longer ISSUE or ACCEPT documentation of citizenship in two scenarios: “(1) when [a] person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when [a] person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

THEREFORE a ruling is required by SCOTUS NOW to clarify if the children of illegal aliens are covered under the 14th amendment and given all of the historical context and precedent set by previous SCOTUS majority opinions... the answer is CRYSTAL CLEAR that they are NOT protected under the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment was intentionally misinterpreted for 120+ years and SCOTUS was too much of a pussy to make a ruling on it for 120+ years due to the US needing; cheap labor, suppressed wages, and the real estate lobby, being the largest lobby in the country, needing ever increasing demand for housing as the US was expanding in the industrial revolution and the post WWII era.

Those laborers are no longer needed now as the industrial revolution is ancient history and everything is moving towards automation and the need has arisen for a highly specialized and technical workforce (read: intelligent) that would be capable of maintaining such complex systems, THEREFORE; the "citizenship" status granted to these low skill, low IQ, migrants will be revoked RETROACTIVELY; they will be relocated to Third Party Nations in the case that they become stateless; Palantir will be needed and has already been funded for this project through the BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL; America can move into the 21st century, housing can become affordable again; wages will increase as demand for high skill labor will increase, and the country will be happier, healthier, and more prosperous, and finally any high skill laborers who wish to come to the US and become PERMANENT RESIDENTS (Green Card or Gold Card which can be bought for the price of $5 Million) will be eligible to produce Citizen offspring if they come here LEGALLY and obtain one of those cards.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Does "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" merely mean subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States? That is, subject to the laws of the United States as is virtually everyone on US soil including aliens who are here illegally, or are here for the purpose of bearing a child to make it an American Citizen, or does the "jurisdiction" of the United States mean something more than that? Such as the FULL and COMPLETE jurisdiction, requiring an allegiance that comes from a permanent lawful commitment to make the US ones home, the place where one permanently and lawfully resides. I believe this latter interpretation is compelled by the citizenship clause, text structure, and history, as well as by Common Sense.

If "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means nothing more than the duty of obedience to the laws of the United States then why did its framers choose such a strange way to say that? Why didn't they just say "subject to the laws of the United States"? Doing so would have been quite natural given that this straightforward unambiguous language is used in both Article VI and Article III of the US Constitution.

The clause also makes sure that it makes Citizens the newborns in both the United States and of the "states wherein they reside", that is where they live, their home, these words standing alone implies lawful permanent residence, and it plainly excludes tourists, as well as other lawful visitors, as well as illegal aliens who are prohibited by wall from residing within a state although they all must obey our laws.

>>509148574
Wong Kim Ark addressed a very narrow legal question: whether a child born in the United States to lawaful permanent residents of Chinese descent was entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The case did not, despite the conventional wisdom over decades, reach the question of whether children born to parents illegally in the United States were entitled to citizenship under the amendment.

In other words, it did not answer whether those not subject to the political jurisdiction thereof were entitled to birthright citizenship. The court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, concluding that the children of lawful permanent residents who are “domiciled” in the United States are entitled to birthright citizenship.

Wong Kim Ark did not address the question of whether children born to individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States qualify for birthright citizenship, no matter how many jews say otherwise.

The 1898 case is available for all to read here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

The opposition knows that the facts and the constitution support my arguments this is why they DO NOT wish for the Trump Administration to present these arguments in front of SCOTUS because they KNOW they WILL LOSE.