Unfortunately, we've got that little thing known as the 14th Amendment, which says (in part)...
"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.
Notice it says all persons. That's about as exclusionary as you can get. Of course, US v. Wong Kim Ark held...
"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 parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil 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."
And, people will argue that Ark didn't address illegals. Of course, we have Plyler v. Doe, which was entirely about illegals, and that majority opinion found...
"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful
So, as you can plainly see, the law is quite settled in this regard. The only way to fix this, is a constitutional amendment, at least partially repealing the 14th. The chances of securing a new Amendment on this issue, are probably close to zero.
Notice it says all persons. That's about as inclusive as you can get.
I wonder if you would explain what the practical difference between these two statements is:
1)”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.”
2”All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Do these two statements mean the same thing, in spite of statement number one having the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and statement number two not having it? In other words, is the subject and jurisdiction clause meaningless?
The law is not settled. It has been misinterpreted.
“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.