Hans gets it right. When this Amendment was drafted in 1866, most governments in the world were monarchies, or variants of a single sovereign. You didn’t get to choose your country or your allegiance. At birth, you became a subject of a particular ruler, hence an alien to the rest of the world.
The Amendment was intended to protect citizenship for freed slaves and secondarily address the rights of Native Americans who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As the debates and contemporary writings disclose, this Amendment did not contemplate birthright citizenship and would consider it to be insane. Fixing it is simple and can be done through legislation or through the courts. An Executive Order, is a temporary fix, as acknowledged today by Trump himself. He is yielding the cudgel to move the Congress to action, but the legislative solution is the way to go and the court will sit on the sidelines and watch the fight.
>>...but the legislative solution is the way to go and the court will sit on the sidelines and watch the fight.<<
I now think the executive order might be just as effective, and more likely to succeed, given that McConnell remains glued to the filibuster rule.
The “subject to the jurisdiction...” clause is open to interpretation but it’s quite possible that a conservative justice would interpret it to mean that the parent(s) must not still be under the jurisdiction of a foreign country.
While I wouldn’t bet on a success with the current court, adding one more originalist to the court could be sufficient to see them uphold an Executive Order doing away with the current birthright citizenship treatment.
I think one mistake the Left (as well as many on the Right) continually makes is assuming the Trump is always shooting from the hip. He now has direct, and immediate, access to the finest legal minds in the country. It’s silly to think that he doesn’t ever avail himself of that opportunity.
See my post#15. Native Americans didn't get birthright citizenship until 1924.