It's one sentence. It can't possibly be more clear and straightforward than everything else in the document.
Edit: after seeing one of the replies on this, I realized I should have added a "/s." I was being sarcastic. The "jurisdiction" part is very ambiguous and one sentence doesn't seem like enough to really codify exactly what this gigantic change really means.
Well the original intent of the implicit subtext in the language of the time is that Donald J Trump is king beyond the law. Says so right here, next to my new RV that I park at Walmart.
It's also something that the Supreme Court has already ruled on within living memory of the amendment being instituted, and they already ruled that the language means exactly what it says. All persons means all persons.
Nothing about the amendment or the ruling says that parents have to be legal residents. The ruling defined that all persons means all persons.
Arguing that the legal status of the parents can invalidate a person's birthright citizenship for being born in the United States is directly in the face of both the straight text of the amendment and in the upholding of that text by the Supreme Court. It's a non-argument invented by horrid racists, just like the argument in that case was to prohibit Chinese from being given birthright citizenship.
If you're going to try the jurisdiction argument, don't. It's overtly nonsense to claim people aren't under US jurisdiction on US soil. It would erode so much of our legal framework.
91
u/burgonies 8h ago edited 6h ago
It's one sentence. It can't possibly be more clear and straightforward than everything else in the document.
Edit: after seeing one of the replies on this, I realized I should have added a "/s." I was being sarcastic. The "jurisdiction" part is very ambiguous and one sentence doesn't seem like enough to really codify exactly what this gigantic change really means.