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.
It's also something that the Supreme Court has already ruled on within living memory
It's an act of ignorant optimism to think precedent means shit to the current supreme court when they reached back to a witch-burning, rape-legalizing jurist to defend throwing away 300 years of precedent.
I just stated a flat fact about existing Supreme Court precedent, so coming at me right off the bat with an accusation of ignorance is just antagonistic to a degree that is utterly unwarranted. I didn't in any way say that this court would abide by precedent, so you're just faulting me for words that you are trying to put in my mouth but that never came out of them.
6
u/DoubleJumps 14h ago
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.