How does the proposed mechanism conflict with the text and established interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause?

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause says: “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.” The Supreme Court settled the legal interpretation in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). That ruling holds that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means being subject to U.S. law, not immune from it. It excludes only children of foreign diplomats and enemy combatants during wartime.

The proposed mechanism tries to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or non-citizens. It relies on reinterpreting “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude these children. That interpretation ignores their full subjection to U.S. civil and criminal law. It directly contradicts the text’s plain meaning and over 125 years of precedent. Those precedents treat territorial birth coupled with legal subjection as the sole determinant of citizenship, not parental status. No statutory or constitutional amendment has altered this interpretation.