How should “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment be defined?

[CyberGhost615]

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment is not clearly defined in the Constitution.
Due to it the ambiguous nature of the phrase, Congress has the constitutional authority to define it through legislation.

My view is that true jurisdiction requires more than simply being physically present on U. S. soil and subject to its criminal laws. It requires a permanent legal relationship with the United States; therefore, automatic birthright citizenship should only apply to children born in the U. S. who have at least one parent who is either a U. S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident (green card holder).

Children born to temporary visa holders, tourists, or those with pending asylum claims should not receive automatic citizenship. Their parents can petition for them once they themselves obtain permanent legal status.

This law would apply only going forward and would not strip citizenship from anyone who already possesses it, respecting the unspoken prohibition on ex post facto laws.

[NaultD]

Keep birthright citizenship. It's the only thing keeping population collapse from happening. Russia, China, Japan, south Korean they are effectively doom to fold over population declining.

Like having a growing expensive house with no income coming in. No wiggle room covering inflation cost and no budget for repairs.

[exitseven]

It is a shame that the Supreme Court rules in favor of birthright citizenship but there is still things tht can be done to de-incentify the practice. There is nothing in the constitution that says that the mother cannot be deported and there is nothing that says that the mother gets welfare forever.
Kick out a few of these parasites after they give birth and you will not see it happening.

[strateguy632]

solid logic! 👍🥇

[strateguy632]

seems clear to me. that phrase gives authority to state law.