> Section 1. 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 Constitution doesn't define it at all, first off. The Fourteenth Amendment does. All the original Constitution says is that a "natural-born Citizen" is a requirement for President; and that per Article I, Section 8 congress has the power to define the mechanics of citizenship.

The Fourteenth by contrast says plain text:

> 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.

So your claim is incorrect.

> 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.

Of course, being part of the Constitution, few of the terms are defined. But, as I read it, if you're born here outside of diplomatic immunity, you're a citizen. And I'd need a well referenced argument to understand why 'subject to the jurisdiction therof' means something other than how I interpret it.

Please, just be honest and say you want to enact a policy and use the US Supreme Court to do it, rather than gaslighting us into believing that words don’t mean what they do.

14th Amendment:

"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."

There are rumblings about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" somehow excluding folks based on their immigration status, but frankly, the meaning is clear, and jurisprudence recognizes this. The jurisdiction carveout is for international diplomats, i.e. people who are literally not subject to US law. Immigrants, even illegal immigrants, are subject to US law. Stating otherwise would have vast repercussions.

It's inscribed on a plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty and is taught in civics classes as a representation of American values. The idea is that, when you live in a society, you build upon a set of shared values and stories so that you can have something in common with your neighbor and something bigger than yourself to strive for.

All that said, there's a reason that comes last on my list of reasons. If you and I agree on the shared story, the other stuff doesn't matter so much. If we don't, having pragmatic and fiscal reasons to get on the same page lets us at least stay rational in our discourse.

Are they interviewing references outside the country? Doing deep background checks that are not basically instant electronically? That's what I'm talking about. The denial process can probably be made extremely fast, and then the tedious interview part can be focused only on the ones we are planning to accept otherwise.