No. of Recommendations: 2
Alpha Puppy,
Where in the U.S. constitutional phrase that you quoted does it say "children born in the United States, whose parents are both illegal aliens, are automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship"?
It doesn't.
At best, the phrase you quoted is ambiguous, which is why at least 4 Supreme Court justices voted to take this up this year and make a ruling.
There are 2, not one, requirements which are conjunctive, not alternative: 1) born in the U.S. AND 2) subject to the jurisdiction of.
The second phrase has never been conclusively defined by the Supreme Court in this particular context.
Legal interpretation principles that are commonly understood by the courts is that nothing in the Constitution is "surplusage," i.e. redundant or unnecessary. If all that was necessary was to be born in the U.S., the 2nd phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction of," would be unnecessary.
If you actually knew what you were talking about--which you don't, but that's no surprise--you would understand that.
Also, the Wong Van Ark case that is commonly cited did not address the issue in its holding. That case involved two Chinese alien parents with a U.S. born child, but the parents were LEGALLY in the U.S. when the child was born in the U.S.
The Supreme Court has never decided the issue of whether children born in the U.S. of 2 illegal aliens automatically have citizenship according to the Constitution. The problem they then have is to explain why the Constitution has an extra, completely unnecessary and redundant phrase defining citizenship.
That may be a bridge too far and they may figure out a way of punting the whole thing, as in: "Congress has to decide this but Trump cannot do it by Executive Order," leaving the core issue unresolved for another day.
So as they say, this is a "case of first impression."
Your certainty about these kinds of complicated issues is not an indication that you are correct, simply that you are more ignorant than you might think yourself to be.
