[tomder55]

listen to Rep Wesley Hunt's opening statement about reforming birthright citizenship.
Congressman Wesley Hunt Ignites Debate at Birthright Citizenship Hearing! - YouTube

He makes it clear that the 14th amendment was intended to make former slaves and their children American citizens .

This whole notion of a birthright citizenship is against the whole founding principle. Free people are not bound to citizenship by birth. We renounced that feudal notion with the Declaration of Independence.

The intent of the clause language 'subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” is willfully misinterpreted . Senator Jacob Howard who authored the clause made it clear when arguing for passage that native Americans ;who were born within the geographic United States and subject to the jurisdiction were not eligible because the intent of it was "allegiance " Their allegiance was to their tribe . He went on to add that it not only excludes Native Americans. The exact quote is .....

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

The reason this was necessary was to constitutionally reverse the Dredd Scott decision wrongfully decided by the Roger Taney SCOTUS declaring that Blacks and their descendants could never be citizens .

Native Americans were later granted the right under an act of Congress in 1924.
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 - Immigration History

This set a precedent that Congress could use today to define who is eligible .

[tomder55]

SCOTUS recent ruling clipped District Judge's powers against nationwide injunctions a little . But it really did nothing to answer the 14th amendment citizenship question .

1st nationwide injunctions. SCOTUS left a crack open that they could be used in class action cases. Even though Alito and Kavanaugh warned them against exploiting the exception in their concurring opinions ; at least 2 of them have already issued injunctions based on a supposed class action that was not really a class action.

Judge's middle finger to the Supreme Court shows why Trump wants to move fast on deportations

It will still be the practice of Trump's opposition to forum shop courts for judges who will decree universal injunctions by claiming the case meets the class action criteria.

Again ;the actual issue of birthright citizenship was not addressed even though Justice Sotomayor made a rather pretzel logic attempt in her dissent. She claims that SCOTUS has already ruled and there is precedence.

But the main case she cites is one where the parents were lawfully and permanently residents of the US. (US v Wong Kim Park) .This cherry-picking ignores the language of the authors of the 14th amendment which made it clear that the 14th applied to people in the country who were COMPLETELY subject to the jurisdiction AND allegiance to the US

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, noted at the time that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” juris­diction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” The clause therefore mirrored and constitutionalized language that was already in the 1866 Civil Rights Act: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Thomas Cooley, one of the preeminent constitutional law writers of the 19th century, agreed. As he noted in The General Principles of Constitutional Law in America, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.”

No, birthright citizenship isn’t required by the Constitution – New York Daily News