Computer Help and Support

Ultimately, it is the Supreme Court's job to decide whether to adopt that interpretation or
not. They are the ultimate arbiters of what the constitution means. And even if it agrees
with Trump's interpretation, the constitution is exactly as it was before. It is just that the
words of that amendment have a new interpretation - which happens more frequently than
you might think.
Trump contends that the phrase, ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' should be
interpreted to mean people with a permanent legal right to be in this country.
It hasn't been challenged before - and the assumption is that the phrase applies only to
people like foreign dignitaries and their families who are not subject to the jurisdiction of
our criminal courts (e.g. https://hrvoices.org/article/united-nations-diplomat-accused-of-
raping-nyc-neighbor-released-without-charges-after-claiming-immunity/). So if a foreign
dignitary is stationed in the United States their diplomatic immunity protects them from the
jurisdiction of US criminal laws. Because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of our
laws, any child born to them in the US is not granted US citizenship.
I don't see even this Supreme Court buying the argument that immigrants without a legal
status are equivalent to diplomats. But that is Trump's contention.