In my experience, this is true of many judges from SCOTUS justices down to traffic court judge.
Which IS why the MAGA Mind Trick is being attempted in the drafting. The Order says the agencies will not “issue documents recognizing citizenship” unless you can present that proof – so “technically” it does not actually say the citizenship does not exist. “Just” that there’s now something else people born after next 2/20 will need to have to prove it. Something for which there is no field in the birth certificate.
Left to the legal process to see if that’s as slick as they think it was.
But to arbitrarily deny citizens “documents recognizing citizenship” would be a denial of equal protection.
Which is up to the Courts to call. Is this requirement “arbitrary” or not. Legally , not on the basis of our moral indignation.
Where does this definition come from? I’ve never heard anyone referred to as “a subject of the United States”.
It literally says “subject to the jurisdiction”, though.
The biggest difference is this - an undocumented alien convicted of a crime may get deported but it very likely will be after serving their sentence, not instead of. Someone with diplomatic immunity is expelled instead of being arrested, convicted, serving a sentence and so on. Because they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US unless their home country waives immunity.
Maybe I’m reading the amendment too literally but I don’t see where a parent’s citizenship is even considered. The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to the person born since it’s their citizenship that’s being determined. Maybe my parents weren’t “subjected” but that doesn’t mean that I’m not.
It was part of the legal theory of citizenship that led up to the Wong Kim Ark case. It hung around after the decision espoused by a very small minority.
Which means what exactly? According to SCOTUS the meaning is very clear but as pointed out, there are alternate interpretations.
Let’s go there. A country waives immunity and the diplomat later has a child born in the United States. Is that child a United States citizen since their parent in now “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
Or, Trump may know it’s legally ridiculous, and also knows his adoring throngs don’t know that it’s legally ridiculous and he can do his “I want to work for you, but these activist judges won’t let me” martyr act.
It’s a bit archaic.
(2): one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state
They’ll argue about the “owes allegiance to” part of the definition, even though that was pretty much settled in the Wong Kim Ark case. Look for the Supreme Court to overturn that precedent, as they did with Roe V Wade.
He has complained loudly in the past about how tribal sovereignty gives Native Americans an unfair advantage in the casino business.
Sure, I’ve heard it used in this way for a subject of the King of France or something. I’m asking specifically about “subjects” of the United States.
Think that’s archaic? Wait till we get to the difference between a citizen and denizen!
But then, wouldnt the migrants have to be treated as POWs? 
My prediction is that the SC will prevaricate and rule that a Executive order cant do it. This would leave out the possibility, of course, that Congress could pass a law limiting it.
Does it involve the color of the fringe of a United States flag?
Citizens live in cities, denizens live in dens. It’s simple, really.
Should this come up, I’m certain that Trump will define denizens as people that live in drug dens.
Just as asylum seekers are people that have escaped asylums in their country of origin and are seeking new asylums here.
Interesting! So, what treatment is given to enemies who get captured without uniform?
Assuming Geneva conventions are honored, the rules for treatment of POW’s and for interned enemy civilians are different. For example:
Whether it is better or worse to be a POW or a civilian internee, under the Geneva conventions, I can not say, except that it can depend on your situation. Since, as we see with tariffs, Trump doesn’t worry about international law, it is a moot point.
The great advantage of being interned is that you can live in a nuclear family unit. But if single, I do not know that being a POW is worse.