@bibliolater As a naturalized citizen, I'm interested in this case, but the article lost me with the old trope of calling "racist".

The actual case seems to be that there's a phrase in the constitution about being subject the the jurisdiction of the United States that is in the constitution because it means something, and the other view is that the phrase should be ignored as not meaning anything at all.

Which is interesting.

I've read that the premise of the amendment was specifically intended to ensure that the children of slaves would have citizenship. Is there a reason to think the amendment was actually intended to grant citizenship to tourists and those in the country only by breaking the laws to come in? Or is that not the actual intent of the amendment but assumptions and precedent in the years since?

The article bemoans statelessness, the idea that someone might be born without citizenship anywhere. Which is curious. Not every country has birthright citizenship. I wonder what happens around most of the world today and if that's actually a problem, or just part of a throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

I find the actual questions here interesting. I didn't find them addressed in the linked article.