I concede the point, Wes

Wes and I had a disagreement over the language of the 14^th amendment. It would seem that he is right, and that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" had a different legal meaning when it was enacted, than one would commonly read it today. Senator Trumbull, one of the men who wrote the 1866 immigration law, had this to say about the definition as the government understood it back then:

The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof? "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

It makes sense when you think about it. Americans, by virtue of being American citizens, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, even overseas. Their children are also subject to the laws of the United States by virtue of being the wards of American citizens. Consider the 14th amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You have a two-part test to determine who is really a citizen by virtue of being born here:

1. Are they born here?
2. Are their parents citizens, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Number two is the one that really matters here. Technically it could apply to a legal immigrant if the United States declared that legal immigrants on a citizenship track are subjected to the full jurisdiction of the United States when they travel abroad, the way that actual citizens are, but that's beside the point. The fact is, an illegal immigrant is only subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while on American soil, whereas an American citizen is lawfully subjected to the jurisdiction of the United States regardless of where they are located. Don't believe me? Live abroad for two years, and claim that you have no more obligation to pay your federal income tax because you don't live in the United States. The federal government asserts legal authority over Americans no matter where they live.

Now, the only question is whether or not the courts will respect this language and deal with it if the federal government moves to strip the children of illegal immigrants of their illegitimate American citizenship. If the answer is no, then the President should simply ignore the court order, and follow the constitutional process anyway.