Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship threatens 'chaos' in proving newborns' status

[LeftInTX]

19. Going down a rabbit hole, I also saw this:

Snips of immigration laws

§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
...........................

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, §301, 66 Stat. 235 ; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322 ; Pub. L. 92–584, §§1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289 ; Pub. L. 95–432, §§1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046 ; Pub. L. 99–653, §12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657 ; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, §101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306 .)

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1401&num=0&edition=prelim

It's an accumulation of laws passed in the 20th century. Since the law was passed, children born in the US were automatically granted US citizenship. Hence "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was interpretted by congress and agencies in 1940 to simply mean those born here, and the exclusion would have been those who born to diplomats of foreign countries who were not "subject to the jurisdiction".

So it appears that Trump is trying to change a law, or how congress worded a law that it created or how they interpreted a law they created and how they implemented law they created based on their intentions at the time. The law's intent reflects it's long standing [b]implementation.[/b]

How they implemented the law was based on their intention.
Although, Trump can go "word salad" on "jurisdiction of" in the 14 amendment to the constitution, which is subjective to interpretation, Trump can't overturn long standing statutes via EO.....

I hope not, other wise, he can overturn any law via EO...

https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I6f209445294e11f18650b90c05b8b24a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true