> 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.

Notice the "and" clause before the "subject to the jurisdiction". It means "everyone who is born in the united states and additionally everyone who is subject to a US jurisdiction". It's the clause which allows people born on US military bases to also be citizens of the US because that's a jurisdiction of the US. For example, Ted Cruz. It does not mean "Who are also"

And since this is a clause which additionally adds on people it's talking about, you could exclude it all together. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States".

▲

rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, the "and" functions the same way as in programming: "(born or naturalized in the U.S.) && (subject to the jurisdiction thereof)" requires both things to be true.

▲

cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-]

Not according to the supreme court any time this has come up.

▲

rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-]

That’s how the Supreme Court always interprets “and” in a list of conditions.

▲

cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-]

No it's not. And, as a prime example, this case which the supreme court does not and did not take that view. It's not even something the dissent argued. This is your own personal interpretation.

	▲	rayiner 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, it’s the opposite. In this case, everyone agreed that the “and” means both conditions must hold. Everyone agrees that someone must be both (1) born in the US and (2) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Under your reading, the whole discussion about children of diplomats makes no sense. Under your reading, children of diplomats would automatically be U.S. citizens if born on U.S. soil. But everyone agrees that they’re not.