Here's the full text of the relevant section:

> 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.

The dissents are worthless, like most of the opinions from Thomas and the other conservative "justices". None of this wording is tricky unless you are specifically trying to find ways to deny rights to american citizens based on their ethnic origin.

> whether the child is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. at birth

If I strangle said child in the maternity ward, do you think the US will go "whoops, no jurisdiction!"

Your deleted post elsewhere mentioned the text of the 1866 civil rights act stating not subject to a foreign power, but the amendment uses this text instead. IMHO, that shows awareness of the issue and a different choice.

Also, IMHO, The Indian Citizenship act addresses the complex soverignity of native tribes. Members of recognized tribes, on reservations have broad exclusion from laws of the State and in many cases are also excluded from jurisdiction of Federal law. This complexity has changed over time, but in 1924 it certainly wasn't clear that Indians were subject to the jursisdiction of the United States ... and at the time of the 14th amendment it's not really clear if United States is meant as a singular noun or a collective noun... given that people born in the territories are not automatic citizens, I think the interpretation is that you have to be subject to the jursidiction of any one of the States, which an Indian born on a reservation certainly wasn't.

I don't think the language is ambiguous at all, and I consider it shocking and beneath the dignity of the Court that this was not a unanimous decision (and that the case was taken at all).

I agree that it's worth reading the original source and encourage all to do so. My takeaway however was that the majority had a much stronger body of evidence than the dissenters.

> Meanwhile, English common law points one way, while some legislative history, the 1866 civil rights act, and the 1924 indian citizenship act point the other way.

This is a summary of Thomas’ dissent; the majority opinion is based on more than just “English common law.” Even Thomas acknowledged this.

It was not tricky. The arguments against are fundamentally dishonest and so is your representation otherwise.

[dead]