The 14th Amendment really made a mess of things by transitioning citizenship to Jus Soli and it doesn’t even make sense. I’d eliminate it and return strictly to Jus Sanguinis.
What made a mess of things was
Dred Scott v. Sanford, which said that “persons of African descent” could never be American citizens. In the early days of the Republic, before states had codified legal systems, they tended to defer to the courts and English common law when it came to settling disputes.
Jus soli was a recognized legal concept under that framework. What the 14th Amendment did was constitutionalize that aspect of the law and apply it to all states because some of them were statutorily attempting to undermine it by passing discriminatory laws. A good example is 19th Century California laws against “foreign” (largely Chinese and Mexican) gold miners.
I find it almost comical that nativist “conservative” Heritage Foundation types, who are usually keen on invoking originalist and historical arguments when it comes to understanding and interpreting the Constitution, now want to deny that basic truth. I mean, they’d quick to trot out a 14th Century decree by King Edward III if it supported their desired narrative and not a pure understanding of
jus soli under the common law.
What their argument does is center around a misinterpretation of the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th Amendment. Under English common law, unless you were a diplomat or a member of a foreign occupying army, you were under the jurisdiction of the Crown. You couldn’t tell the lord of the manor, “I am so sorry, My Lord, but you have no lawful jurisdiction over me, because I am a simple traveler making my way from Edinburgh to Rouen to visit my dear, great-uncle, whom I haven’t seen in many years and is nearing his final breath.” You were under the King’s jurisdiction, and if you had a child on his territory while “just passing through,” the child was considered an English subject. That was the case until the British Nationality Act of 1981 became law. There would be no reason to change that aspect of British law if it didn’t apply.
We can’t overrule our constitution with a similar nationality or citizenship law. The Constitution is very specific. It says “all persons.” But the revisionists won’t acknowledge that. What they need to do is turn “all persons” into “all persons
except“ while expanding those exceptions as they ignore the historical record. I prefer we leave the law alone. It makes more sense to grant citizenship to people who were born here and whose mothers wanted them to be born here than people who are automatically conferred citizenship by happenstance due to parentage but who may never set foot on American soil at any point in their lives.