>even though the plain letter of the United States Constitution says these babies are citizens

Their argument is that the "plain letter of the United States Constitution" doesn't say that explicitly: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_th...

Plenty of examples where birthright citizenship didn't apply in the past (and currently don't apply, such as American Samoa

Well, it does say that explicitly. Them arguing the sky is green doesn't make the sky actually green. If they win a court case by arguing the sky is green, that says something about the court, not about the reality.

>Well, it does say that explicitly.

No, it says this explicitly:

  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.

>Them arguing the sky is green doesn't make the sky actually green.

They're arguing that the sky is blue, which the sky actually is.

>If they win a court case by arguing the sky is green, that says something about the court, not about the reality.

If they win a court case by arguing the sky is blue, and half of the political establishment rejects that, that says something about that half of the political establishment, not about the reality.

Yes, we've had decades of assholes trying to worm exceptions to the 14th Amendment. But read the plain letter of it.

The plain letter of it states:

  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.

The argument is that certain overseas territories, foreign dignitaries, and illegal immigrants are "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The first two are not offered birthright citizenship, the latter is. If consistency is to be considered, illegal aliens should similarly not be offered birthright citizenship.