We will hear argument this morning in case 25, 365, Trump v. Barbara. General Sauer.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Citizenship Clause was adopted just after the

Civil War to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children whose allegiance to the United

States had been established by generations of domicile here.

It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens who have

no such allegiance.

This conclusion reflects the original public meaning of the clause.

When Congress used the term not subject to any foreign power in the Civil Rights Act

of 1866, it rejected the

British conception of allegiance. Senator Trumbull explained that subject to the jurisdiction

thereof in the clause means not owing allegiance to anybody else. And in 1884, this court recognized

that subject to the jurisdiction means owing direct and immediate allegiance. The clause thus does

not extend citizenship to the children of temporary visa holders or illegal aliens. Unlike the newly

freed slaves, those visitors lack direct and immediate allegiance to the United States. For aliens,

lawful domicile is the status that creates the requisite allegiance,

and the text of the clause presupposes domicile. For decades following the clause's adoption,

commentators recognize that the children of temporary visitors are not citizens, and illegal aliens

lack the legal capacity to establish domicile here.

Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations.

It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.

It operates as a powerful pull factor for illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only violate the immigration laws, but also jump in front of those who follow the rules.

It has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States

...