Well...the utilization of executive order has caused me to ask they same thing for virtually each president since the 2000's: how are EO's so liberally used?  Then again, considering that--like virtually all current immigration arguments--other branches of gov't have been kicking the can down the road since the 90's I understand the political effectiveness of kickstarting this topic.  

I'm also not really buying this false premise as though a new amendment has to be ratified to end Birthright Citizenship, especially when the language of key figures whom originally ratified it (EDIT: the 14th) have clarified on it:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the gov't of US, but will include every other class of persons." (Sen. Jacob Howard)

From the context surrounding this Amendment (Dred Scott decision in particular) to "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." part, it seems insane to think such a decision would also allow the newborns of pregnant illegal aliens playing Red Rover with a host country's Border Patrol to immediately be granted citizenship.  US reached this point from a few special cases touching on the subject and disingenuous stretches of its intentions, NOT on some highly-upheld principles that Beloved Leader is looking to sully with his fascism and such.

It's a series of talking points in the form of a lawsuit designed to get news articles and for people on the internet to talk about it.

In other words, you just fed the trolls.

Well...the utilization of executive order has caused me to ask they same thing for virtually each president since the 2000's: how are EO's so liberally used?  Then again, considering that--like virtually all current immigration arguments--other branches of gov't have been kicking the can down the road since the 90's I understand the political effectiveness of kickstarting this topic.  

I'm also not really buying this false premise as though a new amendment has to be ratified to end Birthright Citizenship, especially when the language of key figures whom originally ratified it (EDIT: the 14th) have clarified on it:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the gov't of US, but will include every other class of persons." (Sen. Jacob Howard)

From the context surrounding this Amendment (Dred Scott decision in particular) to "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." part, it seems insane to think such a decision would also allow the newborns of pregnant illegal aliens playing Red Rover with a host country's Border Patrol to immediately be granted citizenship.  US reached this point from a few special cases touching on the subject and disingenuous stretches of its intentions, NOT on some highly-upheld principles that Beloved Leader is looking to sully with his fascism and such.

What you're doing here is tantamount to Gish Galloping.  The Howard quote I brought up is pretty clear in delineating this:

-they're different in respect to situation and standing

-they're similar in that they don't fall under the "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." clause of the 14th (as Congress originally framed)

Obviously, the next logical question would bring up the implications with crime.  But the emphasis on "jurisdiction" isn't limiting itself to geographical location, but rather total jurisdiction in respect to location, total allegiance (as some Congressmen framed it), and being wholly subject to the nation's laws.  Initially, many Native American tribes (some referenced during the ratifying of this amendment) didn't fall under the 14th either, though this changed in the early 1900's via Congress + Presidential signing.  Actually, the procedure in which Natives Americans went from outside the citizenship clause to inside via simple legislative majority + executive authorization destroys OP's assessment that a new amendment is needed.  

Anyways...you see how this comes back around, right?  Illegals wouldn't fall under the "[total] jurisdiction" of US based on conflicted political allegiances (as how those framers assessed it).  And if they sincerely wanted to legally pledge US allegiance and go the whole nine yards, well...we have a naturalization process and there's millions of said people in line who didn't decide to violate federal laws of their new-host country.   

What you're doing here is tantamount to Gish Galloping.  The Howard quote I brought up is pretty clear in delineating this:

-they're different in respect to situation and standing

-they're similar in that they don't fall under the "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." clause of the 14th (as Congress originally framed)

Obviously, the next logical question would bring up the implications with crime.  But the emphasis on "jurisdiction" isn't limiting itself to geographical location, but rather total jurisdiction in respect to location, total allegiance (as some Congressmen framed it), and being wholly subject to the nation's laws.  Initially, many Native American tribes (some referenced during the ratifying of this amendment) didn't fall under the 14th either, though this changed in the early 1900's via Congress + Presidential signing.  Actually, the procedure in which Natives Americans went from outside the citizenship clause to inside via simple legislative majority + executive authorization destroys OP's assessment that a new amendment is needed.  

Anyways...you see how this comes back around, right?  Illegals wouldn't fall under the "[total] jurisdiction" of US based on conflicted political allegiances (as how those framers assessed it).  And if they sincerely wanted to legally pledge US allegiance and go the whole nine yards, well...we have a naturalization process and there's millions of said people in line who didn't decide to violate federal laws of their new-host country.   

So, there's a lot to dissect between these two quotes that's wrong but I'm having trouble squishing down in html to one big post (really bad at tech stuff).  Initially, I had my thoughts focused on this one before I noticed the next quote which has some overlap here.  Anyways...

As brought up with other poster, the idea of jurisdiction isn't limited to geographical location in respect to the protections of the 14th.  Well, if that's what the "other side" is arguing then they're providing an argument that's disingenuous and self-contradictory.  The very notion of ONLY examining an amendment's words & intent already begs the question: what were the ratifiers' intentions?  In order to answer that, any intellectually-honest person would investigate both their lawmakers' use of vernacular and surrounding context.  Which is what makes you referencing the 2nd amendment quite humorous & applicable.  

-"If we go down that route then the 2nd amendment goes into play as well. "

You mean like it has several times before?  DC vs. Heller case is not that old.  And judging by the "muh Constitution (when convenient)"  outrage over this found here & elsewhere, it seems like "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is about as widely misunderstood as "A well-regulated militia...," your following sentences seem to be proof of that.  

-"If people actually want the words of the 14th to be more clear then should it not go through the same process we have used for years. "

Except they are pretty clear but have been misapplied.  That's the crux of people's unreason here: demanding Beloved Leader & cohorts go through the most rigorous law-making process of the US for a policy--not a constitutional law--that never had to do the same.  And my support for this argument comes from the language of the 14th, the historical context surrounding it, AND the clear-stated intentions of the ratifiers themselves (of which I have more quotes if necessary).

Except that's not a problem b/c the addition of an adjective, specifically used by another Senator btw, doesn't negate what I'm emphasizing.  By this same illogic, your argument is in tatters b/c nowhere in the 14th does it say "geographical jurisdiction."  Why does it say neither of those two adjectives?  Well, there's an argument to be made mine's more applicable simply b/c what defines "jurisdiction" is multilayered already.  I mean...I've been following that we're talking THE CHILD here; the idea of allegiances/jurisdiction should still apply here.  The only reason they've popped out on US soil is b/c their mother violated federal law (which taints the notion they're allowed citizenship to begin with).  Comparing that to Native American children born outside a reservation is a false equivalence b/c natives still get freedom of movement within US borders.  Remind me who's confusing 2 situations and totally ignoring the differences.  

So, I'm not 100% committed to agreeing with you on this.  Because of Article II, I wouldn't surprised to see an approach to the judiciary being the result.

So...there's some alarm bells going off with this tactic here.  You presenting a twisted through-line in this part whilst not acknowledging how much of the OP is killed given this information, for one.  "This dynamite I'm laying beneath my feet will totally destroy you!"  Two, giving Indians citizenship "b/c of the 14th they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is a mischaracterization of the storied history of how Native Americans gained US citizenship since the 14th was ratified.  Also, it's not outside the bounds of Congress to make new laws defining which previously excluded groups can now be considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  The problem?  The concept of Birthright Citizenship hasn't gone through such a process.  Seeing a terrible lack of argument-killing here.

I don't think you understand the basics of Originalism.  Focusing on the intent of the authors and what the words meant at the time they were written is the backbone of the philosophy.

I don't think you understand the basics of Originalism.  Focusing on the intent of the authors and what the words meant at the time they were written is the backbone of the philosophy.

Again, you are misunderstanding Originalism.  Its goal is to understand the meaning of the words and intent when they wrote them.  It's not to bale out legislatures when they write sloppy statutes.

The goal is to limit the different interpretations via attempting to figure out what they would have meant at the time.  To take one challenging term from the Constitution, that isn't quite as strongly debated at the moment.  Impeachment is said be reserved for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."  Well, what does that mean?  To a modern audience, it would sound like a rather high bar.  "High" being the operative word.  You might think that it means major crimes.

But to the people who wrote it, the word "high" referred to the person committing the crime.  It basically meant a breach of public trust in some manner and how a person in such a "high" position of power has special duties to carry out his charge faithfully.  Therefore, to the Framers (George Mason to be exact), the term High Crimes and Misdemeanors would have lowered the bar for impeachment.

So, while the words can be interpreted  either way by a reasonable observer, the origininalist judge will try and discover the meaning of the interpretation at the time it was written and how it would have been believed to have been commonly used at the time.

Incidentally, I'll also add that Scalia led a very successful campaign to dissuade his colleagues from using legislative history in their opinions.  In other words, Scalia very much relied on the text first and foremost.