Michael Barbaro

And let's start with the administration's lawyer.

We will hear argument this morning in case 25365, Trump versus 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.

In 1984, 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.

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

It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.

And why, according to Sauer, the president's solicitor general, is that the case?

That children born to illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof of the United States government and therefore not eligible to be American citizens when they're born on American soil?

The court says at the very beginning of its opinion, here are the accepted facts.

These are lawfully domiciled here.

When it states the question presented, it talks about domicile.

When it recites the legal principle at page 693, it says domicile three times.

And at page 705, at the end of the opinion, it says here's the single question we've decided.

We've decided that Chinese immigrants with a permanent domicile and residence here fall within the rule of birthright citizenship.

And just define that word domicile, because having watched these oral arguments myself, not in the room, but at home, it comes up a lot.

And in his telling, undocumented immigrants, by definition, cannot be legally domiciled in the United States because they are here illegally.

It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens who have no such allegiance.