Supreme Court doesn’t get to throw out an amendment because it’s old.
(I'm not sure where I stand on it but I can at least see an argument for revisiting the question)
If what you say is false, why not end birthright citizenship?
Also frankly it's a bit silly when you are born to two residents of a country but don't become a citizen. Why does it matter what passports they hold if they live and work in america like american citizens? People being born on the same soil being given second class citizen treatment is pretty despicable imo.
As a non-american, I would have enjoyed the precedent that the logical conclusion had to be that I would not be subject to the laws of the US, when visiting.
The Thomas interpretation must logically have given diplomatic immunity to anyone on an ESTA too.
Far from agreeing with the Trump administration; his view would effectively end birth tourism but preserve birthright citizenship (and maybe even stronger) for the children of non-citizens, legal or otherwise, who are domiciled in the US.
As for it being cut and dry, do you earnestly believe that "and subject to its jurisdiction" is cut and dry? You might have your view, you might have some historical receipts for it, others have other views, and historical receipts, and others rely on common law readings. There's no single unambiguous interpretation of this phrase. Thomas's dissent is well reasoned and has ample historical antecedents and if adopted would have been the best possible interpretation.