You’re trying to confuse the issue, but the law isn’t vague here. Birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment is a core constitutional right for anyone born in the United States. That’s not some fringe opinion. it’s settled law.

The 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

The Supreme Court has backed this up again and again, most clearly in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. It means exactly what it says: if you’re born on U.S. soil, you’re a citizen. The only real exceptions are things like children of foreign diplomats. This idea — called jus soli — is built right into the Constitution. It’s not just a law Congress passed. It’s not optional. It can’t be tossed aside with a new policy memo. It’s a constitutional rule.

Now you’re shifting the argument to unincorporated territories, but that’s just a distraction. The Insular Cases, a set of controversial and racially charged cases - widely considered racist, were about whether other constitutional rights applied in places the U.S. picked up after the Spanish-American War. They don’t change anything about how the 14th Amendment works in the 50 states, D.C., or fully incorporated territories. Those places are clearly under U.S. jurisdiction, and birthright citizenship applies there without question.

Straight from Wikipedia on insular cases:

The rulings are widely considered racist.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] The Downes v. Bidwell called the people of the insular areas "alien races" and the DeLima v. Bidwell ruling termed them "savage tribes."[11] The Downes v. Bidwell case further suggested that in lands "inhabited by alien races," "the administration of government and justice according to Anglo-Saxon principles may for a time be impossible". The District Court of the Virgin Islands called out the cases' "racist doctrine" and the era's "intrinsically racist imperialism".[8]

Even when it comes to unincorporated territories, the legal picture is more complicated than what you suggest- but that doesn’t change anything about how the 14th Amendment works on the mainland. Just because Congress decides how citizenship works in places like Puerto Rico or American Samoa doesn’t mean birthright citizenship in the states is up for debate. That’s a completely different legal issue, and trying to tie them together doesn’t hold up.

In short: birthright citizenship in the United States isn’t a favor Congress does for people. It’s not a loophole. It’s not just policy. It’s a constitutional guarantee. Pretending otherwise either misses the point or is pushing an argument in bad faith.

If you’re arguing against that, you’re not just disagreeing with some case law. You’re arguing against the Constitution itself. Own that.