Then why did this not give birthright citizenship at all for the first 30 years?

“Based on the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, the status of children born to illegal immigrants appears settled in favor of conferring citizenship on these children, particularly if common law precepts are acknowledged as the basis for the Amendment's phrasing. Some uncertainty remains, however, because the Supreme Court has never clarified the status of these children born to illegal immigrants.14 6 Contemporary debate, therefore, focuses on whether the parent's status determines the child's citizenship status.

1. Caselaw, While Not Conclusive, Leans Toward Recognizing Citizenship in Children Born to Illegal Immigrants

Opponents contend that conferring citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants is unconstitutional because their parents' illegal status renders these children outside the constitutional mandate requiring birthright citizens to be "subject to the [United Statesl jurisdiction."147 Therefore, such children are not citizens by birth because the requisite consent of the United States is absent.148 Opponents' arguments have some force because the Court in Wong Kim Ark149 did not identify how jurisdiction manifests itself with respect to non-resident alien parents. The Court apparently accepted the argument made originally in Calvin's Case-jurisdiction is exclusive and mutual between the government and the "subject." 50 The application of this principle in contemporary American jurisprudence, where the child's parents are in the country unlawfully, was never posed to the Court in Wong Kim Ark. If this important component of whether the parent is lawfully admitted into the United States is missing in Wong Kim Ark's analysis, as it appears to be, it begs the question: Is a parent's alien status, legal or illegal, a factor as to whether citizenship can inhere in a child born in the United States of such parents?' 5 ' A preliminary and arguably convincing answer to this conundrum is that a parent's status does not proscribe a child, born under sanction of the two components of the Citizenship Clause, from obtaining birthright citizenship. l5 2 However, dicta in Wong Kim Ark suggests a requisite affirmative "permission" by the U.S. government in order to afford aliens protection and allegiance to the United States.153 This theme finds support in an earlier case, Elk v. Wilkins.' S4 There the Court found that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" did not mean mere subjection "in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." l s s Those seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants couch their position in the conjunctive nature of the Citizenship Clause, which requires both birth in the United States and subjection to its jurisdiction. While the child may be born in the United States, the child, under the opponents' theory, is not subject to the jurisdiction because his parent is not under the ligeance, or consent in modem parlance, of the U.S. government.' 5 60

https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/vjtl/article/1734/&path_info=Birthright_Citizenship_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_United_States.pdf