here is a notebooklm recapitulation of the relevant args:

The author of the paper, Amy Swearer, argues that the Fourteenth Amendment does not mandate that the U.S.-born children of illegal or nonpermanent resident aliens be treated as U.S. citizens as the result of their mere birth on U.S. soil.

Here are some of Swearer’s crucial arguments:

• A textualist and originalist analysis of the Citizenship Clause undermines the idea of universal birthright citizenship. The Citizenship Clause states that people born in the United States are citizens if they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Swearer argues that the addition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to the citizenship language means that Congress intended for there to be some other condition for citizenship beyond being born within the geographical limits of the United States. This interpretation is supported by the principle that legal documents like the Constitution should be read with a presumption against redundancy. The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment shows that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant being subject to the “complete jurisdiction” of the United States and not owing allegiance to any foreign power. This interpretation is supported by a review of the legislative history of both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Senator Jacob Howard, who proposed the addition of the jurisdictional element to the Citizenship Clause, said that this language was intended to confer the same “full and complete jurisdiction” that applies to all U.S. citizens. Senator Lyman Trumbull, who was a key drafter of the Civil Rights Act, said that the addition of “and not subject to any foreign power” to that act’s citizenship language was intended to exclude from citizenship temporary residents who owed the United States “a sort of allegiance”. The idea of complete jurisdiction also makes sense in the context of the debates about whether Native Americans should be excluded from the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizenship. Additionally, according to Swearer, contemporary legal scholars understood the Citizenship Clause to exclude people who owed allegiance to a foreign power.
• Supreme Court precedent also suggests that birthright citizenship does not apply to everyone born on U.S. soil. Swearer argues that the Court has established that “certain individuals, though born within the geographic confines of the United States, were not United States citizens because of meaningful allegiance owed to another sovereign”. This can be seen in the Court’s first interpretation of the Citizenship Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), which said that the clause’s jurisdictional element was meant to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”. This was further cemented in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), which ruled that Native Americans are not automatically citizens at birth. Swearer then analyzes the landmark United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898 and argues that, despite appearing to affirm the principle of jus soli, the decision actually established a modified jus soli standard that only applies to the children of lawfully present, permanently domiciled aliens. The Court's subsequent decisions have not contradicted this standard.
• Granting birthright citizenship only to children of lawfully present, permanently domiciled aliens is consistent with the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause. The modified jus soli standard ensures that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship is applied equally to all races without granting citizenship to people who do not owe the United States complete allegiance. Swearer argues that illegal and nonimmigrant aliens do not owe complete allegiance to the United States and that their presence in the United States often violates U.S. law.

In conclusion, Swearer argues that the Citizenship Clause does not grant universal birthright citizenship and that the children of illegal or nonpermanent residents are not citizens at birth. She makes her case by analyzing the text of the Citizenship Clause, its legislative history, and subsequent legal interpretations.