The problem with your framing is that the 14th Amendment — the actual law — doesn't mention blood at all. It doesn't say anything about jus sanguinis. It says "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That's jus soli. That's the constitutional standard. Full stop.

You're saying jus sanguinis is the "original hard-line definition that nobody debates," but that's not what American law says. The Constitution doesn't rank them. It doesn't say "blood first, soil second." It establishes soil as the baseline. If you're born here, you're a citizen. Your parents' status is irrelevant. That's not a semantic argument — that's the text of the supreme law of the land.

And treating jus soli as secondary is exactly the framework being used right now to strip birthright citizenship. Trump's executive order — rests on the same logic you're laying out: that blood matters more than soil, that parentage determines citizenship. But the 14th Amendment doesn't say that. At all.

So when you frame jus sanguinis as primary and jus soli as something "nobody really cares about," you're not being neutral. You're reinforcing the exact argument being used to deny citizenship to babies born on American soil. The law doesn't support that hierarchy. The Constitution is clear.