Does the Constitution say everyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen?

Recently the Supreme Court heard a case about whether children of illegal aliens were automatically entitled to be U.S. citizens.

Oh, I hear my liberal/Dem friends bleating "Why?  Cuz dat haz been decided years ago!  It beez right dere in duh 14th amendment!"

Really, sparky?  Is that what the 14th Amendment says?

No, it's not.

A guy named John Eastman attended the oral argument on the case at the SC and wrote a really good legal analysis.  I've edited his thoughts below:

At the oral argument I observed a combination of confusion, omissions, and outright lies from some of the justices.  The Court addressed the propriety of the nationwide, universal injunctions that have been issued by several district court judges blocking the execution of President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

Let’s begin with what should be obvious: the Democrat party clearly wants all children born in the U.S. to aliens illegally present in the country--whom the Democrats cunningly call "undocumented Americans"--to automatically be considered U.S. citizens.  They want this because most illegals are looking for free stuff, and would thus likely vote Democrat.

Now for the lies:  Early in the hearing, Justice Sotomayor unequivocally claimed that the Court had held 127 years ago that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, and that it had repeated that holding in three other cases since.  That is false.

The Supreme Court has never held that all children born on U.S. soil to temporary visitors or illegal aliens are citizens. The "Wong Kim Ark" case to which she was referring explicitly dealt only with a child born to parents who were lawfully and permanently domiciled in the United States—and the word “domicile” or one of its derivatives was repeated nearly 30 times throughout that opinion.
  Any language in the opinion beyond that is not part of the holding, but is rather non-binding dicta [extraneous statements in a court opinion that are not part of the reason for a decision]. The same is true with the passing references in the three other cases she cited—they are pure dicta. So her claim that the Court has already issued holdings that are contrary to the president’s executive order is simply untrue.

Several legal scholars have recently made the same claims, and Justice Sotomayor may have been parroting them. Yet until President Trump raised the issue in his first campaign, almost all legal scholars writing in this area candidly acknowledged that Wong Kim Ark did not settle the question.
   Such is the hostility to all things Trump that the prior honest assessments have given way to a certitude that is simply not accurate.

Now for the confusion. Justice Kavanaugh asked U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer whether excluding from birthright citizenship the children born to temporary visitors or those illegally present in the United States would be unworkable, asking “What are the hospitals to do, or the states when registering vital statistics about births?"
   Apparently Justice Kavanaugh is unaware that most countries--including almost all those once described as “first world”--seem to have no trouble noting on a birth certificate whether the parents are citizens or merely visitors at the time of birth.

And he is apparently likewise unaware that until 1966, applications for a U.S. passport, which can only be issued to citizens, similarly asked about the status of one’s parents when the applicant was born.  So at one time this was considered relevant to the question of whether a child was a U.S. citizen.

But somehow that's no longer a factor?

Source.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/supreme-confusion/