是啊，只要高院对United States v. Wong Kim Ark重作解释就可以了。高院很可能会支持川普。

https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/does-the-constitution-mandate-universal-birthright-citizenship-heres

What About Wong Kim Ark?

Despite claims by advocates of universal birthright citizenship that the Supreme Court has already held universal birthright citizenship to be “the law of the land,” the reality is far different. 

It is true that, in 1898, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the U.S.-born child of lawfully present and permanently domiciled Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

At its core, Wong Kim Ark was about the government’s attempt to circumvent the Fourteenth Amendment and keep Chinese immigrants and their children from ever becoming citizens, by any means, just because they were Chinese. 

At the time, federal law barred Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens, and they were, according to treaty obligations with China, perpetual Chinese subjects. 

Much like the freed slaves, Chinese immigrants were prohibited from subjecting themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States because of their race, and were relegated to permanent alienage in a country where they would live and die. 

This type of race-based discrimination in citizenship was precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit, and the Supreme Court rightly recognized the system for the unconstitutional travesty it truly was. 

While the opinion can also be read as affirmatively adopting jus soli as the “law of the land,” it can just as easily be read as adopting only a flexible, “Americanized” jus soli limited to the factors of lawful presence and permanent domicile. 

This second interpretation renders the holding consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is also precisely what many legal commentators at the time thought the Supreme Court meant, too. 

In short, Wong Kim Ark only deviates from the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment if one chooses to read it acting under the assumption that the Supreme Court intended to upend decades of precedent and judicially supersede the clear intent of Congress. That assumption is unnecessary, illogical, and dangerous.