Let’s look at the quote.
There’s the change.
And the violation of the 14th.
changes nothing for those already born. and whether it violates anything will be determined by courts, not your declarations
“Sojourners”?
Lol.
In this thread of all places…
You most certainly are wrong. You unequivocally stated "No, we cannot kick them out” with reference to a foreign dignitary.
The factual truth is any host country can expel any foreign dignitary they feel like kicking out of their country. And, I might add, your nonsense was debunked by Ben_Natuf HERE
Just admit your comment was inaccurate and move on.
That’s what the poster seems to have a love affair with . . . moving goal posts when proven to be making something up.
.
Provide documentation of me making something up about the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent.
1 Like
Sedition and harboring are criminal offenses, and Tom Homan has repeatedly warned sanctuary state leaders to not cross the line. I expect breaking news showing a perp walk of one of these violatores to appear shortly after Trump takes office on January 20th, 2025. 
Our rule of law is intended to be “narrow” in its operation.
You are absolutely correct. The question is, what lurks in the hearts and minds of those who deceive us with their lies?
2 Likes
The law is jus soli.
The phrase “jus soli” does not appear in our Constitution. You made that up.
1 Like
Well, you’ve been saying that the US has the jurisdiction to expel them. If that’s not saying it, it definitely implies it.
I’m not following you there. What does that have to do with his status as illegal resident and his lack of rights under the Constitution?
But it’s not inaccurate. The US Government can demand that a person with diplomatic immunity leave the country, but the actual removal of that individual from the country is wholly up to the country they have allegiance to. If they so choose, the individual can reside in the embassy indefinitely.
1 Like
Ben,
With regard to a recent case, Tuaua v. United States, No. 13-5272 (D.C. Cir. 2015), the Court once again emphatically emphasizes the necessity of owing a direct allegiance to the United States as a necessary requirement for birthright citizenship within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment (our amended version of what may be called jus soli).
The Court, in 2015, expounds upon jus soli as follows:
"And even assuming the framers intended the Citizenship Clause to constitutionally codify jus soli principles, birthright citizenship does not simply follow the flag. Since its conception jus soli has incorporated a requirement of allegiance to the sovereign. To the extent jus soli is adopted into the Fourteenth Amendment, the concept of allegiance is manifested by the Citizenship Clause’s mandate that birthright citizens not merely be born within the territorial boundaries of the United States but also “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1; see Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655, 18 S.Ct. 456 (“The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection… Children, born in England, of aliens, were natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.”).
Appellants would find any allegiance requirement of no moment because, as non-citizen nationals, American Samoans already “owe permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22); see also Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. at 155 (“[A]llegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is; and allegiance by birth, is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.”). Yet, within the context of the Citizenship Clause, “[t]he evident meaning of the … words [“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”] is, not merely subject 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.” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884)(emphasis added).
Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 305-6 (D.C. Cir. 2015)"
You’re making a circular argument. As @WuWei said, the 14th Amendment does not mention parents. And you are doing the same thing @Ben_Natuf is doing … conflating “natural born” with “jus soli.”
I made no argument, or “circular argument” in what you quoted from me. Stop making ■■■■ up.
The phrase “legal immigrant parents” appears where?
