Hopefully Trump keeps promise to end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals

Politics
1363

to you, not to those who wrote and ratified the 14th. Whose opinion matters?

Hint: Not yours

2 Likes
1364

no, the people who wrote and ratified the 14th did that. So did the courts. You being willfully blind is pretty irrelevant.

1 Like
1365

It’s okay, you didn’t understand it either

1 Like
1366

:rofl: And to everybody since, including the SCOTUS.

Enjoy your disappointment.

1367

Name a case where it didn’t. Name one case where jus soli cirizenship was denied.

1368

:rofl: I understand it completely.

1369

Trump got y’all all up in your feefees. :rofl:

1370

Well, isn’t that peachy? You finally looked up the relevance of “dicta”, so you ought to know by now Pyler is irrelevant.

1371

:rofl: It isn’t.

1372

I sincerely hope Trump tries it.

1373

Well, to be a bit more accurate, it is only relevant to the degree that “Plyer addressed whether a person was “within the jurisdiction” of a state as it related to equal treatment under the laws of that state . . . “, which Ben_Natuf correctly explained to you HERE

1374

Ok, if you say so.

When you lose, are you going to whine about the SCOTUS?

1375

What other cases?

1376

Name a case where jus soli citizenship was denied a baby born in the US.

1377

When I lose?

I haven’t filed any court case and certainly do not have the time and resources to bring a case before the SCOTUS regarding the question at issue.

If such a case reaches the SCOTUS and a majority opinion finds the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soils becomes a United States citizens upon birth, the only people who will lose are American taxpayers who have been made into taxed slaves to finance this:
.

.

1378

(Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not “persons within the jurisdiction” of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument.

Plyler v Doe

1379

Name a case.

1380

Tuaua v. United States, No. 13-5272 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

1381

Nope. Not a territory, the US.

1382

But points out:

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)