Supreme_War_Pig:
johnwk2:
Supreme_War_Pig:
Oh no, and I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I don’t have the resources for further contribution. I assume that there is a website that catalogues and indexes appeal cases, but I have no idea what it is.
What on earth are you looking for, which you do not have the resources for?
The irrefutable fact is, Our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.
JWK
That fact is irrefutable. I believe this will be my 5th acknowledgment of that fact.
However, when researching Kim I would run into variations of the following statement: " Appeal courts have ruled in favor of birthright citizenship due the the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kim".
However, citations are never given, so I don’t know what, where, and when these cases are. And those cases are the ones I want to see.
Well, if the citations are never given, why even pay attention to such nonsense and then use that nonsense [assertions without substantiation] here, especially when we know for a fact “Kim Wong Ark” had nothing to do with deciding if a child born to an illegal entrant while in the United States becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth?
JWK
johnwk2:
Supreme_War_Pig:
johnwk2:
Supreme_War_Pig:
Oh no, and I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I don’t have the resources for further contribution. I assume that there is a website that catalogues and indexes appeal cases, but I have no idea what it is.
What on earth are you looking for, which you do not have the resources for?
The irrefutable fact is, Our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.
JWK
That fact is irrefutable. I believe this will be my 5th acknowledgment of that fact.
However, when researching Kim I would run into variations of the following statement: " Appeal courts have ruled in favor of birthright citizenship due the the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kim".
However, citations are never given, so I don’t know what, where, and when these cases are. And those cases are the ones I want to see.
Well, if the citations are never given, why even pay attention to such nonsense and then use that nonsense [assertions without substantiation] here, especially when we know for a fact “Kim Wong Ark” had nothing to do with deciding if a child born to an illegal entrant while in the United States becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth?
JWK
Because, according to my research, Kim is the reason why illegals are granted birthright citizenship. Wouldn’t you like to read the holdings? I would.
You may not like it, but it appears that Kim is the case they cite.
I have explained this to you multiple times. I can only conclude that you are willfully misunderstanding.
tnt
August 3, 2021, 3:45pm
46
I just think it’s really funny that ivanna was here illegally when she started ■■■■■■■ trump.
WuWei
August 3, 2021, 4:07pm
47
Not very lady-like language. Tsk, tsk.
