Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[johnwk]

I've provided many links, dumbass.

I'm still waiting for you to indicate which case, or cases are you referring to. You did write: "The USSC is well settled about what it means". So, which case, or cases are you referring to?

 

[Unkotare]

I'm still waiting for you to indicate which case, or cases are you referring to. ..

All pertinent information has been provided and explained to you over and over. You're just another Rain Man.

 

[johnwk]

All pertinent information has been provided and explained to you over and over. You're just another Rain Man.

I'm still waiting for you to indicate which case, or cases are you referring to which settled the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as it appears in our Constitution.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm still waiting for you to indicate which case, or cases are you referring to which settled the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as it appears in our Constitution.

 

[surada]

See. There is nothing in there referencing a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil.

Have you forgotten what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means within the Fourteenth Amendment?

Any child born on US soil is a US citizen except for those covered specifically in the statute.

 

[surada]

I'm still waiting for you to indicate which case, or cases are you referring to which settled the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as it appears in our Constitution.

It's your problem that you don't understand subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Everyone with an education knows what that means.

 

[johnwk]

. . . .

I snipped adolescent content in above post.



I'm still waiting for you to indicate which case, or cases are you referring to. You did write: "The USSC is well settled about what it means". So, which case, or cases are you referring to?

 

[Unkotare]

I snipped adolescent content in above post.



I'm still waiting for you to indicate which case, or cases are you referring to. You did write: "The USSC is well settled about what it means". So, which case, or cases are you referring to?

 

[johnwk]

...

I snipped the adolescent content in the above post. And I'm still waiting for you to cite which case, or cases are you referring to. You did write: "The USSC is well settled about what it means". So, which case, or cases are you referring to which settled the meaning of ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . . " as found in the Fourteenth Amendment?

I'm getting the impression from your failure to cite the case, or cases are you indicate exist, that you may have made that assertion up.

 

[BackAgain]

Read the many links I have provided, you lazy sack of crap

Yes. You’re too lazy to provide a cite. Check.

 

[Unkotare]

.

 

[Unkotare]

.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That's exactly what our Supreme Court, and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment, say the law is, and is documented HERE.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Proof How Worthless the Ruling Class's Constitution Is to Us

All you're saying is that the Supreme Court could reverse birthright citizenship based on common sense and "jurisdiction" being limited to deporting those who were brought here illegally.

But SCROTUS refuses to do that, proving that the judicial dictators believe that White Replacement is more important to this Politburo than the undeniable logic that someone can't get a legal right through illegal means.

 

[surada]

Proof How Worthless the Ruling Class's Constitution Is to Us

All you're saying is that the Supreme Court could reverse birthright citizenship based on common sense and "jurisdiction" being limited to deporting those who were brought here illegally.

But SCROTUS refuses to do that, proving that the judicial dictators believe that White Replacement is more important to this Politburo than the undeniable logic that someone can't get a legal right through illegal means.

What does white replacement have to do with the statute?

 

[Unkotare]

According to US IMMIGRATION LAW anyone born in the US IS a US citizen. That is reality. That is fact. Go write a letter to your congressman.

.

 

[johnwk]

Unkotare said:
Read the many links I have provided, you lazy sack of crap

Yes. You’re to lazy to provide a cite. Check.

I'm beginning to believe the poster has known all along there is no USSC case which settled the meaning of ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . . ," as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, and has been gaslighting us from the very beginning. And now, that same poster is having a conversation with himself and posting to himself.

JWK

Our Constitution is not a rubber ruler, subject to the whims and fancies of shadow government authoritarians.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm beginning to believe the poster has known all along there is no USSC case which settled the meaning of ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . . ," as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, and has been gaslighting us from the very beginning. And now, that same poster is having a conversation with himself and posting to himself.

JWK

Our Constitution is not a rubber ruler, subject to the whims and fancies of shadow government authoritarians.

It goes even deeper. That poster may recognize that the phrase,

". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . . ,"

is in there. But he doesn’t want to allow it to have any meaning. And he is too shallow to acknowledge that it involves the concept of “allegiance” to the foreign government — as constituting an impediment.

 

[Unkotare]

 

[johnwk]

It goes even deeper. That poster may recognize that the phrase,

is in there. But he doesn’t want to allow it to have any meaning. And he is too shallow to acknowledge that it involves the concept of “allegiance” to the foreign government — as constituting an impediment.

Seems to me some people have a desire to make the constitution mean what they want it to mean, and to hell with its text, and documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text. They fall into that category referenced as authoritarians.

 

[Unkotare]

View attachment 802597

.