>>509948899
That is not at all what Wong Kim Ark said, Wong Kim Ark was about Legal Residents who were Permanently Domiciled in the United States which implies an ALLEGIANCE to the SOVEREIGN and thus they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
4chan Search
5 results for "9978f81f11caef44930a0df8f4d67d1f"
REMINDER that the very fact that POTUS Executive Order goes into effect 27 days from now and SCOTUS is going on vacation for 90 days heavily conveys that SCOTUS WANTED the EO to go into effect because they have the votes, likely 5 - 4 in favor of UPHOLDING the US Constitution and SCOTUS PRECEDENT as I outlined in the OP.
>>509099760
They do in Wong Kim Ark
They do in Wong Kim Ark
As it stands right now a child born of illegal migrant parents could be denied Documentation and Citizenship status in Ohio but if that same child were to be born in California that child would be granted citizenship - This disjointed chaos will force SCOTUS to make a ruling on the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment as it pertains to the Children of Illegal Migrants within the year and in the meantime the Trump Administration gets to enforce their Executive Order in any state that doesn't fight them on it such as Texas or Ohio, etc.
>>508896135
Wong Kim Ark addressed a very narrow legal question: whether a child born in the United States to lawful permanent residents of Chinese descent was entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The case did not, despite the conventional wisdom over decades, reach the question of whether children born to parents illegally in the United States were entitled to citizenship under the amendment.
In other words, it did not answer whether those not subject to the political jurisdiction thereof were entitled to birthright citizenship. The court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, concluding that the children of lawful permanent residents who are “domiciled” in the United States are entitled to birthright citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark did not address the question of whether children born to individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States qualify for birthright citizenship, no matter how many jews say otherwise.
The 1898 case is available for all to read here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
The opposition knows that the facts and the constitution support my arguments this is why they DO NOT wish for the Trump Administration to present these arguments in front of SCOTUS because they KNOW they WILL LOSE.
Wong Kim Ark addressed a very narrow legal question: whether a child born in the United States to lawful permanent residents of Chinese descent was entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The case did not, despite the conventional wisdom over decades, reach the question of whether children born to parents illegally in the United States were entitled to citizenship under the amendment.
In other words, it did not answer whether those not subject to the political jurisdiction thereof were entitled to birthright citizenship. The court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, concluding that the children of lawful permanent residents who are “domiciled” in the United States are entitled to birthright citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark did not address the question of whether children born to individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States qualify for birthright citizenship, no matter how many jews say otherwise.
The 1898 case is available for all to read here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
The opposition knows that the facts and the constitution support my arguments this is why they DO NOT wish for the Trump Administration to present these arguments in front of SCOTUS because they KNOW they WILL LOSE.