Yes, the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case specifically mentions that children of foreign diplomats are excluded from birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the United States to parents who are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign government becomes a U.S. citizen at birth1.
Backatcha
Yes, that was that Court's opinion. Contrary to your claim, there is nothing "clear and obvious" about the language of the 14th Amendment that the children of foreign diplomats are the only ones excluded from birthright citizenship
You can't read and understand what is in front of you.
Congress is working on a Law to reinforce Trump's EO. Not an Amendment, so not sure if Congress' "Clarification" works.Yes, you are dumb Bingos.The national security problem didn't exist at the time of 14th because there were no illegal immigrants. We had open borders. America wanted people from all over the world to immigrate here and become Americans and have American children. The 14th only made explicit that children of former slaves were enveloped with the same birth rights or jus soli as every other child save indigenous children, children of an invading foreign army and children of diplomats.
Yup. It's all about me. How do you address the points raised by the dissenting Justices in Wong?
It will end up in court. That's ironic. But that is what a unitary executive entails.
it's clear but you can't accept it. That's on you. Yes, we know how you believe. So what.
When you asses impoverished enough will have the pseudo running man like TV shows with these people who caused it hunted down and deserved.Yes, you are dumb Bingos.
And, tourists, hopefully. Birth tourism ends as well.
Actually no he doesn't. Remember his "win," and therefore this imagined "mandate" was phony.
I'll ask again, how do you address the points raised by the dissenting Justices in Wong?
Prove it.
"He was very effective and he knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.
I don't care what you ask because those points were the minority and still are. They need not be considered again and again and again.
Of course you don't care, because you haven't read Wong and have no understanding of it's reasoning, and the dissent puts to lie your absurd lie that the language of the 14th Amendment is "clear and obvious"
It is apparent that you have not.
You're the one dodging. You probably don't even understand the implication of the majority's reliance on English common law.
QED
Rawley embarrasses himself bigly here.
Don't get all pissy that I'm exposing your rank ignorance. If you don't know the subject, keep your mouth shut
Typing lies is not proving anything dumbass. Try again.
