The Difference Between Obama and Trump.

But it certainly doesn't grant them any type of amnesty and they clearly are still vulnerable to state and federal laws concerning illegal statues. So to defeat the 14th "In the case or point you're attempting to make" simple deportation solves all, correct?

 

My only point is that any child born on US soil is a US citizen. Only exceptions are foreign diplomats with immunity, as they are not subject to US jurisdiction. If a child is born on US soil it is a citizen, and can not be deported. The parents however can and should be.

 

Plain words you claim? Then why is this argued and why was it argued in the Supreme Court? Are you aware it was decided in lower courts and all the SC did was rubber stamp those courts. I expect to see from the SC actual conflicting rulings decided at the USSC.

 

That is called separation of the child from the parents and the Democrats belittle the Feds when that happens.

 

That's not what your example is even about. It's addressing, more or less the, discrimination of "Illegal" Children and their human right to services, education, protection while within the borders of the states and U.S. On the other hand deportation pretty much takes care of any and all that in regard to illegal immigrant children.. Birthright is another subject all together..

 

Same reason every other case is.

The lower courts got it right. It is actually unusual for the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling.

 

I’ve shown you how and why it’s relevant. It defines/clarifies what “subject to the jurisdiction” means. That phrase is important when talking about birthright citizenship. As the court ruled that everyone inside US borders is subject to US jurisdiction(excepting diplomats), any child born on US soil is a citizen of the US.

 

You right! But we have adopted immigration laws since that amendment was written, and with be said! The democrats have done everything in their power to ignore those laws and give sanctuary to illegals and their child.. If the immigration laws were enforced as written the fourteenth wouldn't even be an issue, would it?

 

When the USSC agrees with lower courts, almost never does it get involved.

This ruling was not unanimous at all. It was a 5-4 ruling meaning clearly some of the Justices agree with me and some with you.

 

And it's only relevant because we do not apply immigration law the way we should be.. THAT's what the founders/framers never anticipated..

 

Republicans are just as much to blame. They had total control of Congress and the whites house from Jan 2017-jan2019. They did exactly nothing about immigration.

 

Which has no bearing on reality. It’s settled law and you’re only going to change it if you pass a new amendment.

 

No immigration law would change the fact that any child born on US soil is a US citizen.

i agree that we need to seriously address immigration though. Neither party has done a damn thing about it for almost 40 years.

 

I don't believe that.. Then again I have watched the west coast transform for a very long time Rahl..

 

What don’t you believe? Republicans controlled congress and the White House. They did exactly nothing about immigration.

 

Agreed but a law that only survives because illegal are not deported.. And that's what you example is demonstrating..

 

Cert denied does not imply agreement with a lower decision.

 

I guess I’m not getting your point? Ideally we wouldn’t have illegals in the country. Reality on the other hand is what it is. We have millions of them. There is no legal or logistical way to deport them all.

 

Rahl, if states are going to ignore federal law then what? This is what we see today. Sanc cities, states and pockets strongholds in large cities, try realistic man..

 

Again! Your example doesn't apply to birthright children, it centers around the illegal immigrant children.. Read man!

 

States aren’t ignoring federal law. Immigration is a federal LEO issue, not a state one. States can not be made to enforce federal laws, nor can they be made to use state/local funds to enforce federal law.

I don’t disagree. But those cities/states are not in violation of any laws. They simply won’t use state resources to enforce federal law.

 

I can’t clarify this any further for you. I’ve repeatedly shown how and why the case I cited is essential regarding birthright citizenship.

 

Your the one confused.. You think birthright and illegal are one in the same with that PLYLER v. DOE and their not.. In this case they are two very different subjects and issues..

 

Well there it is... If you want to pretend to be that far behind the curve then as usual your not worth the time!!

 

I’ve quite clearly shown why plyler is relevant. It clarifies what subject to the jurisdiction means. It’s no different for an illegal or anyone else(excepting diplomats). Because everyone inside our borders is subject to our jurisdiction(except diplomats) any child born inside the borders is a US citizen.