Trump vows to end birthright citizenship.

lol. Yeah, it does. It really, really does. the only way you can make the argument is if you insert words that were not there into the record.

It's been broken down a million times. You lost.

 

It's already been to the courts. Wong Kim ark and plyler v doe held that everyone inside the borders is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. By virtue of their presence. With only 2 exceptions.

 

I love how you guys keep declaring yourselves the winner. It says Aliens , Foreigners , the children of Diplomats and the children of Ambassadors are exempt it does not say the children of aliens foreigners diplomats and ambassadors are.

- - - Updated - - -

That's BS

 

It's a demonstrable fact.

 

Then demonstrate it

 

I already gave you both rulings. If you don't read them that's not my fault m

 

You keep repeating the same old debunked crap as you like to say

 

Actually i am giving you supreme court precedent which defeats your arguments.

 

I don't know why you bother to parrot the same lines that you've regurgitated over and over when you've already had replies to that. Let's just pass the law and let it go to the Courts.

 

[video=youtube;Wi9y5-Vo61w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w[/video]
The legend lives on in your mind

 

Uh, because both cases are binding precedent.

.

You can't pass a law to amend an amendment. You have to pass an amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's simply reality.

 

Then let the courts handle it.

 

They did

 

Only in your mind

How the Fourteenth Amendment Empowers Congress to End Birthright Citizenship

 

No, in reality. Congress can't pass a law to override an amendment. Only an amendment can do that.

 

Then how can Indians now be citizens at birth when before they could not. Somebody changed it. Again the amendment does not say what you think it does. This needs to be brought in front of the court which it has not been no matter how hard you try to claim it has. Did you even read what I posted?

 

They were breaking the law previously.

Of course it does. It's written in plain English.
.

It's already been to court.

 

Who was?

Then why don't you understand it or at least see it can be interpreted as we claim

No it has not no matter how hard you try to make the claim. Name the parents who were here illegally in such a case. You seem to think SCOTUS infallible when the very purpose of the 14th was to correct the mistake they made on the Dread Scott case. They were wrong on Dread Scott and on the two cases you constantly site.

 

It's Dred. Not Dread.

And that decision helped toss kerosene on a brewing Civil War.

Which occurred a few years after the decision.

The cases cited by rahl, et al, have held strong through the years.

 

There still has never been a case brought before the court where the parents who were here illegally have claimed citizenship for their child born here to be challenged. I have also shown you how these cases are wrong and need to be readdressed by the court. Are you denying that SCOTUS does not always get in right? In fact SCOTUS does not even have the power of Judicial review under the constitution. These are men not gods. Their far from perfect.

 

The US government.

[QUOYE]Then why don't you understand it or at least see it can be interpreted as we claim[/QUOTE]
Because it can't be interpreted the way you claim.

Of course it has.

whining they were wrong doesn't change the fact this is settled law and you need a new amendment to end BRC.

- - - Updated - - -

This is why nobody takes conservatives, especially nativists seriously.

 

Sigh. They've never addressed this issue to children who are point to parents in the country illegally. I know others have tried without success to get you to point to such a case, so we all know you won't. You will merely pretend that you already did, and go into repeat mode.

Let it go to the courts.

 

You should actually read the Wong Kim ark ruling that has been linked to about 400 times.

It's already been there

 

Because it can't be interpreted the way you claim.


Of course it has.



whining they were wrong doesn't change the fact this is settled law and you need a new amendment to end BRC.

- - - Updated - - -


This is why nobody takes conservatives, especially nativists seriously.[/QUOTE]
This is why no one can take you seriously
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution
http://http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#jrev

Thomas Jefferson also makes many arguments that they have no such power they simply seized it

There is also no right to vote in the constitution or marriage

 

Wong Kim Ark's parents were in the country legally. The courts have never addressed this issue to children who are born to parents in the country illegally.