LOL, then someone has a hard time getting to the point.
I said that judicial interpretation of Wong Kim Ark overwhelmingly supports the jus soli point of view rather than the "heritage-based" one.
Only for citizenship through the 14th amendment. The Ark clearly said that natural-born citizenship isn't defined by the 14th amendment.
I find your objection to that to be quite baffling, other than the fact that it upsets you that none of the judges agrees with you in the slightest.
Then you aren't showing much in the way of reading skills. I said "another says it's in Minor, but only for defining NBC outside of the Constitution" in post 17 ... this is where a judge agrees with me "in the slightest" and I also said, "That latter court also admitted that there was a precedent in Minor" (the latter court is Ankney) ... which also agrees with me. They said Minor defined NBC, except they claimed that the court didn't consider scenarios when both parents are aliens (which they contradict themselves on anyway).
I understand your purpose is to try to deflect this issue, but you'll need to do a much better job.
“I understand your purpose is to try to deflect this issue, but you’ll need to do a much better job.”
__
Your understanding of my purpose reminds me of your understanding of the law!
Every decision has gone against you. Every single one. You can cherry-pick quotes that you think give you a thread of support — so, good, use it on appeal! See if you can parlay some of that word play into a favorable decision.
So far you are batting zero, but hey, take your best shot!
He is just a "scarecrow" for which we "crows" have little concern. :)
He is just a tacit opposition. Verbal filler if you will.