[Alter Kaker]

Ok, so let me get this straight: you're conceding that US v. Wong Kim Ark found a constitutional basis for birthright citizenship (a point you had previously disputed, but which self evident from the text of the decision I quoted). Now your position is that the Supreme Court just got it wrong by misinterpreting the intent of the authors of the Amendment.

That's a totally reasonable position that we can argue -- all you need to do is find a court that agrees with your interpretation and agrees to overturn the supposedly erroneous 109-year old precedent created in Wong Kim Ark.

[AZRepublican]

>109-year old precedent created in Wong Kim Ark.

I think slaughterhouse and Elk are considered precedent on birthright since those tow cases directly addressed the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" and concluded the same thing. Even the minority in slaughterhouse agreed "subject to the jurisdiction" excluded persons who owed allegiance to another foreign power. Kim Ark court framed their ruling around common law, ignoring national law...so Wong Kim Ark can never be considered precedent.