The first clause of the 14th amendment stands alone. It describes who is a citizen of the United States. All of the subsequent clauses, the ones about privileges and immunities and equal protection afforded to citizens, hang from the first. Before you can order off the menu, you gotta get in the door.
SCOTUS disagrees with your reading. In the case you cited, SCOTUS found that depriving children, regardless of immigration status, of education, violated equal protection. The case you're citing went against you, and it never addressed the point you are trying to make.
I can't imagine in how many more ways you could have gotten it wrong.
If you were to actually study the case you will note that in the decision it is clearly stated that it is such a case.
If you were to actually study the English language, you would discover that it is such a language. Which is to say that ... oh, I don't have the patience. Make a damn point, please.
If you can’t understand it don’t come crying to me. Study harder.
Study harder? It's 783 words. This is not an exercise in Talmudic scholarship. How much nuance do you think I could have missed? I mean I could meditate over it as if it were some kind of Koan, but, no.
Instead of your suggestion to "study harder," I offer the simple wisdom of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
The SC does not write into it’s decisions how to accomplish what they believe you might be thinking,
No, and Scooter doesn't drive the school bus into Harlem. Mostly because Scooter drives the school bus in Topeka.
they simply tell you what is wrong with the your argument. Had the issue been as simple as “The case has no merit because AB’s are U.S. citizens” they would have said that.
WOW. You are so amazingly missing the point that you cannot see it with binoculars.
The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deprive the children of illegal immigrants of an education. Full stop. They did not address the issue of whether the children were illegal aliens, because it was not material to the case.
The court said quite the opposite. The described the children born in the U.S. of illegal alien parents as “Mexican Citizens. MEXICAN CITIZENS.
Yup. I'ts much more convincing in all-caps, bold, underlined.
Are there Mexicans receiving an education in the US? Certainly. Are they citizens? Many of them, no, some yes. Is any of what you've posted even a little bit relevant? No. Does the SCOTUS case you cited address the question? No.
Are you REALLY expecting everyone here to believe that Plyler v. Doe has no commentary? An actual Supreme Court decision that has no opinions? HAHAHAHAHA! Let me refresh your memory from the text of MY post.
"This is the actual text of their commentary on the actual meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which the libs all wanna scream about but the SC commentary is what they never talk about. "
Which is absolutely right on the money because of your classic response "I don't know what "commentary" you're talking about,"
Try the commentary contained in the five opinions HERE which, by the way is YOUR link.
Yes, that commentary. The commentary the OBL and AB supporters " never talk about. " Remember me stating that? As in stating that in the third paragraph of my post? Post 106 in this thread?
The part of the Burger commentary in which he agrees in his stated opinion with the decision of the court? The agreement that is the only reference anywhere in any of the opinions to reference "children born in this country to illegal alien parents? The reference that describes said children as "Mexican Citizens?"
That reference in that opinion? Is that what you seem to have a problem locating?
Does the SCOTUS case you cited address the question? No.
You are absolutely correct. Nowhere in the case, Syllabus, Opinion, a Concurrence or Dissent is there any statement that confers United States Citizenship to children born in the U.S. of illegal alien parents.
STE=Q
when Mexico’s new president Calderon states that “wherever there is a Mexican, that is Mexico” he may — in the sense that they are Mexican subjects — be legally correct!
Mexican President Calderon should have, quite bluntly, kept his big mouth shut. If there ever actually was a question of allegiance or jurisdiction it is at least half answered now. Mexico is claiming jurisdiction over all of the illegals. If they allow the AB's to vote, it's a total wrap. If not, it is up to American law. And so far there appears to be only one statement from any of the SC Justices that reference children born in the U.S. of illegal alien parents. And it described them as "Mexican citizens."