In post 208, I quote what the Supreme Court has ruled is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction”. It isn’t what you think...
HAHAHAHAHA...I see you wear your drone cone proudly as all you have is the infamous WKA ruling. Talk about clinging to your liberal factions in the name of social justice. Grey also wrote the opinion for Elk v Wilkins which, I might add, is the opinion that held the 14th Amendment to IN FACT be constitutional. Hmmm, let's see what Grey had to say then & who he relied on when he made that decision as well as ALL members of the court who unanimously agreed on the definition of ‘reject to the jurisdiction’, including the dissenters:
Although the statement by the majority in Slaughter-House was dicta, the position regarding the “subject to the jurisdiction” language advanced there was subsequently adopted as holding by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins.[10] John Elk was born on an Indian reservation and subsequently moved to non-reservation U.S. territory, renounced his former tribal allegiance, and claimed U.S. citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause. This Court held that the claimant was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth, which required that he be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”[11] Elk did not meet the jurisdictional test because, as a member of an Indian tribe at his birth, he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not to the United States. Although “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,” “they were alien nations, distinct political communities,” according to the Court.[12]
Drawing explicitly on the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the Court continued:
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.[13]
Your usurper owed a political allegiance to a foreign nation when he was born as do ALL children born with a foreign parent, thus they are not and never will be a natural born citizen and in the eyes of the founders of the constitution, the 14th & the 1868 Expatriation Act, all children born to a foreign father, were themselves aliens at birth & the census records from 1790-1890 confirm it.
Immigration investigation By United States. Congress. House. Committee on Immigration and Naturalization....page 668: I want to give you some proof, taken also from tlie census of 1880, showing that this assertion of mine, this calculation is correct. In 1880 the foreigners and their children (not grandchildren) outnumbered the natives in the following States.
The record breaks down the inhabitants of the US into 2 categories, natives & foreigns & their children. Doesn't get much plainer than that. If the US Govt recorded children born to aliens as aliens in 1890, then the 14th Amendment's 'subject to the jurisdiction' means exactly what Grey's ruling in Elk held it to be. But then Grey in the Elk opinion relied on a hundred years of US law, not subverting it to go to the draconian feudal law of England as he did some 14 years later in WKA.