Very simple. Removing the “neither... nor” reversed the meaning of the quote you posted.
I honestly admitted an error in which part of the Judicial system made a statement (which didn’t change the basic fact that the government said the child was not deported).
You won’t admit
1. That the children in the cases posted are not deported, they accompany their parents.
2. That omitting the first part of the quote changes the meaning.
You keep trying to weasel out of your slicing up the quote, but you can’t. No matter what you say about the rest of the case (and I’ve shown you are incorrect there, as well) you presented a truncated quote to claim a meaning opposite to what the quote actually said. It could have been sloppy reasearch - if you acknowledged it, I’d let it go. But you continue to defend it.
1. The teacher and the principal said that John cheated on the test.
2. Neither the teacher nor the principal said that John cheated on the test.
See the difference?
No it didn't. The part quoted is based on static and measurable facts:
a) [the Supreme Court was] "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment" : The evidence is provided by two cases: Minor v. Happersett and Elk v. Wilkins. Minor excluded NBCs and Elk excluded Indians (who were subjects of foreign States).
b)"manifest from a unanimous decision": The Minor V. Happersett cases that excluded NBCs from the 14th amendment was decided unanimously
c) "delivered but two years later": The Minor decision was delivered two years AFTER the Slaughterhouses Cases
d) "while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench": Yes, eight of the nine justices that were split in Slaughterhouse were NOT split in Minor. The new member of the court in Minor was Justice Waite who wrote the majority opinion
e) "in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection"" : No argument here. This part is in the Minor quote
None of these things is reversed by the first phrase in the sentence, which is used only to show that the standard exclusions as mentioned in the Slaughterhouse ruling were NOT the ONLY exclusions from the 14th amendment. Miller, who wrote the Slaughterhouse decision did not understand in 1872 that he was going to add another exclusion in 1874, yet he did. The fact that he did NOT understand 1872 is manifest from the unanimous decision in Minor that he voted for in 1874. His misunderstanding from NOT being able to see into the future doesn't change the facts of the rest of the sentence. The Supreme Court was committed to the view that NBCs are excluded from the birth clause of the 14th amendment.
The only "weaseling" and "slicing" is being done by you when you invent inane and oversimplified sentences that do not match the same structure as the sentence in Wong Kim Ark. Your own example fails because what the "teacher and principal" said or didn't say doesn't affect the factuality of whether "John cheated." Do you UNDERSTAND yet?? If you believe in intellectual honesty, then it's time for you to show it.