[Mr Rogers]

I am well aware of what current law says, and what liberal judges have pushed 40-60 years ago. Abortion became legal due to that sort in Roe - but it was WRONG!

You cannot be “subject to the jurisdiction” if every breath you take is taken while actively violating the law! EVERY SECOND they spend in the USA is spent in active rebellion against the government!

I can’t help it if the 60s on have seen the Courts push to make being here illegally acceptable. But it is WRONG.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

I am well aware of what current law says, and what liberal judges have pushed 40-60 years ago. Abortion became legal due to that sort in Roe - but it was WRONG! You cannot be “subject to the jurisdiction” if every breath you take is taken while actively violating the law! EVERY SECOND they spend in the USA is spent in active rebellion against the government! I can’t help it if the 60s on have seen the Courts push to make being here illegally acceptable. But it is WRONG.

You do realize that "United States vs. Wong Kim Ark" was decided in 1898, right?

[woodpusher]

I am well aware of what current law says....

Then link, cite and quote it.

...and what liberal judges have pushed 40-60 years ago. Abortion became legal due to that sort in Roe - but it was WRONG!

So if you say a Scotus opinion is wrong, it doesn't count? For decades I argued that Roe was wrongly decided. I believe it was correctly returned to state jurisdiction.

I can’t help it if the 60s on have seen the Courts push to make being here illegally acceptable. But it is WRONG.

Your argument boils down to you do not like the applicable law.