Its not another way to say it, you are trying to shoehorn an inapproproate definition of Subject that obviously doesnt fit based on the simple grammatical context of the sentence.

If I say you are "Subject to healthcare regulation" you wouldn't say "a citizen or member of a state other than its supreme ruler to healthcare regulation". You would say "under the influence of healthcare regulation". It's really that simple.

You're so invested in not having birthright citizenship that you've stopped reading the actual words written on the page.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 4 2019 04:42am

Why do only you two feel that way though?

Why hasn't hundreds of years of United States history caught up with you?

Why does every Supreme Court judge rules on this decision agree with the traditional definition of it?

Every precedent.

Heritage foundation lies about a lot of stuff. They have a really had track record being truthful. The article you linked I read already and it is full of tautologies.

They wouldn't say if you are a citizen and also in addition to this a if you are citizen.

The sentence itself is really simple. They are born here and subject to the jurisdiction. We've defined jurisdiction but you want to use your own unreferenced definition that you and heritage share and want us to use on faith alone As it has been defined explicitly otherwise all over United States jurisprudence.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 4 2019 04:38am

Birthright citizenship isnt a thing. Liberals created it during a ruling about education.

Elections have consequences.

This sort of answer I'm reserving for you

To each according to their ability to each according to their need.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 4 2019 05:17am

Judges aren't elected

No point in starting freshman civics classes. This is why I believe in common core.

So was it invented or is it not a thing? Because last time I checked things that are invented become things.

So let’s deport you.

It fits just fine when you take into account the legislative history and the words of the man who wrote it.

The Supreme Court has never gotten anything wrong. This just in.

Lol, sad hominem Heritage.

You can be born here and be a subject of a different jurisdiction.

It really doesn't.

I don't tend to find original intent arguments to be very strong because adoption requires the consent of thousands of people giving their own interpretation to the words as they read them. Authors will often give contradicting opinions of their own works as they age, so its not surprising to see weird interpretation of their own work that is incoherent with the written message.

If it was meant to convey the message you say then it was poorly written.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 4 2019 07:26am