Well, entering the US unlawfully IS a felony, so adult “illegal aliens”, and will be removed.  The US will try to find the children and their parents as well if it’s possible.  If the parents are found and illegal, then the family will be sent back to their country.  This was stated by Trump.

I’m not sure about children whose parents cannot be found, perhaps be put up for adoption here.

thumperclone wrote on Today at 05:01:19:


That applies to US citizens. You know those people “subject to the jurisdiction thereof“.

That applies to US citizens. You know those people “subject to the jurisdiction thereof“.

 According to the SCOTUS on multiple occasions "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applies to any human where a US law can be enforced and not just US citizens.  Diplomatic immunity being an exception - since US law is not enforced on them.

 The SCOTUS ruled once humans set foot on US soil they get legal representation.  That's why GITMO detainees have lawyers if they were moved from US soil to Cuba, but they do not have to do the same if the detainee was intercepted in international waters.  They later expanded representation rights.

 That's why all those terrorists had lawyers.

https://www.southcom.mil/Portals/7/Documents/Joint_Task_Force_Guantanamo_Atto...

They don't have the rights and protections CITIZENS have.
They have no legal relationship with America.
^ that is a KKK tenant  


4th, 5th, other amendments apply to 'persons'
key word being person not citizen
due process is for all
do some reading

I confess, I did not know there was a supreme court ruling on this. Frankly, I’m a little bit surprised. I feel like there must be more to the story.

 The SCOTUS ruled humans "born" on US soil are subject to US jurisdiction.  Like any court case people will try to find a workaround to a ruling, that's just how complex language and law works.  Bottom line is the SCOTUS has yet to rule that humans born on US soil are not US Citizens if their parents are immigrants, legal or not.  

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens


 Chief Justice Melville Fuller dissented and stated that as Chinese citizens, Wong's parents had a duty to the emperor of China, and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, barred them from becoming U.S. citizens.  But that was the dissenting not ruling opinion.  People will conveniently leave that part out and literally cite a losing case statement as evidence, which is completely ridiculous.  That's like saying a guy was innocent of murder and citing his defense lawyer that lost the case.

 The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States


 In Plyer V Doe, 1982, Justice William Brennan clearly states:  The understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory.

 That's a winning-side quote, and as such provided SCOTUS precedent that illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction" which is why TX can not deny illegal immigrants access to a public school.  This is also a SCOTUS precedent that even illegal immigrants are subject to jurisdiction and as such their children born on US soil are subject to the 14th.  

 This doesn't mean I agree with it.  It just means I can read and accept information I do not agree with, instead of manipulating it to mean something it does not.  

SCOTUS has been Wrong before.

 Sure but US law works because it doesn't cherry pick what is right or wrong based off the opinion of whos in the room at the time.

 Trump can't just declare a SCOTUS ruling "wrong" and override it any more than Biden could.  We may not like the decision but we are looking at totalitarian regime if we ignore all laws the POTUS thinks is wrong and replace them with what he thinks is right.