[flagged]
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
So e.g. subjects to the British Crown and the jurisdiction of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, are not citizens.
Indeed, if my wife gave birth while we were vacationing China, the I would be furious if China claimed my child was a Chinese citizen and “subject to the jurisdiction of the peoples republic of China.” For all I know the laws of China might say the kid can’t leave. There are lots of countries where the dictator’s subjects are not free to leave. So, yeah, I would absolutely insist my kid is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States even when born in China.
can you quote that part where she says this or even offers her own opinion? Because the only relevant part
> Every court to consider the Citizenship Order’s merits has found that it is unconstitutional in preliminary rulings
seems like a statement of fact?
(of course, it's also beyond silly to suggest it's bad or even unusual for issued opinions (dissents or otherwise) not to contain, you know, opinions).
> The Government has no incentive to file a petition here either, because the outcome of such an appeal would be preordained. The Government recognizes as much, which is why its emergency applications challenged only the scope of the preliminary injunctions
She’s saying the outcome is already known (ie they would lose) and the government knows they would lose, and the place they would have lost would have been right here (in front of me in the Supreme Court).