What does “and not subject to any foreign power” mean? Nobody knows because Wong Kim Ark doesn’t bother to actually try and address that point. That's a lie. T

What does “and not subject to any foreign power” mean? Nobody knows because Wong Kim Ark doesn’t bother to actually try and address that point. That's a lie. The opinion does engage with that question in depth, and also digs into why the language of the 14th amendment differs from that of the 1866 civil rights act. You're trying to shift attention away from the text of the 14th amendment (which is the supreme law of the land) to the text of an earlier law whose meaning you think is easier to argue over. I encourage anyone who has a few hours to take a good look at the case and see for themselves. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 Maybe the Court should look into the “emanations from penumbras” of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to see what they can find in there. Weasel words, linking the case to another (Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)) hated by conservatives so as to throw shade on the former.