Having taken how many hours since the birthright citizenship decision, I am not as upset as initially was. While I didn't agree I have a little better understanding of why the decision was made not by what was said but rather what was not said. Justice Roberts stated a number of incidents that justified his response but the main one. Automatic, suggesting that until we define " subject to " or translated to " on conditions met "
as a criteria. This was further by justice Canvanaugh by stating laws could be passed to define " subject to ".
My interpretation is define the parameters of subject to to eliminate illegal entrants. This also now brings into play States sanctuary policies that have no constitutional protection and the right under supremacy clause to deny federal funds.
This is my solution to the old adage " be careful for what you ask for because you just might get it".
My creative thought process and contribution to common sense solution. Agree or disagree I welcome both.
Go after sanctuary status as well as defining subject to the jurisdiction of.