If the 14th Amendment (apparently) no longer applies to children born in the US to foreigners, when will Barron be deported to Slovenia?

The government does make terrorists out of some vulnerable kids....but we won't go down that rabbit hole. 

So, you consider The Hill an authority on the 14th Amendment? Good to know. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5055171-constitution-insurrection-trump-disqualification/

Not about the source or their opinions. 

It is about their quote from the original writer of the 14th, Sen Howard.   

It is about their interpretation, which is disputed.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/birthright-citizenship-united-states

Yes and that is why it is going to end up at the SCOTUS.   And hopefully we have enough originalists on the court to defer to what the original writer of the 14th had to say on the subject.  

Follow the commas, it separates the groups of people he was saying this would NOT apply to people: 

1. Foreigners
2. Aliens
3. Belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. 

Howard in further clarified his statement during the original congressional debate over the amendment describing the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, which reads: “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”.

I'm done with this. I am not a Constitutional scholar. The Trump-owned Supreme Court can decide what it wants to decide and Constitutional scholars will still disagree with each other.

I don't really care either way about birthright citizenship. But your latest argument was clearly refuted by what I posted from the American Immigration Council, which I doubt you bothered to read. 

I did read it. I disagree with it. 

And I added a further clarification from Howard as well....did you read it?

Yes, I read it. It added nothing of consequence to your previous argument.

Then we shall just have to wait until the case is settled at SCOTUS.  

I said before, the court may make a ruling, but it won't settle the debate.

When it gets to the SCOTUS we will see what they say
 That is where it is going.  
Not sure how that Judge claims not court has ruled in Trump's interpretation,  the case in 1898 did not go straight to the SCOTUS.  

But regardless, the US v Wong Kim Ark case is likely going the way of Roe v Wade. 

Yes, because we have a court who is loyal to Trump, not the Constitution. 

Loyal to the meaning of the words of the Constitution. Not to Trump....if just Trump every case would be a forgone conclusion but they are not. 
But I think in this case, we have enough originalists to win. 

You mean we have enough Trump sycophants to win.