Legally the article is wrong. There has never been a case that challenges the legal jurisdiction of clause which is entirely clear of its purpose. This has been intentional for decades in order to keep flooding in migrants under “anchorship citizenship”
Legally the article is wrong. There has never been a case that challenges the legal jurisdiction of clause which is entirely clear of its purpose. This has been intentional for decades in order to keep flooding in migrants under “anchorship citizenship”
I’ve often wondered why nobody has challenged that based on that “jurisdiction” definition
Because the country as a whole has been a snowjob for the last century.
Can’t argue there