Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not completely, as required. I'll let U.S. Secretaries of State address the point of jurisdiction in regards to birthright citizenship:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a non-citizen father.
The State Department can't change the law. They can certainly get it wrong, but they can't change it. And when they get it wrong, we have a system of checks and balances that eventually will force them to correct their error.
These policies by Frelinhuysen and Bayard were doomed to disappear, struck down by the US Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Perkins v Elg (1939).
The intent does, as reflected by the Secretaries' of State determinations. They understood the 14th Amendment. Why don't you?
The Secretaries of State rulings aren't law.
They are diplomatic decisions preventing citizens of foreign countries from using American citizenship so that they can enjoy the benefits of their foreign citizenship but not meet the obligations of their foreign citizenship. If those men had wanted passports so that they could move to the United States, their birthright citizenship would have been recognized.
These policies by Frelinhuysen and Bayard were doomed to disappear, struck down by the US Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Perkins v Elg (1939).
More comprehension deficiency from HD.
To recap...
"the single question... whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States"
SCOTUS ruled otherwise for those of Wong's particular circumstances of birth.
To recap...
"the single question... whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States"
SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment didn't apply to Wong? Really?
Again, the Secretaries of the State specifically referred to the requirements of citizenship law in their determinations. Note that such references echo the definition of the jurisdiction requirement stated by the Chairman in the Congressional Record.
They understood the 14th Amendment. Why don't you?
"a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China"
Wrong. According to 22 Article III courts, it also applies to a child born in the United States, of a father of Kenyan descent, who, at the time of his birth was subject of the Queen of England, but had a domicile (permanent or otherwise) and residence in the United States, and was there attending school and carrying on business, and who was not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Queen of England.
We know this to be true because those 22 courts did apply this case to Obama, as the US Constitution has granted them the power to determine.
SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment didn't apply to Wong?
To recap, because you're having an extraordinarily difficult time understanding it...
"the single question... whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States"
SCOTUS examined the single questionand ruled on the agreed upon facts of the case.
If Obama were "a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China" he would have been born a U.S. citizen. As such is NOT the case, he was NOT.
The meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment is defined by the Judiciary Committee Chairman in the Congressional Globe (Record) at the time of submission:
Wrong.
The meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment is defined by the US Supreme Court.
Quote:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
Wrong. According to 22 Article III courts, it also applies to a child born in the United States, of a father of Kenyan descent, who, at the time of his birth was subject of the Queen of England, but had a domicile (permanent or otherwise)
What is the citation for such?
Quite clearly, those 22 court decisions have not a single applicable precedent on which to stand.
Perhaps you can indicate where the "or otherwise" exists in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the partieswere to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
The meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment is defined by the US Supreme Court.
Too bad they chose to NOT include that language in the specifically limiting ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the partieswere to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
To recap...
"the single question... whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States"
Question asked and answered.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
