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.
Your timeline is backwards. The Civil Rights Act was created before the 14th amendment. And the reason the 14th amendment was created, was because the Civil Rights Act was Unconstitutional.
The only way to make the Civil Rights Act constitutional, was to change the Constitution.
But the wording in the 14th amendment is different. Why?
Again, I agree with what you're trying to do(most people here know my position on this), but you're wrong.
The language, "Indians not taxed" was removed because the author of the clause thought it was redundant and not needed. The intent of the amendment was not to make Indians citizens, but to make sure Southern states could not deny full citizenship to former slaves and their children.
Your timeline is backwards. The Civil Rights Act was created before the 14th amendment. And the reason the 14th amendment was created, was because the Civil Rights Act was Unconstitutional.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868
Whoops, you are right. I stand corrected.
By aligning the language of the new 14th amendment to the existing language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Congress and states enacted an amendment whose use of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was already well defined by Congress. No wonder they didn't bother to define it again in the Constitution, while using it to specify a very important category: Who can be born a U.S. citizen.
"That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, and that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer.
That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid.
That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China.
That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.
That ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to-wit, a residence in said State of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, and there resided claiming to be a citizen of the United States.
That, in the year 1890 the said Wong Kim Ark departed for China upon a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto on July 26, 1890, on the steamship Gaelic, and was permitted to enter the United States by the collector of customs upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.
That after his said return, the said Wong Kim Ark remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until the year 1894, when he again departed for China upon a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto in the month of August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs to be permitted to land, and that such application was denied upon the sole ground that said Wong in Ark was not a citizen of the United States.
That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom."
You have focused on the word domicile, but why that word? There were plenty of other things mentioned in the decision.
The relationship between the US government and the Indian Tribes was not the same as the relationship between the US government and the states. Which is why the US government made treaties with the Indian Tribes, and did not give them citizenship, and did not allow them to vote.[/quote
They were treated in most ways as if they were a foreign nation, and they were not taxed.
The reason why the United States didn't give Elk citizenship, was because the Supreme Court ruled Elk was effectively born in a foreign country
Incorrect. It was because Elk, though born in the US, was born owing allegiance to a sovereign/nation other than the US. That is clearly explained in the ruling in the passage that refers to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, and subsequent government actions. I quoted it in my earlier post.
I just quoted Gray. The ruling is deliberately limited, and specifically states such.
An illegal alien is a classification of an invader. Even under the common law the children of invaders are not considered natural born subjects. Why do people disregard in this discussion that the parents are illegal aliens which is a form of invader?
Why do people disregard this discussion that the parents are illegal aliens which is a form of invader?
Most people don't disregard it.
But a few of the more extreme big-govt leftists who want illegal aliens to get citizenship and vote Democrat, try hard to disregard it, and fool others into doing likewise.
But a few of the more extreme big-govt leftists who want illegal aliens to get citizenship and vote Democrat, try hard to disregard it, and fool others into doing likewise.
If we strictly acknowledge illegal aliens for what they are, invaders, Trump is actually in his authority to issue an EO. It's ridiculous we've been assuming birthright citizenship applies to illegal aliens as equally as legal permanent residence.
Your timeline is backwards. The Civil Rights Act was created before the 14th amendment. And the reason the 14th amendment was created, was because the Civil Rights Act was Unconstitutional.
Wow. No. PLEASE stop using wikipedia as a source.
The reason the 14th Amendment was proposed was so that a later Congress and/or President couldn't alter or repeal what had been accomplished by passing the CRA of 1866. Congress was concerned about that having just had to override President Johnson's veto to enact it.
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.
