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.
The problem with it as regarding the issue today is that yes, they were Chinese Nationals but had a legal right to be here. That's a huge difference as to someone sneaking into the country and having a child here. That's about as big a scenario difference as you can think of. You have to wonder how they would have ruled if that case was about 2 illegals having a child here.
You mean there's a difference between being an invited, welcomed, or authorized immigrant vs an uninvited, unwelcome, unauthorized intruder or invader? That is shocking .
While I think there were some arguments against Ark being a natural born citizen, there was an argument for treating his parents as if they were legal permanent resident immigrants at the time of his native birth. But nothing the court ruled then automatically applies to non-immigrant visitors and illegal aliens.
One has consented to be governed by our jurisdiction. The MOB coming from the South nor anyone jumping the border, has not consented to be governed, by US jurisdiction.
The problem is in the definition of terms. Liberals want to redefine the meaning of terms, subject to the jurisdiction and what constitutes an immigrant. To be a subject of or subject to US jurisdiction, doesn't just mean to be prosecutable or under the authority of law enforcement under any jurisdiction in the US. It means having rights and responsibilities or being a subject which illegal aliens and visitors are not.
What part of "All persons born" do you poor folk not understand.
There is no distinction between a legal and and an illegal with respect to "subject to the jurisdiction". If Won Ark Kim was legal so are any illegal. And WAK was worse in that his parents were statutorily unable to be citizens.
You can go ahead and try to amend the Constitution but it will liikely not work.
What part of "All persons born" do you poor folk not understand.
There is no distinction between a legal and and an illegal with respect to "subject to the jurisdiction". If Won Ark Kim was legal so are any illegal. And WAK was worse in that his parents were statutorily unable to be citizens.
You can go ahead and try to amend the Constitution but it will liikely not work.
Yes there is. An illegal is legally suppose to be detained and deported as an intruder or invader. A legal person is authorized to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which gives rights, not just responsibilities, such as at the minimum the right to be present in the US.
It's all in proper interpretation of the citizenship clause, which any branch of the government and the People have the right to do. There's no need to amend it.
Yes there is. An illegal is legally suppose to be detained and deported as an intruder or invader. A legal person is authorized to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which gives rights, not just responsibilities, such as at the minimum the right to be present in the US.
Again - What part of "All persons born" do you not understand? Simple concept. There is an exception for a few like diplomats and certain Indians.
The foreign government bind on an alien is the same whether the alien is legal or illegal.
And the kid involved is legal from birth so no illegality effects his case. The kid is not illegal.
Again - What part of "All persons born" do you not understand? Simple concept. There is an exception for a few like diplomats and certain Indians.
The foreign government bind on an alien is the same whether the alien is legal or illegal.
And the kid involved is legal from birth so no illegality effects his case. The kid is not illegal.
You keep leaving out "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which the children of illegal alien invaders are not. Then you define subject to the jurisdiction to narrowly mean prosecutable and subject to any law enforcement jurisdiction in the US, which even citizen children generally are not anyway. The children of intruders are not citizens under any common law or rational understanding of being a subject.
Besides the original understanding and intent of the citizen clause was to provide citizenship to American black native born children the same way white Americans were provided, and probably to provide citizenship to the native born children of immigrants who are not white. Illegal aliens are not immigrants.
You keep leaving out "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which the children of illegal alien invaders are not. Then you define subject to the jurisdiction to narrowly mean prosecutable and subject to any law enforcement jurisdiction in the US.
The kid of an illegal alien is exactly as subject to "the jurisdiction thereof" as was WAK. Kid's parents may be illegal but the kid is not.
You folk keep attempting to erect a non existent difference. Does not work.
Again - What part of "All persons born" do you not understand? Simple concept. There is an exception for a few like diplomats and certain Indians.
The foreign government bind on an alien is the same whether the alien is legal or illegal.
And the kid involved is legal from birth so no illegality effects his case. The kid is not illegal.
The full sentence says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
"And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the key distinction.
Children are subject to the same jurisdiction as their parents as far as the constitution is concerned. It's just like when the US takes in refugees from other countries. Very often we take in pregnant women. Those women are still citizens of their home country, and so is their child, even if they're on US soil. If I recall correctly, I think we even grant them a specific refugee status to avoid any confusion on citizenship.
The kid of an illegal alien is exactly as subject to "the jurisdiction thereof" as was WAK. Kid's parents may be illegal but the kid is not.
You folk keep attempting to erect a non existent difference. Does not work.
If being born in the US is all that counts in making one a subject of the jurisdiction regardless of the parents status of intruder and non-immigrant, then why not just leave out "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? "Subject to the jurisdiction" was left undefined because it was left up to the Executive, Congress, the People and of course the Court to define who is or is not subject to the jurisdiction. Intruders, if not non-immigrants as well, and their children are not subject to the jurisdiction.
Most people physically in the USA, legally or not, are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They can be arrested, can go to trial, etc. An exception is diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity.
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.
.
