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.
Wong Kim Ark was decided based on precedent from an 1812 SCOTUS decision. The posters that claim this issue has never been examined by the Supreme Court are lying. They are just choosing to ignore the fact that SCOTUS has ruled and disagreed with their bogus theory entirely. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" applies to people physically in the US regardless of their immigration status.
Here are the words of an actual authority - a Supreme Court justice in a written majority decision. The meaning of the 14th Amendment is settled law, like it or not.
"When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant such exemption."
1. That's from an 1812 case, The Exchange v. McFaddon, predating the enactment of the 14th amendment by 56 years. Obviously, it can't be used as interpretive authority for the wording of the 14th amendment.
2. The case has nothing to do with citizenship, never mind birthright citizenship.
Your clue is "and" subject to the jurisdiction. That is a qualifier to birthright citizenship. Illegal aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction. They are only subject to obey our laws. Won Kim Ark wasn't about parents in our country illegally as they were legally here and permanently domiciled. It was an entirely different case.
Did you read Wong Kim Ark or are you just taking someone else's interpretation of it? And can you cite to cases that do, directly, apply the applicable clause of the 14th amendment to this sort of case? I haven't done that work, so I'll be interested to see the results of your research.
Did you read Wong Kim Ark or are you just taking someone else's interpretation of it? And can you cite to cases that do, directly, apply the applicable clause of the 14th amendment to this sort of case? I haven't done that work, so I'll be interested to see the results of your research.
Yes, I did read that case, did you? The decision was rendered that their child was indeed a birth citizen because they had legal permanent domicile in this country. This is not the case of illegal alien parents who give birth on our soil. Therefore, they are not birthright citizens.
Yes, I did read that case, did you? The decision was rendered that their child was indeed a birth citizen because they had legal permanent domicile in this country. This is not the case of illegal alien parents who give birth on our soil. Therefore, they are not birthright citizens.
What I do not understand is how someone whose parents are not citizens or even legal residents of this country can be a US citizen just be being born here.
It never made much sense to me.
The children of Diplomats born in the US are not US citizens. So why are the children of illegal aliens born in this country given US citizenship?
Do you really think US citizenship should be given out like candy? We have women coming here on visas from all parts of the world (birth tourism) to give birth to a US citizen! How frickin crazy is that?
"It was 5 a.m. and CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts is with a woman who is nine months pregnant. She's rushed to a south Texas hospital to undergo a C-section - a $4,700 medical procedure that won't cost her a dime. She qualifies for emergency Medicaid.
(...)
"Do many women in Mexico make the choice to have their children in the United States?" Pitts asked.
"Yes," she said through a translator. "I know people who have done that. Things are much better here in the U.S. because they help children so much more."
(...)
"Many Americans who struggle to take care of their own families think it is unfair that they should take care of a family and they are not U.S. citizens.
"I don't understand the resentment," said. "I know that God will help them, too."
(Of course she doesn't understand the resentment...EVERYTHING WAS FREE)
Must be nice huh?
First person i met who came here pregnant just for the citizenship rights was Russian.
The second was Korean.
80 Co-sponsors for the Birthright Citizen Act of 2011, and not ONE democrat supports it. Why? The country overwhelmingly is in support of ending birthright citizenship, republicans and democrats alike by a margin of 7-3. Why aren't the democrat members representing their constituents on this issue?
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants babies born from illegal aliens our birthright citizenship. The wording and intent of the 14 Amendment is very clear. It's just that they have been deemed so by a PC policy only. Would love for the Supreme Court to take up this issue and clarify it once and for all.
They already ruled in favor of "jus soil".
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.
