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.
Yes, Wong Kim Ark affirmed the concept of citizenship at birth. The point on which it turned was that Wong Kim Ark's parents were subject to US laws while they were in the United States; that was the point of stating that they weren't part of the Chinese diplomatic corps. The rest of the blather about the parents having permanent domicile and such is immaterial to the discussion at hand.
That's a faulty argument and here's why... Native Americans have been subject to the jurisdiction of US law since 1885, BUT were not US citizens at birth (even though born in the US) until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 specifically granted them birthright US citizenship.
So, a foreigner simply being subject to US law is NOT enough to meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause. The necessity of having to pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 proves that.
The permanent domicile requirement established in the WKA decision does in fact matter.
Members of Native tribes were not subject to state or federal law - they were living on their own lands and were outside the jurisprudence of the United States.
FALSE, and I've already posted on that erroneous belief many times...
Native Americans have been subject to the jurisdiction of US law since 1885, BUT were not US citizens at birth (even though born in the US) until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 specifically granted them birthright US citizenship.
So, a foreigner simply being subject to US law is NOT enough to meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause. The necessity of having to pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 proves that.
How can one overlook the gigantic elephant in the living room?
The reason we even had the “opportunity” to create that constitution was due to the fact that those writing it were fresh off their victory in our Revolutionary War against the previous government. Yet, you want to sit here trying to sell the idea that there is no connection between protecting the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, with defending against a tyrannical government? Don’t be ridiculous. Seriously. That’s totally absurd.
When the reason stated for 2A specifies “necessary to the security of a free state”, who do you think they were thinking about as a threat to such security? Couldn’t be the tyrannical government they had just defeated in a revolution?
I swear ….you people are too much. Your heads are filled with so much nonsense, you think you make sense, but you don’t make any sense at all.
Here’s some history for you, the reason why they wanted those men, some women, to have guns in place, because they were united in fighting the big boys, (The Brits) the last thing they are considering was these farm boys were having to defend themselves from a newly free government they were fighting to create. It’s like saying you put locks in your new house, so your kids can lock you out.
The constitution was signed 9/17/1787. The real full regiment 3rd Infantry Regiment was formed in 6/1784. In 1812, and the Brits burned the new capital of Washington, DC. So the Brit’s still at it. They never went away, a,d the Gov needed all armed.
The Continental Army was the army of the Thirteen Colonies and the Revolutionary-era United States. It was formed by the Second Continental Congress after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, and was established by a resolution of Congress on June 14, 1775. The Continental Army was created to coordinate military efforts of the Colonies in their war for independence against the British, who sought to keep their American lands under control. General George Washington was the commander-in-chief of the army throughout the war.
The Continental Army was supplemented by “local militias” and volunteer troops that were either loyal to individual states or otherwise independent. Most of the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783.
At the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have a standing army. Previously, each colony had relied upon the militia (which was made up of part-time citizen-soldiers) for local defense, or the raising of temporary provincial troops during such crises as the French and Indian War of 1754–63. As tensions with Great Britain increased in the years leading to the war, colonists began to reform their militias in preparation for the perceived potential conflict.
The term "battleship" was coined in the 1880's to describe steam-driven iron-clad warships with a good number of large caliber guns.
What private citizens did own were privateers - and only during time of war, when issued letters of marque. Privateers were commercial sailing vessels fitted with cannon and designed to attack and capture merchant vessels of the enemy. Basically, legalized piracy.
No privateer ship could hope to stand up to even a sixth rate warship from a national fleet. But then, privateers were expected to flee in such an encounter.
In other words, privateers were well-regulated and licensed before they were allowed to be deployed.
FALSE, and I've already posted on that erroneous belief many times...
No, you're still wrong on the Native American question. The operative phrase is and has always been 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. Case law, even after the 14th amendment was passed, held that Native Americans who were not taxed were excluded from the class of those subject to the jurisdiction of US and state law. However, Native Americans who were taxed were considered subject to the jurisdiction.
The Indian Citizenship Act only moved any remaining Native Americans into the classification of being under the jurisdiction of the US, allowing their offspring to become US citizens at birth.
And this consideration is immaterial to the question of US v Wong Kim Ark. You keep insisting that one must have permanent domicile in the US in order to have one's children, born on US soil, considered to be US citizens at birth. The entire point of noting that Wong Kim Ark's parents were not with the Chinese diplomatic core, that they had a place of residence in the US, and that they conducted business in the US was to establish that his parents were under the legal jurisdiction of the US. But your line of argument insists that these parameters are requirements - they are not, except as they prove the point that the parents were subject to US law.
Consider that a tourist, traveling through the United States, is still subject to US and state law.
Consider a homeless person, without domicile or employment, is still subject to US and state law.
Consider a person who is in this country without permission or documentation (in your terms an illegal immigrant) - that person is still subject to US and state law. Otherwise, they wouldn't be arrested and charged with illegal immigration.
The offspring of the three above examples, if born on US soil, are natural born citizens of the United States.
You would have us believe that owning or renting an abode is a requirement for citizenship. You are wrong.
No, you're still wrong on the Native American question. The operative phrase is and has always been 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. Case law, even after the 14th amendment was passed, held that Native Americans who were not taxed were excluded from the class of those subject to the jurisdiction of US and state law. However, Native Americans who were taxed were considered subject to the jurisdiction.
Again, you're incorrect. Native Americans were subject to US law beginning in 1885 but were NOT birthright US citizens until a specific federal law passed in 1924 granted them birthright citizenship. A foreign national merely being subject to US law is NOT enough to qualify for birthright citizenship under the 14th. If it were, Native Americans would have been birthright citizens since 1885. They were not.
Again, you're incorrect. Native Americans were subject to US law beginning in 1885 but were NOT birthright US citizens until a specific federal law passed in 1924 granted them birthright citizenship. A foreign national merely being subject to US law is NOT enough to qualify for birthright citizenship under the 14th. If it were, Native Americans would have been birthright citizens since 1885. They were not.
That's simply you forcing your definition upon reality.
And it's immaterial to US v Wong Kim Ark.
But please do keep the shrieking down to a tolerable level.
That's simply you forcing your definition upon reality.
No, it actually IS reality. 1924 is decades removed from 1885. Being subject to US laws is NOT enough to qualify for 14th Amendment birthright citizenship. If it were, Native Americans would have been birthright citizens since 1885. They were not.
Quote:
And it's immaterial to US v Wong Kim Ark.
WKA creates another requirement for birthright citizenship, that of a parent having a permanent domicile in the US. Illegal aliens DON'T have a permanent domicile in the US. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in the country that has or would issue their passport were they to have one.
No, it actually IS reality. 1924 is decades removed from 1885. Being subject to US laws is NOT enough to qualify for 14th Amendment birthright citizenship. If it were, Native Americans would have been birthright citizens since 1885. They were not.
From the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924:
Quote:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.
"All non citizen Indians" - that means that there were Indians who already had US citizenship in 1924.
Quote:
WKA creates another requirement for birthright citizenship, that of a parent having a permanent domicile in the US. Illegal aliens DON'T have a permanent domicile in the US. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in the country that has or would issue their passport were they to have one.
No, US v Wong Kim Ark did not create another requirement for birthright citizenship. The Constitution delegates the power of defining citizenship to Congress. What the opinion handed down by SCOTUS said that Wong Kim Arks parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the body of the ruling used the fact that the parents were living in the United States at the time as an example of that point, that they established a residence and ran a business under said jurisdiction. The opinion also made the pointed statement that the parents were definitely not foreign diplomats, one of the exclusions to citizenship at birth.
We live in an aristocracy pretending to be a representative Democratic-Republic anyway, so what tha hell
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.
