Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

Amen.

Plus, that SC case specifically pointed out that the amendment applies to all who are here and subject to US law. That's all it takes.

Clearly, undocumented aliens are subject to US law. So are those visiting with visas. So are those with work visas.

 

First off, Ark's parents came here legally pursuant to the Burlingame Treaty IIRC. Chinese labor built a lot of the railroad in the West. Second, Ark was arrested by that not existent customs and border patrol.....

We've never had ****ing open borders until recently, at the hands of the Democrats.

 

Not what it says, no matter how many times you try.

 

I'm well aware that you wanted the Ark decision to be different.

 

The US government wanted it to be correct, it wasn't. Nevertheless, it still doesn't grant citizenship to babies of illegal aliens. If you watched the Trump video, which I'm sure you didn't, he is specifically following the ARK precedent...that I don't agree with....but it certainly would apply to millions upon millions of illegals.

 

Yes. We did. We had open borders for most of our country's history. You wanted to move here? You moved here. That was pretty much it.

 

If Trump is your only source on an issue of the law, you're in big trouble.

 

There's another older thread about this:
The Constitution does NOT guarantee birth citizenship

 

And that thread is also nonsensical.

 

Please cite what you think "subject to the jurisdiction of" means.

 

I disagree.

 

I think "subject to the jurisdiction of" means they are (or were) continuously allowed to reside there, were not fugitives, and were openly living under the laws of the government.

This would not include temporary visitors or illegal migrants that jump across the border, have a baby, and then are sent back (with their baby) a short time later.

 

And the courts disagree with you. As does the plain lettering of the law. You can wish upon a star all you want. It changes nothing. If you are born here, you're a citizen. The children of immigrants became citizens the exact same way you did. Deal with it.

 

What was the legal requirement for residing here when the 14th Amendment was passed? Think about this.

 

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I'll presume there is no specific law you are trying to cite.

 

Then you haven't thought it over much. You are referring to what you think the wording mean, but you refuse to think about those words.

 

Yes, they showed up on Angel Island and came into the country. All of that was done BEFORE the 1873 Act. You do realize that don't you? Between 1873 and the time that Wo Kim Ark left to visit them, the parents left and went back to China while he remained here to work for the immigration bureau. He left twice, once in 1890 and then again in 1894. It was in 1894 that he was refused that he was a US Citizen because, under current law, he could not bring his wife nor his son who were in China. He was considered a laborer under the law no matter who or what he was doing. And it all started when an immigration official questioned his birthplace.

You may want to look at the Wo Kim Ark and his mini-biography and his parents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

"
Wong Kim Ark, a nonstandard Taishanese romanization of his name in Chinese (Chinese: 黃金德; Taishanese: Wōng Gim-ak), was born in San Francisco, California, at 751 Sacramento Street, the address of a Chinatown business (Quong Sing) maintained by his merchant parents.[81] Various sources state or imply his year of birth as being 1873,[82] 1871,[83][84] or 1868.[85][86] His father, Wong Si Ping (Chinese: 黃四平), and mother, Lee Wee (Chinese: 李薇), emigrated from Taishan, Guangdong, China and were not United States citizens, as the Naturalization Law of 1802 had made them ineligible for naturalization either before or after his birth.[87][88] Wong did not become a merchant like his father, but worked as a cook in Chinatown restaurants.[89]

In 1889, Wong Kim Ark, then in his late teens, left for China with his parents, who decided to repatriate to China and to their ancestral village in Taishan, Ong Sing. While in Taishan, Wong Kim Ark married Yee Shee from a village near his familial one. Returning to the United States in 1890, he left behind in Taishan not only his parents but also his wife, who gave birth to their first son after he returned to California. Under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, he as a laborer could not bring his wife to the United States. Upon arrival alone at San Francisco in July 1890, he was readmitted on the ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States, but only after an unnamed Bureau of Immigration official left a note in his file questioning the veracity of his claim of birth in the United States.[90]

In November 1894, Wong sailed to China for another temporary visit, to rejoin his wife at his family's village in Taishan, Guangdong. He met his oldest son for the first time, and his second son was conceived.[91] But when he returned in August 1895 by SS Coptic, he was detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs, who denied him permission to enter the country, arguing that Wong was not a U.S. citizen despite his having been born in the U.S., but was instead a Chinese subject because his parents were Chinese.[92] Wong was confined for five months on steamships off the coast of San Francisco while his case was being tried."

 

I have given it plenty of consideration, which you would know if you had bothered to read the old thread I linked to.

 

You made an edit after I responded. Did you not know before today that the 14th is specific? I'm literally talking about the exact same legislation that you are. The. Exact. Same. Why does that upset you?

 

The old thread is about fringe theories that have no impact on our actual laws. Perhaps try giving the actual law some consideration.

 

I think Democrat's glass house is going to fall in on itself when people finally realize the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't grant automatic birthright citizenship.
This was all a charade and bluff. Claiming that the Constitution automatically grants citizenship to any baby who just happens to be born on U.S. soil.
It's amazing, even many Republicans have come to believe this and take it for granted, but the history and points of argument have never been pointed out to them. It's a discussion many people have not even heard.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended for slaves on U.S. soil, babies who were born from parents who had spent all their life in the U.S., with the baby presumably going to live its life in the U.S. too.

 

Really, it pretty much does under jus soli which is how US citizenship is based and has been based since this country was founded. In all the Supreme Court Cases, that has been proven, especially with the Wo Kim Ark Case in which the majority ruled in favor of Wo Kim Ark.

 

We need to more closely examine that statement.

It seems generally true on the surface, but is not 100% true.

When the country was founded, there was not really a specific federal law that covered citizenship, but citizenship was presumed. (And sometimes not even then, for example when it came to Indian tribes and African American slaves)

 

Nope.

All those who are PRESENT in the USA are subject to our jurisdiction unless that have some special exclusionary status, such as being an ambassador. Ambassadors may be asked to leave. But, they can not be sued or charged. They are not under our jurisdiction.

Someone who is a tourist, has no papers, has a work visas, or whatever - they are under our jurisdiction. They can be charged. They can be sued in our courts.

 

Currently the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S. are not considered U.S. citizens.