- Thread starter
- #421
What USSC case are you referring to which settled what "....and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " means within the Fourteenth Amendment?
JWK
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.
- Thread starter johnwk
- Start date
JWK
.The USSC is well settled about what it means.
"Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and was the son of two Chinese immigrants ...His parents were prohibited from seeking citizenship because of the Chinese Exclusion Act that prevented Chinese immigrants from going through naturalization.... The Supreme Court’s decision solidified the doctrine of jus soli by ruling that because Wong Kim Ark was born within the jurisdiction of the United States, he was a citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship status. "
- Thread starter
- #424
"Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and was the son of two Chinese immigrants ...His parents were prohibited from seeking citizenship because of the Chinese Exclusion Act that prevented Chinese immigrants from going through naturalization.... The Supreme Court’s decision solidified the doctrine of jus soli by ruling that because Wong Kim Ark was born within the jurisdiction of the United States, he was a citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship status. "
Wong Kim Ark is not applicable to the question of citizenship being granted to a child born on American soil, to an illegal entrant foreign national.
The factors involved which led to the court's opinion in Wong were:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;
(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship :
For the reasons above stated (which apparently in the judges' mind met the qualifying criteria, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. The fact is, the above stated reasons are not the case with regard to a baby born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil.
Trotting out the Wong case is an absurdity to say the least.
The simple truth is our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment. And this is what both Trump and DeSantis are addressing.
Aside from that, one of the few times the Court did approach answering the qualifying condition, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in the *Slaughterhouse Cases* 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”
And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.
See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Also see *Elk v. Wilkins* (1884) in which our S.C. points out:
"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."
Finally, the best evidence regarding the question is to be found in the Congressional Record when the 14th Amendment was framed and debated.
John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)
Later, May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:
The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.
Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
Business Insider needs to clean up its act and end perpetuating a myth.
JWK
."...because Wong Kim Ark was born within the jurisdiction of the United States, he was a citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship status. "
Whether someone is legal or illegal has no bearing on US jurisdiction.
Wong Kim Ark is not applicable to the question of citizenship being granted to a child born on American soil, to an illegal entrant foreign national.
The factors involved which led to the court's opinion in Wong were:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;
(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship :
For the reasons above stated (which apparently in the judges' mind met the qualifying criteria, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. The fact is, the above stated reasons are not the case with regard to a baby born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil.
Trotting out the Wong case is an absurdity to say the least.
The simple truth is our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment. And this is what both Trump and DeSantis are addressing.
Aside from that, one of the few times the Court did approach answering the qualifying condition, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in the *Slaughterhouse Cases* 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”
And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.
See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Also see *Elk v. Wilkins* (1884) in which our S.C. points out:
"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."
Finally, the best evidence regarding the question is to be found in the Congressional Record when the 14th Amendment was framed and debated.
John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)
Later, May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:
The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.
Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
Business Insider needs to clean up its act and end perpetuating a myth.
JWK
- Thread starter
- #430
Wong Kim Ark is not applicable to the question of citizenship being granted to a child born on American soil, to an illegal entrant foreign national.
The factors involved which led to the court's opinion in Wong were:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;
(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship :
For the reasons above stated (which apparently in the judges' mind met the qualifying criteria, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. The fact is, the above stated reasons are not the case with regard to a baby born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil.
Trotting out the Wong case is an absurdity to say the least.
The simple truth is our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment. And this is what both Trump and DeSantis are addressing.
Aside from that, one of the few times the Court did approach answering the qualifying condition, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in the *Slaughterhouse Cases* 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”
And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.
See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Also see *Elk v. Wilkins* (1884) in which our S.C. points out:
"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."
Finally, the best evidence regarding the question is to be found in the Congressional Record when the 14th Amendment was framed and debated.
John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)
Later, May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:
The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.
Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
Business Insider needs to clean up its act and end perpetuating a myth.
JWK
The factors involved which led to the court's opinion in Wong were:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;
(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship :
For the reasons above stated (which apparently in the judges' mind met the qualifying criteria, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. The fact is, the above stated reasons are not the case with regard to a baby born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil.
Trotting out the Wong case is an absurdity to say the least.
The simple truth is our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment. And this is what both Trump and DeSantis are addressing.
Aside from that, one of the few times the Court did approach answering the qualifying condition, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in the *Slaughterhouse Cases* 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”
And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.
See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Also see *Elk v. Wilkins* (1884) in which our S.C. points out:
"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."
Finally, the best evidence regarding the question is to be found in the Congressional Record when the 14th Amendment was framed and debated.
John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)
Later, May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:
The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.
Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
Business Insider needs to clean up its act and end perpetuating a myth.
JWK
.
."Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and was the son of two Chinese immigrants ...His parents were prohibited from seeking citizenship because of the Chinese Exclusion Act that prevented Chinese immigrants from going through naturalization.... The Supreme Court’s decision solidified the doctrine of jus soli by ruling that because Wong Kim Ark was born within the jurisdiction of the United States, he was a citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship status. "
Once again johnweak brings his hapless failure of an argument to a discussion board when his real argument is with the Supreme Court. What do you want to bet he has never even tried to communicate his grievances to his elected representatives?
So anchor babies should be taken away from their illegal parents when deported back to there home country.Seem Business Insider was interested enough to publish a misleading article on the subject.
JWK
When a Republican Legislator demands a national ban on abortions, or a Democrat Legislator demands a total unregulated access to abortion, both are domestic enemies of Federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and need to be excoriated for the traitors they are in wanting to exercise authoritarian power over the states and people therein.
- Thread starter
- #434
"Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and was the son of two Chinese immigrants .........
.
.
.
Wong Kim Ark, as documented HERE, is not applicable to the question of citizenship being granted to a child born on American soil, to an illegal entrant foreign national.
Our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 70,139
- 27,039
- 2,210
.
.
Wong Kim Ark, as documented HERE, is not applicable to the question of citizenship being granted to a child born on American soil, to an illegal entrant foreign national.
Our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
As I've noted many times, there is a reason the court doesn't get these cases. If one is so adamant, bring one. No one has any desire to do so.
There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."So anchor babies should be taken away from their illegal parents when deported back to there home country.
."Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and was the son of two Chinese immigrants ...His parents were prohibited from seeking citizenship because of the Chinese Exclusion Act that prevented Chinese immigrants from going through naturalization.... The Supreme Court’s decision solidified the doctrine of jus soli by ruling that because Wong Kim Ark was born within the jurisdiction of the United States, he was a citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship status. "
- Thread starter
- #438
."Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and was the son of two Chinese immigrants ...His parents . . .
.
.
Wong Kim Ark, as documented HERE, is not applicable to the question of citizenship being granted to a child born on American soil, to an illegal entrant foreign national.
Our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
."Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and was the son of two Chinese immigrants ...His parents were prohibited from seeking citizenship because of the Chinese Exclusion Act that prevented Chinese immigrants from going through naturalization.... The Supreme Court’s decision solidified the doctrine of jus soli by ruling that because Wong Kim Ark was born within the jurisdiction of the United States, he was a citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship status. "
Similar threads
- Poll
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 244
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 309
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 14
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 269
- Replies
- 9K
- Views
- 63K
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 57
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8273
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 476
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-