Citizenship for the Children of Illegal Immigrants?

[Contumacious]

5. “Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship.?

That is because the states RETAINED the right to confer their citizenship on whomever.

.

Are you suggesting that one may be a citizen of, say, Oklahoma, but not a legal citizen of the United States?

Yep.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.


. In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons;


BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That is because the states RETAINED the right to confer their citizenship on whomever.

.

Are you suggesting that one may be a citizen of, say, Oklahoma, but not a legal citizen of the United States?

Yep.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.


. In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons;


BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

.

"...gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States..."

What rights would said 'citizen' have in one state, but not in another?

Voting?

And how would this be addressed in terms of Article IV, section 1?

Fuller dissented in Wong.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Citizenship for the Children of Illegal Immigrants?

Seems like a real bad idea to me. I recommend having their illegal immigrant parents(aka MEXICANS) take them with them when they are thrown out of the country. Seems like the current policy hasn't done much to help ultra-liberal California.

 

[Againsheila]

If you are born here you have the right to claim American citizenship.

That is our laws wether you like it or not.

If you wish to change the constitution go ahead and try, see just how far you get.

Until then the law is clear, born here = citizen

"under the jurisdiction thereof"

I find it hard to understand how an amendment that specifically denies citizenship to children born to legal diplomats can ever be interpreted as providing citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.

 

[Contumacious]

Are you suggesting that one may be a citizen of, say, Oklahoma, but not a legal citizen of the United States?

Yep.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.


. In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons;


BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

.

"...gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States..."

What rights would said 'citizen' have in one state, but not in another?

Voting?

And how would this be addressed in terms of Article IV, section 1?

Fuller dissented in Wong.

The individual may enjoy whatever rights the state of OK confers but he will not automatically enjoy those rights in Arkansas, or any
other state.

.

 

[Polk]

And in the Wong Kim Ark case, his parents were legal resident aliens.

They were resident aliens, but they were neither legal nor illegal, as no legislation defining the status of aliens existed as the time of Wong Kim Ark's birth. Ark's birth date is not known, but the latest estimates are 1873. The first law defining the legal status of immigrants wasn't passed until 1882 (Chinese Exclusion Act).

There is no case in which the Supreme Court has rendered a decision that children of illegal immigrants are automatically citizens of the United States.

Does that change your view, and/or would you like to see a SC review of same?

There is no case in which they have done so directly, but their decision in Plyler v. Doe strongly infers it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It’s interesting to find that situations seemingly decided in the past, may, in fact have a questionable provenance. Accepted today as a fait accompli is the assumed citizenship of any child born in territorial United States.


1. In 1894, Wong Kim Ark, born and raised in the United States, visited China. His parents who had worked in San Francisco, had returned to China to live, and when Wong Kim Ark returned to California, he was“denied permission to enter the country "...because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. “The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,” never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law.” The concept refers to the subjects of a king: perpetual allegiance.

3. But the Revolutionary War reversed this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence proclaims: “…“the good People of these Colonies. . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown…”

4. ‘James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked: “Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects.” The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution… citizenship is based on the consent of the governed—not the accident of birth.’

5. “Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”

6. So, not only being born within the geographical limits of the US is required: the definition of ‘jurisdiction’ is critical!

a. Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment excluded Indians as citizens, as they “were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

b. The Expatriation Act of 1868 allows Americans to renounce their citizenship. “Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship…In sum, this legacy of feudalism—which we today call birthright citizenship—was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.”

c. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance—or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.

7. The Wong Kim Ark decision, that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship, was based on the premise that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law system of birthright citizenship, nor did the decision explain how ‘subjects’ were miraculously transformed into ‘citizens,’ but, rather that the two terms were interchangeable, equating, in effect, feudal monarchy and republicanism.
404 Not Found


So, was the Wong Kim Ark decision correctly decided? Should the current Supreme Court address the question once again?
And, how would you decide the case?

Hmmmm.......Trump catapulted this thread into today's headlines.....