A Short Primer on the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment

[excalibur]

The alleged case many hang their hats on, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, never granted birthright citizenship to any and all.

Indeed, it was specifically aimed at the Chinese situation as it existed at the time, and here in this case, they took pains to mention that Yick Wo's parents were legally resident in the United States when Yick Wo was born. Legal alien parents.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The alleged case many hang their hats on, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, never granted birthright citizenship to any and all.

Indeed, it was specifically aimed at the Chinese situation as it existed at the time, and here in this case, they took pains to mention that Yick Wo's parents were legally resident in the United States when Yick Wo was born. Legal alien parents.

Has nothing to do with that case as it involved racial discrimination.

 

[excalibur]

Has nothing to do with that case as it involved racial discrimination.

Had everything to do with it, Yick Wo dealt with legal resident alien children, nothing in that case is about illegal alien children.

Nothing in Yick Wo grants birthright citizenship to non-legal-resident alien children, and neither you nor anyone else can show it did.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Well then the amendment should have said so.

That's not exactly a fair statement. That's like saying that when they ratified the 1st amendment that they should have included/excluded situations involving the internet. Or having the foresight or imagination to prohibit the mass surveillance of the U.S. population that modern technology allows in violation of the 4th amendments prohibitions on "...unreasonable searches and seizures" without a warrant.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Should we go by what others said about it, or what it actually says?

Unfortunately, our legal system is allowed to gaslight us in this respect.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Nope, it has not.

Read the 14th amendment
Been that way for 150 years

And it's been misinterpreted since Wong Kim Ark

 

[excalibur]

The alleged case many hang their hats on, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, never granted birthright citizenship to any and all.

Indeed, it was specifically aimed at the Chinese situation as it existed at the time, and here in this case, they took pains to mention that Yick Wo's parents were legally resident in the United States when Yick Wo was born. Legal alien parents.

My bad, I was going through several cases and confused Yick Wo with Wong Kim Ark. The above should be Wong Kim Ark.

 

[excalibur]

Had everything to do with it, Won Kim Ark dealt with legal resident alien children, nothing in that case is about illegal alien children.

Nothing in Wong Kim Ark grants birthright citizenship to non-legal-resident alien children, and neither you nor anyone else can show it did.

I meant Wong Kim Ark, not Yick Wo and have corrected it.

My bad for conflating the two.

 

[excalibur]

Has nothing to do with that case as it involved racial discrimination.

Correct, and I have corrected this below. I conflated Yick Wo with Wong Kim Ark. I intended Wong Kim Ark.

My bad.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The alleged case many hang their hats on, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, never granted birthright citizenship to any and all.

Indeed, it was specifically aimed at the Chinese situation as it existed at the time, and here in this case, they took pains to mention that Yick Wo's parents were legally resident in the United States when Yick Wo was born. Legal alien parents.

That case had nothing to do with citizenship.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And it's been misinterpreted since Wong Kim Ark

It was correctly interpreted.

The Court most likely will deny to hear it and let the current interpretation stand with seven votes.

 

[pknopp]

That's not exactly a fair statement. That's like saying that when they ratified the 1st amendment that they should have included/excluded situations involving the internet.

Why? Free speech is free speech.

Or having the foresight or imagination to prohibit the mass surveillance of the U.S. population that modern technology allows in violation of the 4th amendments prohibitions on "...unreasonable searches and seizures" without a warrant.

I believe they did.

 

[sparky]

Education is a right extended even to illegal immigrants by a ruling of SCOTUS.

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, the Supreme Court's 1982 ruling in Plyler v. Doe established that states cannot deny free public education to children based on their immigration status, meaning undocumented students have a right to K-12 education.


free????
~S~

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, the Supreme Court's 1982 ruling in Plyler v. Doe established that states cannot deny free public education to children based on their immigration status, meaning undocumented students have a right to K-12 education.


free????
~S~

Provided by the state, just like kids who are citizens. The technical phrase is "freeand appropriate public education" FAPE.

 

[rightwinger]

And it's been misinterpreted since Wong Kim Ark

It is quite clear

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

My bad, I was going through several cases and confused Yick Wo with Wong Kim Ark. The above should be Wong Kim Ark.

You should have deleted your post. Thank you for admitting the error.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It is quite clear

The Wong Kim Ark case is by all appearances the correct interpretation, it's the subsequent ones in which the circumstances are different that are the problem, not the landmark SCOTUS case.

AND it's not correct to claim that they were ruled upon in the manner that they were based on Wong Kim Ark, because again, there is a major difference.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

In August 1895, a 22-year-old cook named Wong Kim Ark was denied entry to San Francisco because U.S. customs officials who declared he was not a U.S. citizen even though he had been born in San Francisco's Chinatown district.
The officials later argued that the U.S. Constitution's14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil, did not apply to him because his parents were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at the time he was born. (This wasn't true. Even illegal aliens are subject to U.S. jurisdiction and can be arrested.)
Rather than back down, Mr. Wong took his case to the courts — and won.
In Mr. Wong’s case, the United States Supreme Court affirmed in 1898 that THE U.S. CONSTITUTION GIVES AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP FOR ALL CHILDREN BORN IN THE U.S. (The exception are children born on U.S. soil to foreign diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.) That understanding of birthright citizenship has been the highest law of the land since 1898.
Now, the Trump administration wants to roll back the Wong Kim Ark ruling as it moves to crack down on immigration.
On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order declaring that the government would stop treating U.S.-born children of parents who are undocumented or are in the country temporarily as U.S. citizens.

 

[bendog]

It was correctly interpreted.

The Court most likely will deny to hear it and let the current interpretation stand with seven votes.

The real issue is the nationwide injunction bullshit .... on both parties.

Congress could pass a law, and Trump could sign it, requiring asylum seekers to apply BEFORE coming here, and any illegal breach of our borders evidences an illegal immigrant having no desire to submit to US law. Then, the Supreme Court might actually have to do something

 

[pknopp]

The real issue is the nationwide injunction bullshit .... on both parties.

Congress could pass a law, and Trump could sign it, requiring asylum seekers to apply BEFORE coming here, and any illegal breach of our borders evidences an illegal immigrant having no desire to submit to US law. Then, the Supreme Court might actually have to do something

They could still come illegally and have kids that would still be citizens.