More nonsense from the black hole of ignorance.
Many of you understand?
LOL!
Who would that be?
C_Clayton_Jones with his obviously dunderheaded notion that Title 8, Sec. 1401 only applies to so-called “immigration law” and his inability to comprehend the distinction between case law and statutory law? But that’s not all. He unwittingly concedes with his citations that (1) he attributed an observation to me that I did not make and that (2) the Court, not the 14th Amendment, settled the matter, at least with regard to the offspring of legal foreign nationals.
jillian’s incessant dismissive prattle, albeit, without any substance whatsoever, no citations, no arguments? And now your nonsense, again without any substance, no citations, no arguments.
In the meantime, however, we have my scholarship, backed by reams of constitutional, case and statutory citation, history and expertise:
Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles
You’re post merely demonstrates that you do not know the historical order of events and legal precedents, that you are utterly unaware of the debate among legal scholars and that until 1952, Congress flatly rejected the notion that it was compelled to grant citizenship to the offspring of illegals precisely because the
ratio decidendi in
Wong Kim Ark did not emphatically touch on the question.
Fact! The 14th Amendment alone provided no such thing prior to
Wong Kim Ark as the extant uniform rule/code of naturalization required that the father be a U.S. citizen. Obviously, the Court had to have intervened in order to have changed Congress', the State Department's and U.S. Custom's understanding of "the jurisdiction thereof".
What don't you understand about
Wong Kim Ark vs. the United States nearly 30 years
after the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the fact that the citizenship and nationality law of the time emphatically stated that only the offspring of U.S. citizens were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
ROTFLMAO!
Wong Kim Ark is the historically pivotal occurrence, not the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Shut up!
Further, the Court, once again, did not definitively rule in
ratio decidendi that the status of the offspring of illegals was protected! It left that specific question open. Even after that decision, Congress construed the decision to only apply to the offspring of U.S. citizens or foreign nationals residing in the U.S. legally. Further, the immediate issue goes to the moment of citizenship's conferral. Whether or not a person may run for the Office of President is subsequent.
There is nothing laughable about the body of scholarly opinion which holds that Congress is not prevented by case law from passing new legislation declaring that all future anchor babies are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution proper, the 14th Amendment or case law preventing Congress from enacting such a prohibition, as long as (1) it did not apply retroactively and (2) did not apply to the offspring of foreign, albeit, legal residents who are not officially engaged. You just think it’s laughable because of your political bias and one-sided reading, and your ignorance of the legal history pertaining to citizenship and nationality law.
Would such a law be challenge in the courts? Of course. Would it be overturned? Maybe. Probably. But not because the matter, as you ignorantly believe, is definitively settled, but only because the Court would probably clarify the matter in deference to alleged judicial intent relative to years of practice at the state level following on the heals of the decision prior to 1952.
What don’t you understand about the existence of the various proposals over the years?
Some critics of illegal immigration claim the United States' birthright citizenship is an incentive for illegal immigration. Politicians, lawmakers, and activists have expressed interest in altering how birthright citizenship is awarded. Legislative bills that would deny birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants have been dubbed "anchor baby bills" by the news media. Some scholars believe that the Wong Kim Ark precedent does not apply when alien parents of the child are in the country illegally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1868
http://noamnesty.hubpages.com/hub/11-More-Signers-of-Birthright-Citizenship-Bill
