US v. Wong Kim Ark granted citizenship to children of permanent residents, not illegal aliens. It did not address children of illegal aliens because illegal aliens were not the issue before the court.
As you said earlier Wong Kim Ark settled jurisdiction. They found anyone here, even temporarily, as Wong Kim's parents were, were under the jurisdiction of the United States and that the only exceptions were to indigenous tribes and children of diplomats whom they did not have jurisdiction over.
Jurisdiction is more limited when the people in question are here illegally. They don't owe allegiance to the US. They are still citizens of the country they fled.
I am attacking your lack of reasoning. you just happened to be in the way.
Where does it say that? It doesn't.
Not what the treaties involving diplomatic immunity says. Using your reasoning, we could not arrest illegals for crossing the border because they are not under our jurisdiction.
Already discussed to death in the other threads.
Paragraph 118 of Wong:
Wong Kim's parents had temporary allegiance to the United States. They were subjects of the emperor of China, in the United States temporarily and returned to China with Wong Kim when he was a child. The Supreme Court made that point in their ruling noting that their "allegiance" was temporary, in that they had only chosen to live here for a limited time but that during this time their choice to reside and work here was evidence of their "allegiance" (I take this to mean they weren't invading foreign soldiers) and that during the time that they were here they were under the jurisdiction of the United States government rather than here under some form of diplomatic immunity.
Notwithstanding that illegal immigrants do not possess diplomatic immunity...
Subject to the jurisdiction encapsulates everyone who is under the authority of our legal system which includes, residents, visitors, green card holders, student visa holders and yes even illegals. They certainly aren't under the jurisdiction of their own countries while here in the United States.
Paragraph 3 and 118 state the parents had a "permanent domicile." They weren't temporary residents.
Jurisdiction as it applies to immigration and naturalization purposes. Nothing else. You are not here legally, therefore you are not subject to any other law except the ones which apply to your illegal entry. Your constitutional rights only extend to those given to criminals on trial.
It's noted by history. They left the United States and went back to China. The issue popped up when Wong Kim tried to come back. The permanent domicile thing is just evidence that they were living and working here and so not part of some invading army.
Wong Kim's parents didn't denounce the emperor of China, nor did they abandon it. They returned to it. Allegiance is demonstrated by being a contributing member of society and so not an invading foreign army.
Wong Kim's parents swore no allegiance to the United States.
As a prerequisite of their permanent residence, they were required to pledge allegiance to the US. You cannot swear allegiance to a country by committing a crime like illegal entry.
Where's your evidence of that? They weren't permant residents. They returned to China and remained there. This was known during the ruling since the case came about when Wong Kim tried to return from China as an adult.
