Birthright Citizenship: What the Landmark 1898 Ark Case Does Not Say

[BackAgain]

Where does it say that? It doesn't.

Wrong question. Here is the right one:

Where does it say that its decision is applicable to the children of illegal aliens?

What they were deciding was very clear and was quoted for you above by TemplarKormac (post 28):

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

The court clearly framed the question it was addressing. Beyond that, it would require a clarifying decision to make it applicable, more generally.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Notwithstanding that illegal immigrants do not possess diplomatic immunity...

The only time illegals enter our jurisdiction should be to be prosecuted for their illegal entry, not to grant them full Constitutional rights.

Using your reasoning we should grant them all citizenship.

Constitutio al rights do not depend on citizenship. Your error again.

 

[BackAgain]

Constitutio al rights do not depend on citizenship. Your error again.

Mostly correct. The Constitutional right to trial applies to all persons. The Constitutional right to vote only applies to citizens.

Plus, TemplarKormac has already correctly noted that the right to a fair trial applies to all people.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Paragraph 3 of the opinion: The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: '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.'

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK.

www.law.cornell.edu

So, the case addressed children of permanent residents, not those of illegal immigrants. The relevant case law won't touch what the petitioner did not argue before the courts.

I've made the same arguments myself but the courts don't want to hear it.

As best as I can tell they don't like BEING wrong, they hate another judge RULING that they did something wrong and it's almost as if they all have an unspoken agreement not to find fault with one another's rulings unless there is no way to avoid doing so.

I'm not disputing any of your comments or assessments, I'm just trying to prepare you mentally for how they are going to respond to this.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where's your evidence of that?

Apologies, internet crapped out.

I am under the impression that permanent residence involves 1) Obeying all US laws and 2) registering for selective service.

That means allegiance.

 

[BackAgain]

I've made the same arguments myself but the courts don't want to hear it.

As best as I can tell they don't like BEING wrong, they hate another judge RULING that they did something wrong and it's almost as if they all have an unspoken agreement not to find fault with one another's rulings unless there is no way to avoid doing so.

I'm not disputing any of your comments or assessments, I'm just trying to prepare you mentally for how they are going to respond to this.

Who is going to prepare you for the likely outcome which is that you’ll be proved wrong and that the SCOTUS will find that, yes, the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted?

 

[BackAgain]

Mostly correct. The Constitutional right to trial applies to all persons. The Constitutional right to vote only applies to citizens.

Plus, TemplarKormac has already correctly noted that the right to a fair trial applies to all people.

Odd that Mariyam would claim “fake news.” Everything I said is true and accurate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wong Kim's parents swore no allegiance to the United States.

Okay, so how were they granted a "permanent domicile"?

Certainly, you didn't get one by not swearing fealty to the country you were residing in.

The very act of applying for permanent residence is a pledge. You are letting the government know your intentions, that you intend to live and operate by all laws for the duration of your residence.

 

[excalibur]

The Writ of Jus Sanquinis should apply.

The person did not owe allegiance to the US when they entered illegally. They still owed their allegiance to a foreign nation. By breaking our laws, they demonstrated such a lack of allegiance to the US.

Indeed, the woman is rewarded, anchored here, by an alleged U.S. citizen baby.

She cannot be deported, is eligible for SNAP, housing, medical, etc., and entitled to bring in other children she may have had in another country, the father of the new child, and other relatives over the years.

 

[toobfreak]

The person did not owe allegiance to the US when they entered illegally.

The argument that a child born of visiting illegals is a citizen is an idiotic one. Sure, they are on US soil so in a way are "subject to our jurisdiction," but that is not what the law intended. Who knows, 150 years ago with the end of the Civil War and slavery, they probably never imagined a situation where today, millions of 3th worlders would be flooding us while we are 36 trillion in debt!

But isn't the Left always arguing that the Constitution is out of date and needs amending?

 

[Curried Goats]

Apologies, internet crapped out.

I am under the impression that permanent residence involves 1) Obeying all US laws and 2) registering for selective service.

That means allegiance.

So you don't know.... My parents immigrated here from another country to work. The only time they had to swear allegiance to this country was when they became citizens themselves.

Okay, so how were they granted a "permanent domicile"?

Certainly, you didn't get one by not swearing fealty to the country you were residing in.

The very act of applying for permanent residence is a pledge. You are letting the government know your intentions, that you intend to live and operate by all laws for the duration of your residence.

They weren't granted a permanent domicile. Lots of immigrants came here to live for a time and to work to make money to either send back home or to take back home with them when they left. The act of living and working here shows they aren't part of some invading army.