Citizenship for the Children of Illegal Immigrants?

[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.
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07


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?

 

[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.

.

 

[JD_2B]

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

I think that this case was decided correctly. If Wong Kim Ark was BORN here, then it equates to the standard of being "Born or Naturalized" and she should have citizenship status. Her heritage is something that she cannot help. I do agree that citizenship by birthright should be negatable voluntarily by the person born here, but must be done by the person themselves, not by their parents. Until the time that the person turns 18, and say, six months later, they should be allowed dual citizenship rights, and only be allowed to remove their US citizenship rights during the six month period after they turn 18. We do not see minors as having nearly as many "citizenship" rights as adults, so this would not be an issue. Also, the person would not have voting rights here, as long as they have dual citizenship.

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.

The framers wrote the constitution, so I think that as long as they wrote that citizenship is a right to anyone born in the USA, then that should be upheld.
Even I had dual citizenship when I was first born, which my mother either decided for me, to give me US citizenship, or the period of time simply elapsed in which I could renig on it. My mother immigrated here from Scotland, but was a full fledged citizen when I was born. I do not agree that I should have had any rights to any perpetual dual citizenship simply because I was born to someone who happened to be from a certain other place. I do like the idea that my citizenship could be chosen, rather than forced, by birthright.

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…”

Yes so British law matters not.

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.’

So that explains the right people have to renig on the deal, and, for arguments sake, choose where to pledge their allegiance.

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.”

This section merely helps the matter get more complicated, for people born to people of non US lineage, but again, it does simplify the overall issue of citizenship (or should, anyways). For someone like me, who was born of Non US lineage (well, half of me is non US lineage, anyways) it does help to establish that I can choose the country of origin to which I can pledge my allegiance. If only we had more time to understand the dual citizenship clause, in order to make an informed choice about allegiance, then this whole thing would be perfect.

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.”

However, in these cases, allegiance is voluntary, still. Thus, the dual citizenship process should still apply, to the same extent that I illustrated above. These Senators did not understand that picking and choosing FOR a person, is not applicable, if done subjectively, in regards to lineage. In any event, these are just arguments, and never became law.

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.”

I disagree wholly with the text in quotation marks, above. Anyone born here can and should be allotted the time required to make an informed decision on which country of origin they pledge allegiance. It should not be up to anyone but the child of the person who trespassed, or was here legally, but of a different country, to decide whether they want to be US Citizens or citizens of the country in which they were most probably conceived, within a time frame that allows for an independent review of information and understanding, ensuring that an informed choice was most likely made.

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.

But their children, being US Citizens, would beg to differ with you. Their parents do not receive benefits, but their children do. Their parents are simply representatives for their child. Also, going back to the Indian argument- it makes no sense that Indians should be disallowed to have perpetual dual citizenry/ allegiance, also- for the simple fact that their territories are often trespassed on by our citizens, AND the fact that this WHOLE land was THEIR land, not ours, before we wrote all this shit, then proceeded to develop the land surrounding those territories, effectively denouncing these Indians, and forcing them to have no land available to migrate to, for hunting/ gathering/ smoking the ol peace pipe, etc. This has left Native Americans no choice but to develop the land themselves, building casinos, and exploiting the only thing they can- our own state laws against gambling- in order to support their tribes.

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.
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07

wrong...

Another decision was made after the Wong Kim Ark decision:

"

Wong Kim Ark was also cited in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a Supreme Court decision which struck down a Texas state law that had sought to deny public education to undocumented alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents — not children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents). The court's majority opinion in Plyler said that, according to the Wong court, the 14th Amendment's phrases "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction" were essentially equivalent and that both referred primarily to physical presence. It held that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state, and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."[6]

I agree.

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?

The only thing I would do differently is to ensure that each individual, in hazy cases like these, should be given dual citizenship until an informed decision can be made, choosing which country to pledge their allegiance to.

Citizenship can not be forced- nor should it be. It also, by the same standards, should not be denied based on lineage, rather than on the person's willful denial of said citizenship and denial to pledge allegiance.

Furthermore, Citizenship in and of itself does not come FROM Allegiance. In fact, the opposite is probably generally more true. =)

*Edit* Allegiance does not, and CAN not come first, at birth, and thus, should not be the basis on how citizenship is defined. Because normally, people are prone to wanting to "belong" to a group, then as long as they live in that particular group, they will follow the group's rules and allegiances, (See Maslow's hierarchy of need) much as the case stands for US birthright citizenship on Us jurisdictional soil. Thus, the allegiance forms after time is spent within the group (Us Citizens). So, I disagree wholly with the original, outdated definitions of allegiance from the Senator's arguments above, and how it should be applied to Citizenship, in regards to birth right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy

 

[Walt]

I do not believe they should have citizenship. The term "under the jurisdiction thereof" means the children born to parents who are not citizens of this Country are subject to the Countries of their parents. If they had not sworn allegiance to our Country. They were still under alligiance of their own Country and there for not citizens of the United States.

Slaughter-House Cases, 1873

'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.'
The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the DRED SCOTT DECISION by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and

citizens or subjects of foreign States

born within the United States.

Http://federalistblog.us/citizenship/2006/12/

An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was "simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents

not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty

is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

Http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/anchor_babies.html

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course,

include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens

, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby

 

[California Girl]

Children of illegal immigants should not have US citizenship.

 

[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

I think that this case was decided correctly. If Wong Kim Ark was BORN here, then it equates to the standard of being "Born or Naturalized" and she should have citizenship status. Her heritage is something that she cannot help. I do agree that citizenship by birthright should be negatable voluntarily by the person born here, but must be done by the person themselves, not by their parents. Until the time that the person turns 18, and say, six months later, they should be allowed dual citizenship rights, and only be allowed to remove their US citizenship rights during the six month period after they turn 18. We do not see minors as having nearly as many "citizenship" rights as adults, so this would not be an issue. Also, the person would not have voting rights here, as long as they have dual citizenship.

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.

The framers wrote the constitution, so I think that as long as they wrote that citizenship is a right to anyone born in the USA, then that should be upheld.
Even I had dual citizenship when I was first born, which my mother either decided for me, to give me US citizenship, or the period of time simply elapsed in which I could renig on it. My mother immigrated here from Scotland, but was a full fledged citizen when I was born. I do not agree that I should have had any rights to any perpetual dual citizenship simply because I was born to someone who happened to be from a certain other place. I do like the idea that my citizenship could be chosen, rather than forced, by birthright.



Yes so British law matters not.



So that explains the right people have to renig on the deal, and, for arguments sake, choose where to pledge their allegiance.



This section merely helps the matter get more complicated, for people born to people of non US lineage, but again, it does simplify the overall issue of citizenship (or should, anyways). For someone like me, who was born of Non US lineage (well, half of me is non US lineage, anyways) it does help to establish that I can choose the country of origin to which I can pledge my allegiance. If only we had more time to understand the dual citizenship clause, in order to make an informed choice about allegiance, then this whole thing would be perfect.



However, in these cases, allegiance is voluntary, still. Thus, the dual citizenship process should still apply, to the same extent that I illustrated above. These Senators did not understand that picking and choosing FOR a person, is not applicable, if done subjectively, in regards to lineage. In any event, these are just arguments, and never became law.



I disagree wholly with the text in quotation marks, above. Anyone born here can and should be allotted the time required to make an informed decision on which country of origin they pledge allegiance. It should not be up to anyone but the child of the person who trespassed, or was here legally, but of a different country, to decide whether they want to be US Citizens or citizens of the country in which they were most probably conceived, within a time frame that allows for an independent review of information and understanding, ensuring that an informed choice was most likely made.



But their children, being US Citizens, would beg to differ with you. Their parents do not receive benefits, but their children do. Their parents are simply representatives for their child. Also, going back to the Indian argument- it makes no sense that Indians should be disallowed to have perpetual dual citizenry/ allegiance, also- for the simple fact that their territories are often trespassed on by our citizens, AND the fact that this WHOLE land was THEIR land, not ours, before we wrote all this shit, then proceeded to develop the land surrounding those territories, effectively denouncing these Indians, and forcing them to have no land available to migrate to, for hunting/ gathering/ smoking the ol peace pipe, etc. This has left Native Americans no choice but to develop the land themselves, building casinos, and exploiting the only thing they can- our own state laws against gambling- in order to support their tribes.



wrong...

Another decision was made after the Wong Kim Ark decision:

"

Wong Kim Ark was also cited in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a Supreme Court decision which struck down a Texas state law that had sought to deny public education to undocumented alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents — not children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents). The court's majority opinion in Plyler said that, according to the Wong court, the 14th Amendment's phrases "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction" were essentially equivalent and that both referred primarily to physical presence. It held that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state, and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_note-5


I agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_note-5

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?

The only thing I would do differently is to ensure that each individual, in hazy cases like these, should be given dual citizenship until an informed decision can be made, choosing which country to pledge their allegiance to.

Citizenship can not be forced- nor should it be. It also, by the same standards, should not be denied based on lineage, rather than on the person's willful denial of said citizenship and denial to pledge allegiance.

Furthermore, allegiance in and of itself does not come FROM Citizenship. In fact, the opposite is generally more true. =)

Actually, the case you cite is pertinent only in tems of discrimination against any residing in the United States, as per Amendment 14.

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

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?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07


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?

This and picture voter-I.D.s aren't going to be addressed......Not as long as the Dems can bring in unaware brown skinned folks by the thousands to replace all of the people that are getting wise to their tricks.

 

[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.
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07


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?

This and picture voter-I.D.s aren't going to be addresses......Not as long as the Dems can bring in unaware brown skinned folks by the thousands to replace all of the people that are getting wise to their tricks.

Although the case you make for Democrat motivation is pretty clear, the Republicans seem averse to coming out strongly on either side as well.

But my interest here is more along the lines of 1) the historic definition of citizenship, and 2) the effect that the current situation has on the question of United States sovereignty, especially as it pertains to 'one-worldism.'

 

[mudwhistle]

This and picture voter-I.D.s aren't going to be addresses......Not as long as the Dems can bring in unaware brown skinned folks by the thousands to replace all of the people that are getting wise to their tricks.

Although the case you make for Democrat motivation is pretty clear, the Republicans seem averse to coming out strongly on either side as well.

But my interest here is more along the lines of 1) the historic definition of citizenship, and 2) the effect that the current situation has on the question of United States sovereignty, especially as it pertains to 'one-worldism.'

Republicans don't have a massive media to support them like the Dems do...so they tend to walk on egg-shells if there is any possibility of being called racists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

 

[Truthmatters]

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

 

[chanel]

The Wong decision was wrong but its become legal precedent so I can't fathom the Supreme Court revisiting it. Ending birthright citizenship will take an Act of Congress. I have suggested a compromise for amnesty with granting immunity for those that are here now but to stop the inflow by ending "pregnancy tours" and the subsequent rip off of the US taxpayers. I wonder how the socialist loving libs on this board compare other countries' immigration law to the US.

Here's something that baffles me. If an illegal is collecting food stamps and other entitlements for their US born children, how csn the govt claim they don't know who the illegals are. That has got to be a large data bank of names.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

It is well known that deep thinking is not your strong suit, but in this response you have given your classic hallmark.

The question is intellectual, not directed at any persons.

It is not about an individuals' identitity, but the nature of sovereignty in a world where liberals see such as an historical anachronism. The basis of citizenship should be determined by sovereign nations.

Nor is a Constitutional change necessary:

"We have seen that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment unanimously agreed that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U.S. and acceptance on the part of an individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more required now than it was in 1923."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07

Now, go back and read the thread, and the several thoughtful responses, and have another go at it.

The operative term is 'thoughtful.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Wong decision was wrong but its become legal precedent so I can't fathom the Supreme Court revisiting it. Ending birthright citizenship will take an Act of Congress. I have suggested a compromise for amnesty with granting immunity for those that are here now but to stop the inflow by ending "pregnancy tours" and the subsequent rip off of the US taxpayers. I wonder how the socialist loving libs on this board compare other countries' immigration law to the US.

Here's something that baffles me. If an illegal is collecting food stamps and other entitlements for their US born children, how csn the govt claim they don't know who the illegals are. That has got to be a large data bank of names.

There has not been a Supreme Court decision re: children of illegal immigrants and automatic citizenship.

 

[chanel]

How could it be brought forward? I believe NumbersUSA has an online petition to end birthright citizenship if anyone is interested in signing. Imagine the billions that would be saved. Might even be enough to pay prisoners to shovel snow...

 

[PoliticalChic]

How could it be brought forward? I believe NumbersUSA has an online petition to end birthright citizenship if anyone is interested in signing. Imagine the billions that would be saved. Might even be enough to pay prisoners to shovel snow...

I was not suggesting that it be ended, merely that we get to understand the how and why it has come into existence.

If a statement of specifics of citizenship could be promulgated vis-a-vis immigration, dual citizenship included, that would be of interest.

And, consider this from Stratfor CEO, Friedman:
"Talk about taking the long view. Stratfor founder George Friedman takes a stab at predicting what the world will look like a hundred years from now in a provocative forthcoming book, The Next 100 Years.
Finally, Mexico will be emboldened by the population bust in the developed world that will create a major labor shortage in advanced industrial countries, Friedman argues.
The United States will be competing for increasingly scarce immigrants and will be doing everything it can to induce Mexicans to come to the United States—an ironic but inevitable shift."
Japan, Turkey, Poland, Mexico the Rising World Powers? -- Seeking Alpha

 

[Truthmatters]

If you are born on American soil you are given all rights to US citizenship.

This is the way the US government views it currently.

If you wish to change or have it redefined then you must do the legal footwork to get it there.

You will fail to win the change you seek.

Playing intellectual games does not change the laws.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you are born on American soil you are given all rights to US citizenship.

This is the way the US government views it currently.

If you wish to change or have it redefined then you must do the legal footwork to get it there.

You will fail to win the change you seek.

Playing intellectual games does not change the laws.

I have never said I seek anything.

 

[Truthmatters]

Some here are

 

[Ravi]

Doesn't bother me a bit. We need more loyal citizens, not less. And since immigrants seem to be the only group keeping us from eventually becoming a nation of the elderly it would be stupid to do away with this law.