Monk-Eye
Gold Member
- Feb 3, 2018
- 3,231
- 794
- 140
- Thread starter
- #41
The case of wok kim ark represents a different schema from that of illegal immigrants because the parents of wok kim ark were legal residents of the the us at the time of his birth .Yes it does." Abating Non Sense Perspectives on Legal Standing Collective Agreements "
* Contemplating An Obvious Lacking Of Consensus Of This Stare Decisis *
A clause for us citizenship by birth for those within its technical jurisdiction is not changing.Birthright citizenship is one reason why America is exceptional.
The country of origin , for foreign nationals traveling abroad and who are not technically within us jurisdiction , are responsible for issuing a retort and reprise for violations of civil liberties for its citizens .
An endowment of use citizenship , even it is alleged to be a protection , does not apply to children of sojourners who are themselves not technically within us jurisdiction .
See Wok v Kim.
A pretense of the us versus wok decision is that the parents of wok were in legal compliance with us law - whereas migrants sojourning without us legal jurisdiction are not in legal compliance with us law , hence the court would have ruled in favor of the state to deny citizenship had that been the scenario of wok .
Irrespective for whether legislation could be devise and litigated through courts of contention , the us state department should establish a foreign policy to establish the citizenship status of children born on us soil to parents who are not technically within us jurisdiction and sojourning illegaly , be provided citizenship from the country of origin for the mother .
If a foreign governments already extends citizenship to children born of its citizens sojourning abroad , then us policy should facilitate that process , while withholding an extension for us citizenship , whereby a humanitarian crisis where individuals are without citizenship in some country of origin is mitigated , even as other methods to provide relief for current constitutional compromises ensues .
Legislation should be passed so that this contemporary issue can be challenged .
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.[2] This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, to Chinese parents who were legally domiciled and resident there at the time and not employed by the Chinese government, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the circumstances of his birth.
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to at least some children born of foreigners because they were born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli). The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[3]
In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[4] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[5] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[6][7] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.