The Supreme Court Should Overturn Wong Kim Ark - End Citizenship via birthright

[trumptman]

The Supreme Court Should Overturn Wong Kim Ark

The modern court has the chance to restore the 14th Amendment and end the judicially invented version of birthright citizenship.

thefederalist.com

Wong Kim Ark did more than just misinterpret the 14th Amendment. It effectively rewrote the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment according to English feudal principles that the founders — and framers — rejected. In doing so, the court created a doctrine that the amendment's authors surely never intended.


The Supreme Court now has the chance to correct that mistake.

It's time to end birther tourism and stop rewarding people for illegally coming over the border by making their children citizens.

The "law of the land" was the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which specified "that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, and hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." As Erler points out, that means that Congress, just prior to ratifying the 14th Amendment and its citizenship clause, was "committed to the view that foreigners (and aliens) were not subject to birthright citizenship."


The modern court has the chance to restore the original meaning of the 14th Amendment by overturning Wong Kim Ark and ending the judicially invented version of birthright citizenship.

If this manages to happen during the second Trump term he will be the greatest president in our history.

Fingers crossed.

 

[teddyearp]

The Supreme Court Should Overturn Wong Kim Ark

The modern court has the chance to restore the 14th Amendment and end the judicially invented version of birthright citizenship.

thefederalist.com

It's time to end birther tourism and stop rewarding people for illegally coming over the border by making their children citizens.



If this manages to happen during the second Trump term he will be the greatest president in our history.

Fingers crossed.

That's what I do not understand. To me it is clear the intent when it says, ".., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, . . ." should mean what the law said, that you quoted, "and not subject to any foreign power". that is clear to me that a citizen of a different country is "subject to a foreign power". Or better "a subject of another power" since they are a subject/citizen of said different power/country.

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court Should Overturn Wong Kim Ark

The modern court has the chance to restore the 14th Amendment and end the judicially invented version of birthright citizenship.

thefederalist.com

It's time to end birther tourism and stop rewarding people for illegally coming over the border by making their children citizens.



If this manages to happen during the second Trump term he will be the greatest president in our history.

Fingers crossed.

it doesn't have to be overturned. That guy's parents were here "legally" due to the fact there weren't any real laws in place when they entered the country.

 

[task0778]

It's an interesting question. If somebody enters the US legally and has a child born here, then one could make the argument that the child should be deemed a US citizen, assuming the parents have no allegiance to a foreign gov't. And there should be a pathway to US citizenship for the parents too, should they decide to take it.

But what about people who enter illegally and have a child born here? What's the point of having immigration laws if there's no relevance to them? The parents have broken our immigration laws but the kid didn't. IMHO, they should face our justice system for that and a determination should be made on a case by case basis for whether they get to stay or go, and the kid stays or goes with them. Far as I know, Congress has done nothing to clarify the situation; IMHO, it should be them and not the Supreme Court to make that call.

 

[0311]

The Supreme Court Should Overturn Wong Kim Ark

The modern court has the chance to restore the 14th Amendment and end the judicially invented version of birthright citizenship.

thefederalist.com

It's time to end birther tourism and stop rewarding people for illegally coming over the border by making their children citizens.



If this manages to happen during the second Trump term he will be the greatest president in our history.

Fingers crossed.

WRONG.

 

[DGS49]

The meaning of the 14th is not difficult to discern, and it was never intended to grant U.S. citizenship to the children of non-citizens in the U.S.

HOWEVER, this Supreme Court lacks the courage to do what is right and correct. Even if they carefully say that the decision is prospective only, and doesn't affect anyone who has already been granted citizenship, all of those MILLIONS of people would be living under a cloud, and the Court won't do that.

You can bank on it.

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

WRONG.

No, Wong, get the spelling right.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" No Exclusion For Children Of Subjects By Title Then Subject Of US Jurisdiction Prevails "

* Statements In Diplomatic Agreements Of Visa About Children Born To Legal Migrants *

it doesn't have to be overturned. That guy's parents were here "legally" due to the fact there weren't any real laws in place when they entered the country.

The parents of kim on the wrong ark were legal migrants and were therefore subjects by title in us legal immigration system of visa and qualify under the term " thereof " , as subjects of us jurisdiction and not simply subject to us jurisdiction .

The kim wong ark decision does not need to be overturned , as it did address migrants whom were not subjects by title in us legal immigration system of visa , by noting that the parents of kim on the wrong ark were in good legal standing in arriving and while remaining .

The parents of kim wrong ark were excluded from becoming us citizens , however they were subjects by title in us legal immigration system of visa and therefore subjects of us jurisdiction ( thereof ) and unless the diplomatic agreement ( chinese exclusion act ) specified that children born of such parents were excluded from citizenship by birth , the grant of citizenship ruling stands .

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

That's what I do not understand. To me it is clear the intent when it says, ".., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, . . ." should mean what the law said, that you quoted, "and not subject to any foreign power". that is clear to me that a citizen of a different country is "subject to a foreign power". Or better "a subject of another power" since they are a subject/citizen of said different power/country.

If a citizen of another country is subject to another power, how come if that citizen kills somebody in American soil we have the jurisdiction to put him in trial?

 

[teddyearp]

If a citizen of another country is subject to another power, how come if that citizen kills somebody in American soil we have the jurisdiction to put him in trial?
View attachment 1207254

Once the person does break the law of the country they're in illegally, then of course they're subject to that state's jurisdiction. It's called the tenth amendment. Do try and keep up. It's entertaining.