The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.
They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born.
Really?
Care to offer a cite to case law?
Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.
Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation *******, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.
The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.
The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.
{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".
Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".
To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }
Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com
From the case, Wong Kim Ark, that you did not read:
"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."
More:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and
therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
In the early case of
The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:
Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.
2 Cranch 64, 119.
(See there: either you are a citizen because you were born here or you become one through naturalization).
In
Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:
It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."
And then there is this:
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, t
his was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
(Thus, the 14th Amendment did not change the law that had existed from the nation;s founding which conferred citizenship, consistent with centuries of English common law, "
by the fact of birth within the United States." If you disagree, explain why those words do not mean what they say.
And then:
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18
b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177;
Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.
Finally, dumbass, reconcile this from Wong Kim Ark:
"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality." with your claims otherwise.
To the extent that the INS under Eisenhower did deport the children of illegals who were born here, they broke the law. As for the rest, your claims are moronic and conflict with settled law.
