Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[Rawley]

In short. You are born here, you are a citizen.

If anything, the Wong case confirms the concept of jus soli citizenship. At the time of his case, the US was under the Chinese Exclusion Act, that prohibited Chinese from immigrating and limited their ability to gain citizenship.


Wong Kim Ark (Chinese: 黃金德; Taishanese: Wōng Gim-ak), was born in San Francisco, California, at 751 Sacramento Street, the address of a Chinatown business (Quong Sing) maintained by his merchant parents.[81] Various sources state or imply his year of birth as being 1873,[82] 1871,[83][84] or 1868.[85][86] His father, Wong Si Ping, and mother, Lee Wee, emigrated from Taishan, Guangdong, China and were not United States citizens, as the Naturalization Law of 1802 had made them ineligible for naturalization either before or after his birth.[87][88]

In a 6–2 decision[120][121] issued on March 28, 1898,[122] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[123] The opinion of the Court was written by Associate Justice Horace Gray and was joined by Associate Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.[124]

Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[125] the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[1] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[3][126][127] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).[2][64] The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China".[128]

Bam! Done. YOu are born here, you are a citizen. Period.

Nice cut and paste. What does Google tell you the difference is between "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within the jurisdiction"

 

[Rogue AI]

Give us something worthwhile.

That you loons won't acknowledge that these criminals and their crimes against the nation is partly why you can't comprehend what's happening now and why.

 

[pknopp]

Hardly, parents are responsible for their crimes, if it adversely effects their children that is not everyone else's responsibility. Nor do children get to benefit from their parents' crimes.

And yet you say they do.

 

[Mac-7]

And yet you say they do.

The left are trying

 

[Rogue AI]

And yet you say they do.

That's all you fantasizing that I said that. Try harder.

 

[pknopp]

That's all you fantasizing that I said that. Try harder.

So you didn't say people shouldn't benefit from what their parents did?

 

[Zincwarrior]

And President Trump's E.O. TITLED: PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP is within his Article 2 powers, allowing him to set new public policy. Remember Biden's open border policy allowing the invasion of the United States? Elections have consequences, and that includes setting new public policy.

A reminder, executive policy does not override Federal Law, nor the US Constitution.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That you loons won't acknowledge that these criminals and their crimes against the nation is partly why you can't comprehend what's happening now and why.

You are the loon, not the 59 judges.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It is based on a misinterpretation of the Constitution, at a time when it was to our dubious advantage to import people to expand our greed west. Not only has it been interpreted incorrectly, it has been applied wrong, and had been abused for a long time. We have to close the barn door and quit putting out freebies in order to gain more congressional seats before we can even think about becoming a nation again. He is right to challenge the status quo, something we need very badly here.

Changing birthright citizenship will have very little impact on illegal immigration. Either way matters naught.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Rooting for America's failure? Not surprised.
If the USSC says only Americans can make an American, illegals can't, there is no "overturning"
The economy does what it does, Trump and his advisors are smarter than democrats, cutting spending and borrowing as the Fed lowers interest rates should keep the economy humming along, sorry.

If that is the ruling, they would be making law. I thought you did not like legislating from the bench. We already have laws that say how you can become a citizen. You would be overturning those laws.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If that is the ruling, they would be making law. I thought you did not like legislating from the bench. We already have laws that say how you can become a citizen. You would be overturning those laws.

Racism and cultism are powerful things.

 

[Mac-7]

If that is the ruling, they would be making law. I thought you did not like legislating from the bench.

Libs never learn

Any game they invent conservatives can learn to play

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Libs never learn

Any game they invent conservatives can learn to play

You gaslight yourself every time.

 

[JoeB131]

Nice cut and paste. What does Google tell you the difference is between "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within the jurisdiction"

Meaningless. If they are in this country, they are subject to the jurisdiction and within the jurisdiction.

 

[Rawley]

Meaningless. If they are in this country, they are subject to the jurisdiction and within the jurisdiction.

So the words in the Amendment are meaningless. Brilliant legal analysis. Brilliant.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So the words in the Amendment are meaningless. Brilliant legal analysis. Brilliant.

The words are clear. Your logic process is not.

 

[Rawley]

The words are clear. Your logic process is not.

?? what "logic process?" I asked JoeB what the difference is between "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within the jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment. He said the words are meaningless.

You want to give it a shot, what is the difference?

 

[ThisIsMe]

This is about birthright citizenship. Anyone arriving on our shores would have already of been born. This was still a growing country however who needed all the immigrants it could get and at the time of the ratifying of the 14th there were no immigration laws. Anyone who wanted to come here could just show up. Becoming a citizen in that case required living here over certain period of time.

But we're discussing the text of the 14A. If "subject to the jurisdiction of" implied being subject to the laws, then why would it stop at just people being born in the US, considering any "alien" inside the country would be subject to our laws. Why exclude them anyone who could get here?

The 14A excluded native Americans and in the information i was reading, it wasn't anything to do with our laws, it was because the Indian tribes were considered sovereign nations, not subject to the jurisdiction, or, not owing allegiance to the United States and the United States could not claim any jurisdiction over them.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No power exists to determine this by legislation or executive order.

Why not? If it's not specified by the cotus it can be subject to legislation and EO...I'm not sure if I would lean toward the EO, I kinda feel this is an interpretation of the cotus, which is in the wheelhouse of scotus.


They are not ending BC, they are defining who it applies to.