Monk-Eye
Gold Member
- Feb 3, 2018
- 3,229
- 793
- 140
" Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ? "
* Opining Proposition *
Enforce " subject to contract " clause of us 14th amendment and provide children birthed by an illegal migrant citizenship to the country of their mother .
To avoid humanitarian issues such as individuals without a nation of origin , diplomatic agreements need to be in place prior to an officiate of a state not petitioning the state or federal government for a social security number .
* Joist Gist *
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Section 1. 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.
Contractual term - Wikipedia
Four Categories
If a contract specifies "subject to contract", it may fall into one of three categories as identified in Masters v Cameron:[36]
The parties are immediately bound to the bargain, but they intend to restate the deal in a more formalized contract that will not have a different effect; or
The parties have completely agreed to the terms, but have made the execution of some terms in the contract conditional on the creation of a formal contract; or
It is merely an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations, and the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.
Subsequent authorities have been willing to recognize a fourth category in addition to those stated in Masters v Cameron.[37]
The parties intend to immediately bound by the terms agreed upon and expect to create a further contract as a replacement for the initial contract which will contain additional terms (if agreed upon).
* Family Separation Issues *
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
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.[12][13]
...
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, 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.
...
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 children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2]
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
* Opining Proposition *
Enforce " subject to contract " clause of us 14th amendment and provide children birthed by an illegal migrant citizenship to the country of their mother .
To avoid humanitarian issues such as individuals without a nation of origin , diplomatic agreements need to be in place prior to an officiate of a state not petitioning the state or federal government for a social security number .
* Joist Gist *
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Section 1. 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.
Contractual term - Wikipedia
Four Categories
If a contract specifies "subject to contract", it may fall into one of three categories as identified in Masters v Cameron:[36]
The parties are immediately bound to the bargain, but they intend to restate the deal in a more formalized contract that will not have a different effect; or
The parties have completely agreed to the terms, but have made the execution of some terms in the contract conditional on the creation of a formal contract; or
It is merely an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations, and the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.
Subsequent authorities have been willing to recognize a fourth category in addition to those stated in Masters v Cameron.[37]
The parties intend to immediately bound by the terms agreed upon and expect to create a further contract as a replacement for the initial contract which will contain additional terms (if agreed upon).
* Family Separation Issues *
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
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.[12][13]
...
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, 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.
...
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 children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2]
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
