Are Children of Illegal Immigrants Citizens of the U.S.?

[Syriusly]

Irrelevant.

Again, a person born in the United States is a citizen of the United States, the immigration status of his parents has no bearing whatsoever on his citizenship.

Not according to the views expressed during our founders when they established what constitutes a naturalized citizen of the United States. Everyone wants to look to the fourteenth amendment as an accurate means to grant illegal immigrants born in this country citizenship

A naturalized citizen is a citizen that is made a citizen according to a law passed by Congress. A natural born citizen is a person born a citizen- like me- like every person born in the United States except the children of diplomats.

"Everyone" looks at the 14th Amendment because
a) It is the Constitution and
b) Because its language is plain and specific and
c) no matter how much you want to- you cannot ignore the Constitution.

Still waiting on your proof that the fourteenth amendment was written by the legislative branch with an intent outside that of the issue of slavery..

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

When and where have I avoided the USC? The 14th Citizenship Clause .

Is the law of the land.

The 14th Amendment- all of the 14th Amendment- is the part of the United States Constitution. The supreme law of the United States.

And once again- here is what the Constitution says about citizenship:

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.

That is the law.

All persons born in the United States-
Who are born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Which includes everyone born in the United States except children of diplomats.

 

[Syriusly]

Jurisdiction has everything to do with it. Complete jurisdiction requires/allows citizens to do certain things, Limited Jurisdiction only protects limited provisions. Civil jurisdiction only makes one subject to the civil laws of the country they are within and grants NO political rights. So what civil law grants children born to illegals citizenship since the 14th Amendment is nothing more than declaratory of existing law? You have yet to answer this very simple and fundamental question. (I already gave the answer earlier).

Texas tried to argue that 'jurisdiction' didn't really mean 'jurisdiction' in Plyler v. Doe.

In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws

The majority of Justices rejected that argument.

This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

Justice Berger noted in his dissent:
I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state.

What Liquid is trying to argue is that 'jurisdiction' within the 14th Amendment- actually means two different things- within the same paragraph- that jurisdiction written in red- means something different from the jurisdiction written in green.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Finally- the Supreme Court has recognized without comment that children born to illegal aliens are by birth, American citizens

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

The Citizenship Clause is a Federal level issue, the Equal Protection clause is directed solely at the state level. nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Again, I strongly suggest you comprehend the case of the Exchange from 1812 that explains that a person found within the jurisdiction of a state is subject to its laws through an implied license.

Still waiting for you to explain to us how the word 'jurisdiction' means two different things within the same paragraph

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What does Wong Kim Ark say about that?

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

 

[Syriusly]

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Are the parents, if they are both illegals, considered to be of good character in the jurisdiction of the state they have resided with proof to the satisfaction of the Court in the United States? Are one of the parents naturalized citizens whereby the child has an established link of citizenship?

Irrelevant.

Again, a person born in the United States is a citizen of the United States, the immigration status of his parents has no bearing whatsoever on his citizenship.

Not according to the views expressed during our founders when they established what constitutes a naturalized citizen of the United States. Everyone wants to look to the fourteenth amendment as an accurate means to grant illegal immigrants born in this country citizenship

A naturalized citizen is a citizen that is made a citizen according to a law passed by Congress. A natural born citizen is a person born a citizen- like me- like every person born in the United States except the children of diplomats.

Or of parents who are not resident or domiciled in the US

"Everyone" looks at the 14th Amendment because
a) It is the Constitution and
b) Because its language is plain and specific and
c) no matter how much you want to- you cannot ignore the Constitution.

There is noting about the Citizenship Clause that is plain and specific, as Justice Gray states it is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act, prior to which only whites were allowed to be born citizens.

No- you can ignore what Wong Kim Ark says, and you can ignore what the 14th Amendment says- but the courts don't.

What court case has answered the question of illegals having children and those children being born US Citizens? (HINT: There is NO case that does such) You can ignore what Wong Kim Ark says all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Not according to the views expressed during our founders when they established what constitutes a naturalized citizen of the United States. Everyone wants to look to the fourteenth amendment as an accurate means to grant illegal immigrants born in this country citizenship

A naturalized citizen is a citizen that is made a citizen according to a law passed by Congress. A natural born citizen is a person born a citizen- like me- like every person born in the United States except the children of diplomats.

"Everyone" looks at the 14th Amendment because
a) It is the Constitution and
b) Because its language is plain and specific and
c) no matter how much you want to- you cannot ignore the Constitution.

Still waiting on your proof that the fourteenth amendment was written by the legislative branch with an intent outside that of the issue of slavery..

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

Is this the best you can do, just parrot after someone's responses as if you're in the third grade? Seriously dude, grow up a little if you can't handle the forum.

I am arguing the facts- and you can't handle the facts

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

All you're doing is recycling over and over the same 14th amendment post, . I've moved on to include historical facts that explain its origin and what the amendment was written to change, if you can't supply any more facts to back you point that's fine, but I'm not wasting time with someone who's simply going to parrot after my responses like some child holding a tantrum.

 

[Syriusly]

A naturalized citizen is a citizen that is made a citizen according to a law passed by Congress. A natural born citizen is a person born a citizen- like me- like every person born in the United States except the children of diplomats.

"Everyone" looks at the 14th Amendment because
a) It is the Constitution and
b) Because its language is plain and specific and
c) no matter how much you want to- you cannot ignore the Constitution.

Still waiting on your proof that the fourteenth amendment was written by the legislative branch with an intent outside that of the issue of slavery..

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

Is this the best you can do, just parrot after someone's responses as if you're in the third grade? Seriously dude, grow up a little if you can't handle the forum.

I am arguing the facts- and you can't handle the facts

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

All you're doing is recycling over and over the same 14th amendment post, . I've moved on to include historical facts that explain its origin and what the amendment was written to change, if you can't supply any more facts to back you point that's fine, but I'm not wasting time with someone who's simply going to parrot after my responses like some child holding a tantrum.

I don't know why you think the supposed origin of the 14th Amendment means you get to ignore the actual language of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

[. Complete jurisdiction requires/allows citizens to do certain things, Limited Jurisdiction only protects limited provisions. Civil jurisdiction only makes one subject to the civil laws of the country they are within and grants NO political rights. .

Meaning no disrespect- but you are pulling that out of your posterior.

The courts make no reference to 'complete jurisdiction' or 'limited jurisdiction'- as both Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe recognize- there is only 'jurisdiction'

Show me where either Wong Kim Ark or Plyler v. Doe makes a reference to 'limited jurisdiction' versus' complete jurisdiction.

Go for it.

Wong Kim Ark citing Elk v Wilkens

The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a "person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of the clause in question.

That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was

not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;

An EWI illegal has NO political jurisdiction, and does not owe the US direct and immediate allegiance.

I suggest you go and get a first year law student to help you learn basic law and proper reading of Supreme Court rulings and basic court cases in general.

 

[Syriusly]

Irrelevant.

Again, a person born in the United States is a citizen of the United States, the immigration status of his parents has no bearing whatsoever on his citizenship.

Not according to the views expressed during our founders when they established what constitutes a naturalized citizen of the United States. Everyone wants to look to the fourteenth amendment as an accurate means to grant illegal immigrants born in this country citizenship

A naturalized citizen is a citizen that is made a citizen according to a law passed by Congress. A natural born citizen is a person born a citizen- like me- like every person born in the United States except the children of diplomats.

Or of parents who are not resident or domiciled in the US

"Everyone" looks at the 14th Amendment because
a) It is the Constitution and
b) Because its language is plain and specific and
c) no matter how much you want to- you cannot ignore the Constitution.

There is noting about the Citizenship Clause that is plain and specific, as Justice Gray states it is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act, prior to which only whites were allowed to be born citizens.

No- you can ignore what Wong Kim Ark says, and you can ignore what the 14th Amendment says- but the courts don't.

What court case has answered the question of illegals having children and those children being born US Citizens? (HINT: There is NO case that does such) You can ignore what Wong Kim Ark says all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Sigh.

Legal hierarchy:

U.S. Constitution
Federal law

14th Amendment- U.S. Constitution.
1866 Civil Rights Act- Federal Law.

The language of the Constitution supercedes any federal law. A federal law in conflict with the Constitution is unconstitutional.

You can't ignore the U.S. Constitution no matter how much you want to.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Not according to the views expressed during our founders when they established what constitutes a naturalized citizen of the United States. Everyone wants to look to the fourteenth amendment as an accurate means to grant illegal immigrants born in this country citizenship

A naturalized citizen is a citizen that is made a citizen according to a law passed by Congress. A natural born citizen is a person born a citizen- like me- like every person born in the United States except the children of diplomats.

"Everyone" looks at the 14th Amendment because
a) It is the Constitution and
b) Because its language is plain and specific and
c) no matter how much you want to- you cannot ignore the Constitution.

Still waiting on your proof that the fourteenth amendment was written by the legislative branch with an intent outside that of the issue of slavery..

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

When and where have I avoided the USC? The 14th Citizenship Clause .

Is the law of the land.

The 14th Amendment- all of the 14th Amendment- is the part of the United States Constitution. The supreme law of the United States.

And once again- here is what the Constitution says about citizenship:

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.

That is the law.

All persons born in the United States-
Who are born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Which includes everyone born in the United States except children of diplomats.

That doesn't change the fact that the Citizenship Clause is nothing more than declaratory of existing law, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, per the Supreme Court.

 

[Syriusly]

[. Complete jurisdiction requires/allows citizens to do certain things, Limited Jurisdiction only protects limited provisions. Civil jurisdiction only makes one subject to the civil laws of the country they are within and grants NO political rights. .

Meaning no disrespect- but you are pulling that out of your posterior.

The courts make no reference to 'complete jurisdiction' or 'limited jurisdiction'- as both Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe recognize- there is only 'jurisdiction'

Show me where either Wong Kim Ark or Plyler v. Doe makes a reference to 'limited jurisdiction' versus' complete jurisdiction.

Go for it.

Wong Kim Ark citing Elk v Wilkens

The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a "person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of the clause in question.

That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was

not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;

An EWI illegal has NO political jurisdiction, and does not owe the US direct and immediate allegiance.

I suggest you go and get a first year law student to help you learn basic law and proper reading of Supreme Court rulings and basic court cases in general.

From Wong Kim Ark-

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.

 

[Syriusly]

A naturalized citizen is a citizen that is made a citizen according to a law passed by Congress. A natural born citizen is a person born a citizen- like me- like every person born in the United States except the children of diplomats.

"Everyone" looks at the 14th Amendment because
a) It is the Constitution and
b) Because its language is plain and specific and
c) no matter how much you want to- you cannot ignore the Constitution.

Still waiting on your proof that the fourteenth amendment was written by the legislative branch with an intent outside that of the issue of slavery..

Still waiting for you to explain why we should ignore the United States Constitution.

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.

And accordingly- those born in the United States just have to prove that they were born here in order to get U.S. passports.

When and where have I avoided the USC? The 14th Citizenship Clause .

Is the law of the land.

The 14th Amendment- all of the 14th Amendment- is the part of the United States Constitution. The supreme law of the United States.

And once again- here is what the Constitution says about citizenship:

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.

That is the law.

All persons born in the United States-
Who are born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Which includes everyone born in the United States except children of diplomats.

That doesn't change the fact that the Citizenship Clause is nothing more than declaratory of existing law, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, per the Supreme Court.

No- the fact is that the 14th Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution- every bit as much as the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Not according to the views expressed during our founders when they established what constitutes a naturalized citizen of the United States. Everyone wants to look to the fourteenth amendment as an accurate means to grant illegal immigrants born in this country citizenship

A naturalized citizen is a citizen that is made a citizen according to a law passed by Congress. A natural born citizen is a person born a citizen- like me- like every person born in the United States except the children of diplomats.

Or of parents who are not resident or domiciled in the US

"Everyone" looks at the 14th Amendment because
a) It is the Constitution and
b) Because its language is plain and specific and
c) no matter how much you want to- you cannot ignore the Constitution.

There is noting about the Citizenship Clause that is plain and specific, as Justice Gray states it is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act, prior to which only whites were allowed to be born citizens.

No- you can ignore what Wong Kim Ark says, and you can ignore what the 14th Amendment says- but the courts don't.

What court case has answered the question of illegals having children and those children being born US Citizens? (HINT: There is NO case that does such) You can ignore what Wong Kim Ark says all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Sigh.

Legal hierarchy:

U.S. Constitution
Federal law

14th Amendment- U.S. Constitution.
1866 Civil Rights Act- Federal Law.

The language of the Constitution supercedes any federal law. A federal law in conflict with the Constitution is unconstitutional.

You can't ignore the U.S. Constitution no matter how much you want to.

I have yet to ignore the USC. If you don't agree with the SCOTUS opinion stating the Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act, I don't know what to tell you other than you are ignorant of actually understanding the basics of law.

 

[Syriusly]

Also from Wong Kim Ark:

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, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

[. Complete jurisdiction requires/allows citizens to do certain things, Limited Jurisdiction only protects limited provisions. Civil jurisdiction only makes one subject to the civil laws of the country they are within and grants NO political rights. .

Meaning no disrespect- but you are pulling that out of your posterior.

The courts make no reference to 'complete jurisdiction' or 'limited jurisdiction'- as both Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe recognize- there is only 'jurisdiction'

Show me where either Wong Kim Ark or Plyler v. Doe makes a reference to 'limited jurisdiction' versus' complete jurisdiction.

Go for it.

Wong Kim Ark citing Elk v Wilkens

The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a "person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of the clause in question.

That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was

not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;

An EWI illegal has NO political jurisdiction, and does not owe the US direct and immediate allegiance.

I suggest you go and get a first year law student to help you learn basic law and proper reading of Supreme Court rulings and basic court cases in general.

From Wong Kim Ark-

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.

That's right, of foreign parents who entered legally and resided here under the law of domicil. The concept of illegal immigrants wasn't in the terminology of law until 1912. Your issue is that you are poorly trying to input a terminology that didn't exist in 1898 by taking out of context the understanding of "foreign parents" from WKA.

 

[Syriusly]

A naturalized citizen is a citizen that is made a citizen according to a law passed by Congress. A natural born citizen is a person born a citizen- like me- like every person born in the United States except the children of diplomats.

Or of parents who are not resident or domiciled in the US

"Everyone" looks at the 14th Amendment because
a) It is the Constitution and
b) Because its language is plain and specific and
c) no matter how much you want to- you cannot ignore the Constitution.

There is noting about the Citizenship Clause that is plain and specific, as Justice Gray states it is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act, prior to which only whites were allowed to be born citizens.

No- you can ignore what Wong Kim Ark says, and you can ignore what the 14th Amendment says- but the courts don't.

What court case has answered the question of illegals having children and those children being born US Citizens? (HINT: There is NO case that does such) You can ignore what Wong Kim Ark says all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Sigh.

Legal hierarchy:

U.S. Constitution
Federal law

14th Amendment- U.S. Constitution.
1866 Civil Rights Act- Federal Law.

The language of the Constitution supercedes any federal law. A federal law in conflict with the Constitution is unconstitutional.

You can't ignore the U.S. Constitution no matter how much you want to.

I have yet to ignore the USC. If you don't agree with the SCOTUS opinion stating the Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law, that law being the 1866 Civil Rights Act, I don't know what to tell you other than you are ignorant of actually understanding the basics of law.

The U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Constitution.

Which is why Wong Kim Ark cites the 14th Amendment in its decision- not the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

Later in Wong Kim Ark- they note how the Civil Rights Act of 186 'gave way' to the 14th Amendment:

These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth [p688] Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.


By the Civil Rights Act of 1866, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed," were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, "not subject to any foreign power," were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory.

But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the Civil Rights Act, "not subject to any foreign power," gave way, in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to the affirmative words, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

 

[Syriusly]

[. Complete jurisdiction requires/allows citizens to do certain things, Limited Jurisdiction only protects limited provisions. Civil jurisdiction only makes one subject to the civil laws of the country they are within and grants NO political rights. .

Meaning no disrespect- but you are pulling that out of your posterior.

The courts make no reference to 'complete jurisdiction' or 'limited jurisdiction'- as both Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe recognize- there is only 'jurisdiction'

Show me where either Wong Kim Ark or Plyler v. Doe makes a reference to 'limited jurisdiction' versus' complete jurisdiction.

Go for it.

Wong Kim Ark citing Elk v Wilkens

The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a "person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of the clause in question.

That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was

not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;

An EWI illegal has NO political jurisdiction, and does not owe the US direct and immediate allegiance.

I suggest you go and get a first year law student to help you learn basic law and proper reading of Supreme Court rulings and basic court cases in general.

From Wong Kim Ark-

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.

That's right, of foreign parents who entered legally and resided here under the law of domicil. The concept of illegal immigrants wasn't in the terminology of law until 1912. Your issue is that you are poorly trying to input a terminology that didn't exist in 1898 by taking out of context the understanding of "foreign parents" from WKA.

But that is not what Wong Kim Ark said-

From Wong Kim Ark-

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Also from Wong Kim Ark:

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, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

And that law of England recognized exceptions were

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

So according to the laws of England from WKA, aliens had to be in amity, meaning they had to be there under the friendship/compact of 2 nations, England and ? All my bolded portion means is that persons born within the allegiance were from those whose parents were natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects. Aliens in amity are equivalent to people here on visas, whether it is an immigrant visa or a non-immigrant visa and their children would be born natural-born subjects/citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

I leave you to your rants and raves.

Frankly- the courts support the actual words of the 14th Amendment, and Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe.

You can deny it all you want- but every child born in the United States is granted citizenship in the United States- unless he or she was the child of a foreign diplomat.

And that is the reality.

I have provided the court cases, the language of the 14th Amendment- I have literally lead you to water- I cannot make you drink.

Enjoy your legal delusions.

 

[Unkotare]

... The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law ....

No, it's not.

 

[Unkotare]

...

And they may receive a US Passport that says they are nothing more the US Nationals or they may receive a US Passport that says they are both a US National and a US Citizen......

No, they may not. Are you on drugs?