Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And yet your own quotes cite the 1866 CRA. Your very first paragraph above limits the outcome to only those whose parents were here at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States,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.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.Or of parents who are not resident or domiciled in the US
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.
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.
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."
The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this 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. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303, 306.; Ex parte Virginia (1879). 100 U.S. 339, 35; Neal v. Delaware (1880), 103 U.S. 370, 386; Elk v. Wilkins (1884), 112 U.S. 94, 101. But the opening words, "All persons born," are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race -- as was clearly recognized in all the opinions delivered in The Slaughterhouse Cases, above cited.
Really? Is that why the Supreme Court has stated it is?... The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law ....
No, it's not.
The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this 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. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303, 306.; Ex parte Virginia (1879). 100 U.S. 339, 35; Neal v. Delaware (1880), 103 U.S. 370, 386; Elk v. Wilkins (1884), 112 U.S. 94, 101. But the opening words, "All persons born," are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race -- as was clearly recognized in all the opinions delivered in The Slaughterhouse Cases, above cited.
Really?.../QUOTE]... The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law ....
No, it's not.
Yes, really.
Are you an idiot? Do you not know the different types of US Passports? Do you even know what a dual National is? Do you know you can be a US National and not a US Citizen, yet if you are recognized as a US Citizen then you are also a US National....
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?
As defined by the INA, all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals but only a relatively small number of persons acquire U.S. nationality without becoming U.S. citizens. Section 101(a)(21) of the INA defines the term “national” as “a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.” Section 101(a)(22) of the INA provides that the term “national of the United States” includes all U.S. citizens as well as persons who, though not citizens of the United States, owe permanent allegiance to the United States (non-citizen nationals).
Section 308 INA confers U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship, on persons born in "an outlying possession of the United States" or born of a parent or parents who are non-citizen nationals who meet certain physical presence or residence requirements. The term “outlying possessions of the United States” is defined in Section 101(a)(29) of the INA as American Samoa and Swains Island. No other statutes define any other territories or any of the states as outlying possessions.
REPEAT: That's right, of foreign parents who entered legally and resided here under the law of domicil (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. WKA parents were here under Treaty {they were here in amity} between the US and China). 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.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.Wong Kim Ark citing Elk v Wilkens[. 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.An EWI illegal has NO political jurisdiction, and does not owe the US direct and immediate allegiance.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;
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.
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.
Wow, you must be smarter than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. WAFMReally?...... The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law ....
No, it's not.
Yes, really.
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.Or of parents who are not resident or domiciled in the USIrrelevant.
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.
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."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.
No- you can ignore what Wong Kim Ark says, and you can ignore what the 14th Amendment says- but the courts don't.
... Do you not know the different types of US Passports? ....]
Wow, you must be smarter than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....Really?...... The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law ....
No, it's not.
Yes, really.
... I've looked into the fourteenth amendment itself and there is no historical interpretation that can be used with respect to children born of illegals. ...
Apparently you don't know how to read. From the link I provided:... Do you not know the different types of US Passports? ....]
Apparently you do not. Nor do you know how to read very well.
Might I suggest you take remedial English lessons. watafuknidiotAs the Department has received few requests, there is no justification for the creation of a non-citizen national certificate. Designing a separate document that includes anti-fraud mechanisms was seen as an inefficient expenditure of resources. Therefore, the Department determined that those who would be eligible to apply for such a certificate may instead apply for a United States passport that would delineate and certify their status as a national but not a citizen of the United States.
That's something you have yet to even begin to show.Wow, you must be smarter than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....Really?...... The 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law ....
No, it's not.
Yes, really.
No, just you.
No Constitutional Amendment is needed to determine who is and is not born a US Citizen. WKA makes that clear.... I've looked into the fourteenth amendment itself and there is no historical interpretation that can be used with respect to children born of illegals. ...
There is no "historical interpretation" that the First Amendment was ever specifically intended to apply to albino vegan cross-dressers, but guess what?
You and Tweedle-Dum need to stop playing pretend scholar. If you want a Constitutional Amendment work on it, but stop making asses of yourselves this way.
Please, go away, you're arguing things you know absolutely nothing about, basic law and court opinion comprehension.No one doubts that the Amendment, as soon as it was promulgated, applied to persons of African descent born in the United States, wherever the birthplace of their parents might have been, and yet, for two years afterwards, there was no statute authorizing persons of that race to be naturalized. If the omission or the refusal of Congress to permit certain [p704] classes of persons to be made citizens by naturalization could be allowed the effect of correspondingly restricting the classes of persons who should become citizens.by birth, it would be in the power of Congress, at any time, by striking negroes out of the naturalization laws, and limiting those laws, as they were formerly limited, to white persons only, to defeat the main purpose of the Constitutional Amendment.
If the Citizenship Clause did everything you claim it does then why does the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1898 consider you to be a moron? It is abundantly apparent you haven't the first clue as to the WKA Opinion or what it discusses and states about the Citizenship Clause. The overwhelming majority of actual Constitutional Scholars agree that children born to illegals are not covered by the Citizenship Clause nor are they covered in the WKA Opinion, to which they will tell you it is up to the administration to interpret law and make policy within the parameters of that interpretation. The law for citizenship is found in the US Code: 8USC1401 which is traced back to the 1866 Civil Rights Act.... I've looked into the fourteenth amendment itself and there is no historical interpretation that can be used with respect to children born of illegals. ...
There is no "historical interpretation" that the First Amendment was ever specifically intended to apply to albino vegan cross-dressers, but guess what?
You and Tweedle-Dum need to stop playing pretend scholar. If you want a Constitutional Amendment work on it, but stop making asses of yourselves this way.
They Say They Were Born in the U.S.A. The State Department Says Prove It"Usually a state-issued birth certificate is sufficient to establish U.S. nationality," says Michael Kirby, a senior official for consular affairs at the State Department. But, given the fraud committed by some south Texas midwives, "we want to be careful that we issue passports to everybody who is eligible and not to anyone who isn't," he says, acknowledging that thousands of passport applicants could be affected.
Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn 1873, The Attorney General of the United States published the following legal opinion concerning the Fourteenth Amendment:
The word 'jurisdiction' must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.[42]
...
Apparently you don't know how to read. ....
Might I suggest you take remedial English lessons. .....
No Constitutional Amendment is needed to determine who is and is not born a US Citizen. .....
No, anyone born in the US is a US National per the State Department, Citizenship may be granted or denied based on your parents status, legally residing or legally domiciled in the US.No Constitutional Amendment is needed to determine who is and is not born a US Citizen. .....
Yes, anyone born in the US is a US citizen. But you go ahead and keep playing online. Meanwhile, nothing in the real world will change, fool.
No, anyone born in the US is a US NationalNo Constitutional Amendment is needed to determine who is and is not born a US Citizen. .....
Yes, anyone born in the US is a US citizen. But you go ahead and keep playing online. Meanwhile, nothing in the real world will change, fool.
Wow! Polly want a Cracker? Refute the SCOTUS Opinion and the State Department statement, if not, go away.No, anyone born in the US is a US NationalNo Constitutional Amendment is needed to determine who is and is not born a US Citizen. .....
Yes, anyone born in the US is a US citizen. But you go ahead and keep playing online. Meanwhile, nothing in the real world will change, fool.
Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. Play pretend all you want online, but it changes nothing in the real world, fool.
