The anchor baby myth

[Unkotare]

Squirting a baby and then return home to China does not create a citizen.

Is that how you came into this world? Just a squirt?

 

[johnwk]

What I posted are historical facts. I wrote:

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”


Contrary to your above assertion, "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", the Court was not addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.

You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe points out

Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.

What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.

The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States. However, in
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The Court states:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country



'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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

JWK

I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898. Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words 'subject to its jurisdiction' were added to the 14th Amendment?

The Court has repeatedly held 'subject to its jurisdiction', as found in the 14th Amendment, was specifically intended to exclude citizenship being granted at birth to children born on American soil of parents who are foreign nationals and not owing an allegiance to the United States?

Why are you ignoring this when a review of the debates which gave birth to the 14th Amendment establishes beyond any reasonable doubt the words "'subject to its jurisdiction thereof" means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ as stated by Mr. TRUMBULL during the 14th Amendment debates __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down


Why are you ignoring the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as stated by John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.


I cannot understand why some people have no burning desire to seek out the truth, especially with regard to our Constitution, and prefer to obfuscate and intentionally derail a productive discussion seeking out the truth. What on earth is the motivation behind such people?


JWK



Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[johnwk]

You have offered nothing more than your personal wrongheaded opinion

I "offered" .

You have offered nothing but insulting remarks, and adolescent comments.


JWK

 

[Unkotare]

You have offered nothing more than your personal wrongheaded opinion

I "offered" .

You have offered nothing but insulting remarks, and adolescent comments.

I "offered" exactly what you insisted upon when you were going on and on about "mother a foreign national." Instead of admitting that you had been proven exactly and specifically wrong, you tried to move the goal posts and pretend to be unaware of your failure. You act like a petulant, ignorant child and then make a pretense of concern for "facts." You're a clown, and your insistence cannot alter reality.

 

[Unkotare]

[ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case

Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?

 

[Toro]

[ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case

Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?

An Indiana court referenced Wok Kim Ark a few years ago regarding the definition of a natural born citizen, not Elk.

Wok is what matters.

 

[johnwk]

[ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case

Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?

What matters, when adhering to the rules of constitutional law, is the preponderance of the evidence which documents the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. And the words "'subject to its jurisdiction', as found in the 14th Amendment was specifically intended to exclude citizenship being granted at birth to children born on American soil of parents who are foreign nationals and not owing an allegiance to the United States.


In addition, the Court has repeatedly held 'subject to its jurisdiction', as found in the 14th Amendment, was specifically intended to exclude citizenship being granted at birth to children born on American soil of parents who are foreign nationals and not owing an allegiance to the United States?

Why do you rely on Wong when a review of the debates which gave birth to the 14th Amendment establishes beyond any reasonable doubt the words "'subject to its jurisdiction thereof" means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ as stated by Mr. TRUMBULL during the 14th Amendment debates __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down


Why are you relying on Wong when John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.


Why do you refuse to seek out the truth, especially with regard to our Constitution, and prefer to obfuscate and intentionally derail a productive discussion seeking out the truth. What on earth is the motivation behind your postings which ignore truth and facts?


JWK



Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Unkotare]

[ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case

Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?

What matters, when adhering to the rules of constitutional law, is ....

You didn't answer the question. Too tough for you?

 

[johnwk]

[ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case

Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?

What matters, when adhering to the rules of constitutional law, is ....

You didn't answer the question. Too tough for you?

Oh, but I did answer your special math question. Under the rules of constitutional law, a preponderance of the evidence establishes the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" which is found in the amendment. Finding the "preponderance of evidence" requires simple addition.

Were my questions to you too tough for you to answer?

JWK

 

[Unkotare]

[ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case

Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?

What matters, when adhering to the rules of constitutional law, is ....

You didn't answer the question. Too tough for you?

Oh, but I did answer your special math question.

No, you didn't. "which number is higher, 84 or 98?"

 

[Toro]

Here is the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling on the definition of a Natural Born Citizen. It references Wok Kim Ark in a case brought by two birfers.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

 

[Syriusly]

Plyler v. Doe points out

Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.

What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.

The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States. However, in
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The Court states:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country



'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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

JWK

I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898. Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words 'subject to its jurisdiction' were added to the 14th Amendment?

Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?

Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.

As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.


Game over.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case

Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?

What matters, when adhering to the rules of constitutional law, is ....

You didn't answer the question. Too tough for you?

Oh, but I did answer your special math question. Under the rules of constitutional law, a preponderance of the evidence establishes the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" which is found in the amendment. Finding the "preponderance of evidence" requires simple addition.

Were my questions to you too tough for you to answer?

JWK

Precedence trumps your interpretation of what is the 'preponderance of evidance'.

 

[johnwk]

Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.

What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.

The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States. However, in
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The Court states:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country



'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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

JWK

I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898. Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words 'subject to its jurisdiction' were added to the 14th Amendment?

Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?

Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.

As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.


Game over.

Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

The current law is stated as follows:

"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 what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.


And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.


And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.

And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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


Please stop pretending the 14th Amendment means something other than its text and legislative intent, which has been repeatedly addressed by our Supreme Court.


JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Syriusly]

Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.

The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States. However, in
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The Court states:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country



'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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

JWK

I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898. Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words 'subject to its jurisdiction' were added to the 14th Amendment?

Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?

Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.

As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.


Game over.

Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

The current law is stated as follows:

"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 what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )

Your opinion is noted. However, Wong Kim Ark is precedent- and Wong Kim Ark firmly established that a child born of foreign parents in the United States is born a citizen.

And the text is quite clear- anyone born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- except the children of diplomats- or to go back to Elk- at that time certain Native Americans because of their citizenship status- a condition that no longer applies.

Please stop pretending that Wong Kim Ark is not the precedent that the Supreme Court and indeed the Federal government relies upon now- not Elk or Slaughterhouse.

 

[johnwk]

The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States. However, in
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The Court states:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country



'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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

JWK

I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898. Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words 'subject to its jurisdiction' were added to the 14th Amendment?

Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?

Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.

As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.


Game over.

Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

The current law is stated as follows:

"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 what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )

Your opinion is noted.

The truth is, I have quoted the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by the Supreme Court.

And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the 14th amendment? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.


And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.


And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.

And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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 had no hand in what has been stated above. I have simply quoted what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by our Supreme Court. Why do you have a problem accepting the above stated facts? Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Toro]

I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898. Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words 'subject to its jurisdiction' were added to the 14th Amendment?

Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?

Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.

As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.


Game over.

Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

The current law is stated as follows:

"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 what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )

Your opinion is noted.

The truth is, I have quoted the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by the Supreme Court.

And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the 14th amendment? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.


And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.


And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.

And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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 had no hand in what has been stated above. I have simply quoted what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by our Supreme Court. Why do you have a problem accepting the above stated facts? Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Well, take it to the courts, then.

Given that courts have referred to Wok for over the past 100 years, best of luck to you.

 

[Syriusly]

I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898. Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words 'subject to its jurisdiction' were added to the 14th Amendment?

Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?

Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.

As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.


Game over.

Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

The current law is stated as follows:

"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 what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )

Your opinion is noted.

The truth is, I have quoted the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by the Supreme Court.

And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the 14th amendment? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.


And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.


And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.

And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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 had no hand in what has been stated above. I have simply quoted what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by our Supreme Court. Why do you have a problem accepting the above stated facts? Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?

JWK
)

I have no problem with you having your opinion.

But I happen to agree with the Supreme Court- which clarified what jurisdiction means in Wong Kim Ark- and that is the controlling precedent both in law and in fact.

 

[johnwk]

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898. Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words 'subject to its jurisdiction' were added to the 14th Amendment?

Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?

Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.

As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.


Game over.

Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

The current law is stated as follows:

"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 what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )

Your opinion is noted.

The truth is, I have quoted the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by the Supreme Court.

And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the 14th amendment? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.


And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.


And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.

And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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 had no hand in what has been stated above. I have simply quoted what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by our Supreme Court. Why do you have a problem accepting the above stated facts? Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?

JWK
)

I have no problem with you having your opinion.

But I happen to agree with the Supreme Court- which clarified what jurisdiction means in Wong Kim Ark- and that is the controlling precedent both in law and in fact.

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted.

JWK

 

[danielpalos]

Why is this even an issue? We have a Commerce Clause. Why are we losing money on Commerce at our borders.