Redfish
Diamond Member
It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?
Huh?????????????
It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.
One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
This continues to be a LIE the left is throwing up. Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. In fact, the documentation of the case itself, talks extensively about "jurisdiction" in context of "allegiance."
Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese nationals but they were here legally in our country. Because they were here legally and not illegally, they met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th.
There is a very good reason you must go back to 1890 to find a SCOTUS case on the 'jurisdiction' clause of the 14th. You will note Section 5 of the 14th... it's not put there to be ignored. Congress has FULL authority over this. No one else! Got it? Not the courts, not some liberal drone, not CNN or MSNBC talking heads! The United States Congress has the plenary power to establish naturalization law in this country. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4--- It's an enumerated and plenary power of Congress!
The 14th was specifically written to enfranchise slaves into the citizenry. Slaves became "subject to jurisdiction" with passage of the 13th.
This entire debate is over liberal pinheads misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. IF THEIR ARGUMENT WERE TRUE, there is no need for this part in the sentence, it is redundant.
It matters NOT whether the child was of legal or illegal immigrants!
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
[Emphasis Added] < United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >
You are in error!
No, that decision is in error and should be reversed.