he question decided by the Supreme Court in Kim Wong Ark v. U.S. (1898) was whether a person born to a legal resident was a citizen. The Court said 'yes'. Whether someone born in the U.S. to a non-legal person is a citizen has never been ajudicated.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Trump To Ban Anchor Babies
- Thread starter Squire
- Start date
he question decided by the Supreme Court in Kim Wong Ark v. U.S. (1898) was whether a person born to a legal resident was a citizen. The Court said 'yes'. Whether someone born in the U.S. to a non-legal person is a citizen has never been ajudicated.
Rockrivr1
NES Member
Basically an election ploy to show he's still onboard with crushing illegal immigration. Can't do it with and EO, then we really do need to build the whole wall. If anything he's excited the base again and caused the Dims to go outright bonkers. Really trying to do this with a Constitutional Convention to change the constitution is rife with negative possibilities. Though in essence I do agree with the sentiment.
At the time of Ark the concept of ‘illegal alien’ didn’t exist. It refers to all foreign born living in the US as more than a tourist. Arguing that Ark isn’t a broad grant is akin to the anti’s making the “Assault weapons didn’t exist when the Second Amendment was written so they’re not what the founders had in mind.” We have the written statements of the guy who wrote the 14th confirming he meant it as birthright citizenship.
Last edited:
eboos
NES Member
I just read the case, and while it mentioned the parents were domiciled within the US, it is silent as to whether they were "legal" or "illegal" residents. I don't think there was even a concept of this at the time aside from limitations on who would be granted entry at a port.
pastera
NES Member
Ark was born to parents here legally
I haven't found any decisions one illegal parents.
Jurisdiction at the time referred to the crown or sovereignty to which a person owed allegiance.
Native Americans owed allegiance to their tribe and therefore were excluded until granted citizenship in 1924 by legislation.
Declaring illegals to not have allegiance to the US is not unconstitutional - they are citizens of their home country.
The decision makes no differentiation between legal and illegal. You’re parsing words in the exact same way the anti’s do when trying to hedge on the 2nd. You can’t have it both ways.
You’re misinterpreting the NA portion of the decision. NA lands were sovereign and therefor not subject to the Amendment
pastera
NES Member
Native Americans not born on reservations (IE on US sovereign soil) were still not considered citizens because they owed allegiance to their respective tribe.
Indian Citizenship Act - Wikipedia
Yeah, I know that Wiki isn't a good source but fits the bill for use here.
Indian Citizenship Act - Wikipedia
Yeah, I know that Wiki isn't a good source but fits the bill for use here.
Look at all these schmucks cheering for EOs over stepping the constitution when it's their team in power... Bet they were fine with Obama era EOs...
You IDIOTS are the problem with this country
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Yup.
Gee. Too bad we’ve got that pesky Constitution that limits what the .gov is allowed to do.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
What Did the 14th Amendment Congress Think about "Birthright Citizenship"? - Law & Liberty
"The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The oft-cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) involved the offspring of a Chinese couple present in the United States legally. And the frequently cited language from Plyler v. Doe (1982)—a 5 to 4 decision written by the activist Justice William Brennan, hardly a strong authority—is dicta contained in a footnote! Automatic birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal immigrants is an anomaly; the United States and Canada are the only developed countries in the world to recognize it. No European country does. American voters overwhelmingly oppose birthright citizenship, by almost 2 to 1 according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Regardless whether one supports Donald Trump for President, he has raised an important issue and provoked a long overdue discussion of the subject of birthright citizenship. For that, he deserves credit."
"The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The oft-cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) involved the offspring of a Chinese couple present in the United States legally. And the frequently cited language from Plyler v. Doe (1982)—a 5 to 4 decision written by the activist Justice William Brennan, hardly a strong authority—is dicta contained in a footnote! Automatic birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal immigrants is an anomaly; the United States and Canada are the only developed countries in the world to recognize it. No European country does. American voters overwhelmingly oppose birthright citizenship, by almost 2 to 1 according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Regardless whether one supports Donald Trump for President, he has raised an important issue and provoked a long overdue discussion of the subject of birthright citizenship. For that, he deserves credit."
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Lip
Army Veteran
Funny, anchor babies are mentioned where?
Lip
Army Veteran
Um no, you are. Just because your cat has kittens in the oven doesn't make them biscuits. If a burglar has a kid in your house, or a guest it doesn't make them a resident.Look at all these schmucks cheering for EOs over stepping the constitution when it's their team in power... Bet they were fine with Obama era EOs...
You IDIOTS are the problem with this country
pastera
NES Member
Allegiance was my wording - the issue was that native americans were citizens of their own nations even if they were born outside their sovereign land was the point. This shows that the writers and ratifiers of the 14th intended not to give automatic citizenship to all that were born within US borders.
The comm of Mass has been screwing our 2nd amendment rights for 20 years. At one particularly low point the SJC ruled that the 2nd amendment didn't apply to the states! Now the libs are up in arms over Trump's proposal. Too effing bad -- they know better than anyone else that if you don't like the Constitution you can just ignore it!
radioman
NES Member
IMHO The 14th Amendment is moot anyway.
This goes to how it was added to the constitution
in the first place. By extortion! The North told the
South that if they didn’t ratify the 14th the North
would plant troops on their state house steps for a
100yrs? How is this legal?
Also the 14th says nothing about fence jumpers.
That is just some liberal judges interpretation.
So if Trump does do an EO it’s not challenging
the 14th its just challenging that judges ruling.
This needs to go to the SC.
This goes to how it was added to the constitution
in the first place. By extortion! The North told the
South that if they didn’t ratify the 14th the North
would plant troops on their state house steps for a
100yrs? How is this legal?
Also the 14th says nothing about fence jumpers.
That is just some liberal judges interpretation.
So if Trump does do an EO it’s not challenging
the 14th its just challenging that judges ruling.
This needs to go to the SC.
No it doesn’t. The Indians were considered a special case as Indian land is within the borders of the US but at the time wasn’t considered OF the United States due to treaties and Indians could not be birthright citizens because they were already birthright citizens of their own nations. The jurisprudence around the issue all specifically referenced Indians. Your trying to stretch this argument to cover someone other than Indians is the same as an anti trying to argue 2a only protects the militia and that’s the National Guard.
Meaning what, exactly? Is being in the US on a tourist (B1) visa considered enough to be legal?
Maybe you mean - legal resident?
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2018
- Messages
- 768
- Likes
- 571
PREDICTION: President Trump will issue the EO - which is perfectly legal.
Dem Judges will complain - SCOTUS will back POTUS.
A HUGE magnet for Illegals and Corruption will be permanently ended.
I will set off Illegal Fireworks.
Dem Judges will complain - SCOTUS will back POTUS.
A HUGE magnet for Illegals and Corruption will be permanently ended.
I will set off Illegal Fireworks.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2018
- Messages
- 768
- Likes
- 571
And SLAVERY was Legal at one time as well.
Similar threads
