According to your personal opinion but not according to the text of the 14th amendment and its DOCUMENTED LEGISLATIVE INTENT, which gives context to its text.
Once again, thank you for your personal opinion.
Yes, according to the text of the 14th Amendment.
With regard to Wong Kim Ark the facts stated in Wong Kim Ark confirm,
(1)Wong Kim Arkâs parents were in our country legally;
(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Arkâs birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Arkâs question of citizenship:
For the reasons above stated, the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
As pointed out by the Court, there are specific requirements which must be met for a child born to a foreign national while on American soil to be blessed with citizenship upon birth.
Additionally, is must always be remembered that our Supreme Court has never addressed the question of citizenship being bestowed upon a child born on U.S. soil to an alien who has entered our country illegally. The Wong case obviously confirms if specific requirements are not met, the answer is a resounding NO.
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 ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
No need to. The 14th addressed it.
Which requires âand subject to the jurisdiction thereofâ. And, with regard to the phrase âsubject to the jurisdiction thereofâ the SCOTUS emphatically states:
âThat its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdictionâ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.â (IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36) (1872)
And then in 1884, the Supreme Court once again echoes the intentions for which âand subject to the jurisdiction thereofâ was written into the 14th Amendment:
'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are âall persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.â 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.â___ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884)
I am happy we finally agree â⌠according to the text of the 14th AmendmentâŚâ which requires being âsubject to the jurisdiction thereofâ and excludes "âŚfrom its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.â (IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
Which excludes children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals while on American soil, and are not âsubject to the jurisdiction thereofâ within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
If you travel through OK you are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction, does it make you a citizen of OK?
1 Like
according to the naturalization laws, yes you can.
1 Like
And the naturalization laws require our oath of allegiance:
âI hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me Godâ
By this oath an alien becomes âsubject to the jurisdictionâ of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a baby born to such an individual while on American soil would then be a citizen of the US because its mother owes her allegiance to the United States, may be required to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, and is therefore subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment!
Irrelevant.
The correct term is resident, not citizen.
no, the correct term is citizen
âAll 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.â
2 Likes
Hereâs how I look at it. The objective is to try and ascertain the original intent of the framers, correct? And I assume @WuWei would agree as well? Personally I look at it working backwards in regards to whatâs happening today and whether or not this was the intent of the framers.
Today, birthright citizenship is used by non-citizens to gain US citizenship outside of the Congressional approved legal process to largely the detriment of US Taxpayers. The largest abuse coming from impoverished pregnant women in neighboring countries to burden our hospitals and welfare system by pumping out welfare babies. So was this the intent of the 14th Amendment? Would anyone say yes?
When you buy a hunting or fishing license do you get a citizenâs license or a resident license?
has nothing to do with what the constitution says. denial does not change reality.
You havenât grasped thereâs two versions of the word subject yet.
Subjected to
And
A subject of
Are not the same thing. One means what you say, and the other means what everyone else is saying. And the framers shortened the sentence too much for it to be clear.
Weâve certainly treated it like your saying for the last 100+ years. But weâve gotten a lot wrong constitutionally.
An oath does not prove.
1 Like
Thatâs true, although with todayâs mobility, being a citizen of a state doesnât carry much weight anymore. Shame, too.
Itâs clear. Donât play hoplophobe games.
