Here
“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.”
The word allegiance doesn’t appear anywhere in that section.
Citizens owe allegiance. Which is why you can be jailed and even executed for demonstrating you lack it sufficiently.
citizen
n. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.
Still doesn’t say anything about allegiance.
How can I be executed for not demonstrating allegiance?
By being a traitor.
A totally irrelevant question and intentional misdirection with reference to the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as applied to a child born on American soil to a foreign national.
JWK
Did Wong Kim Ark’s parents have allegiance to any other country? Obviously by your definition they did.
Which means you must think that decision was incorrect. No?
Again, Ark’s parents were here legally when he was born. Why does this keep needing to be mentioned?
Because they still had allegiance to a foreign power and that means, according to this other poster, they aren’t under our jurisdiction. You can mention it as often as you want but it’s irrelevant to the current conversation so not only do you not need to keep saying it, I’d prefer you spend more time paying attention instead.
At the time they didn’t, because they were conducting their business here. They were not subject to a foreign government until they returned to China years later. Talk about not paying attention. That’s literally what the whole Ark case was about.
I’ve been paying attention just fine. You seem to believe I’m disagreeing with you, I’m not. The other poster, you know, the one I had replied to, was of the opposite opinion of both of us, which is why I asked him, not you.
I know exactly what the case was about and you’d know that if you read anything I’ve weitten.
Oh so you’re just making crap up now. Got it.
Illegal aliens can’t legally own and operate a business on US soil either, so there’s that.
What does legally owning and operating a business have to do with whether they owe allegiance with another nation? Zero. It’s a totally irrelevant fact.
I’ve not made anything up. Please read more carefully before you post such things.
Totally irrelevant? His parents owned and operated a business on US soil when their child was born here. It was even one of the key points brought up in the case that ended up pushing it in Ark’s favor. So was “that fact” totally irrelevant or was trying to use the Ark case itself totally irrelevant? Please be specific. I mean it’s not like you’re trying to justify why the children of illegal aliens should be automatically given citizenship just by virtue of being born here, right? You aren’t attempting to make that argument at all, right?
Absolutely, 100% untrue. The case would have had the exact same result if they had owned and operated a business, if they were mere employees of another business, or if they were bums on the street. Totally irrelevant to the actual outcome of the case. Think about it for 5 minutes. Do you think citizenship is only granted to the children of resident aliens who own businesses? Obviously not. That makes the fact irrelevant.
That fact is totally irrelevant.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say with the rest of this post and this is likely mostly because you haven’t really been paying attention to what I’ve said and haven’t said before.
I’ll be very simple for you.
Wong Kim Ark is controlling precedent. If it could be said that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then the same can be said about illegal aliens.
The other poster stated that having foreign alligence presents you from being under the United State’s jurisdiction and that alligence does not go away simply because you’ve left your home country, which means that they must believe Wong Kim Ark is wrongly decided. The other poster is trying to have it both ways and that’s all I was trying to point out.
The other poster was absolutely correct. Wong Kim Ark was born here to parents who were here legally. Check. Wong Kim Ark had a permanent domicile in the US. Check. Wong Kim Ark intended to return to the US after temporarily visiting China and never renounced his US citizenship. Check.
The case was never about Ark’s parents being subject to the jurisdiction even though operating a business on US soil they clearly would be. There is no comparison between Ark whose parents were here legally at the time of his birth and the children of illegal aliens whose parents are not. The SCOTUS has never broached the subject.
Are you kidding me? “Subject to the jurisdiction” is extensively discussed in the opinion because it has everything to do with whether the 14th amendment applies Wong Kim Ark. Have you even read it?
You know what isn’t part of the opinion? A discussion about whether his parents were here legally. You know why? In the late 19th century there was no concept of an illegal immigrant. As such, the decision applies to all children if immigrants be they legal or illegal.
Please don’t comment on whether you agree with the other poster when you clearly haven’t read what they’ve posted.
Whether Wong Kim Ark himself was subject, not his parents. And yes, the fact that his parents were here legally was brought up. I’m not sure why you keep pretending otherwise.
Cite the part of the opinion that makes the distinction between legal and illegal aliens.
Good luck. Maybe you’ll actually read it this time.
What’s your point? I already said the SCOTUS hasn’t broached the subject. The parents of Ark were not here illegally. You are the one insisting there is no difference, because you are trying to compare the two using the outcome of case of a child of legal immigrants in attempting to justify your desired outcome concerning children of illegal immigrants, which is ridiculous. As is your continued assertion that there is no difference, when it has already been pointed out that the difference was clearly discussed during the time the 14th was being written when they were discussing the “and subject to the jurisdiction” clause in the first place.
