It’s so ridiculous that it’s been standard practice for the last 100 years and never been challenged in court.
Gotcha
How is it going to be challenged in court when we do not have any idea who is actually here illegally in the first place? Are children born here being permanently separated from parents who are being deported? In the Ark case, Ark was also an adult who had been in the US practically since birth, not a minor. That probably had something to do with the decision.
That’s a weird statement. Of course we can figure out who is here legally. It happens every day in deportation hearings.
Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants could have been challenged anytime in the last 100 years, but it hasn’t. Whether you think that’s right or wrong, no matter. It’s far from ridiculous as it’s been the standard for over a century.
Yes, the fact that Ark had been in the US since birth has a lot to do with it. The whole being born here is all that is required.
It matters that his parents were in the US and subject to their jurisdiction, as the 14th says. Can you explain how a legal immigrant is subject to US jurisdiction and an illegal immigrant is not?
In deportation hearings. You’re talking about challenging the law concerning birthright citizenship. If the parents are being deported, they would have no standing to challenge the law on behalf of their children. So where are all the children who were born here challenging the law whose parents have been deported? I’m sure it has nothing to do with birth certificates being issued regardless of the immigration status of their parents. I mean the 2nd amendment clearly says “shall not be infringed” and we still have gun control laws so let’s not pretend that the government has been absolute in following the Constitution to the letter here.
This is a lot of unintelligible gibberish.
Suffice to say, there clearly is no shortage of people who are born here and known to have illegal immigrants for parents who’s citizenship could be challenged legally at any point in time.
But it never has. Not in 100 years.
You know how often restrictions on the second amendment are challenged in court? All the time.
In what court in the US would a defendant not have “standing” to challenge any aspect of their case? Stop watching Law and Order and read a real law textbook… If they didn’t have STANDING then why would they be in court… It’s kinda part of the etymology of STANDING in legal proceedings…
Since you apparently have reading comprehension issues. 
The children themselves would have standing. Like I said, where are these challenges from the children? Or is the immigration status of the parents at the time of their birth not even a consideration at this point? Like I said.
Trump is a master at playing people for his own gain.
I do not intend to comment one way or another on the validity of the decision.
What is important to me is, Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant to the question if a child born on American soil to a foreign national, especially an illegal entrant, becomes a citizen upon birth. This was not litigated in the case!
In Wong Kim Ark the 14th Amendment’s qualifier requiring “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is asserted, by the Court, as follows:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s 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 Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray 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.”
Aside from that , the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not addresses if a child born to an alien, who has entered the United States illegally, is bestowed citizenship upon birth by the terms of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court had earlier discussed the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause in the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, “[t]he 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.”
Why do you keep brining up a case irrelevant to the question if a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant become a citizen of the United States under the terms of the 14th Amendment?
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
Well dantes? Why do you keep brining up a case [Wong Kim Ark] which is irrelevant to the question if a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant become a citizen of the United States under the terms of the 14th Amendment?
JWK
Where is that EO on birthright citizenship?
Because it is relevant and the court has kept it as the controlling precedent that has never been overturned.
When will you answer my question as to whether Wong Kim Ark’s parents had any alligence to another country?
No. Wong Kim Ark is not relevant. Did the Court in Wong Kim Ark rule on the question ___ is a child born on American soil to a foreign national, and in particularly to an illegal entrant, a citizen upon birth? No! The Court did not answer that question and is therefore irrelevant to what is now being questioned.
In Wong Kim Ark the 14th Amendment’s qualifier requiring “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was asserted to be satisfied by the Court, as follows:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s 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 Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray 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.”
The bottom line is, Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant and you have not offered anything to conclude otherwise.
JWK
The court answered that the child born in the US of non-citizens is a citizen. It applies to all non-citizens.
Still dodging the question I see even going so far to crop our my reply. I’ll keep asking it. I’ve answered many questions, I think you can answer at this one of mine. Did Wong Kim Ark’s parents have foreign alligence?
That is your opinion. The truth is, in Wong Kim Ark the 14th Amendment’s qualifier requiring “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was asserted to be satisfied by the Court, as follows:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s 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 Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray 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 opinion, the court made no mention if its ruling applied to a child born to an illegal entrant while on American soil.
JWK
Did Wong Kim Ark’s parents have any foreign alligence?
That is your opinion. The truth is, in Wong Kim Ark the 14th Amendment’s qualifier requiring “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was asserted to be satisfied by the Court, as follows:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s 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 Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray 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 opinion, the court made no mention if its ruling applied to a child born to an illegal entrant while on American soil.
JWK
Your question confirms you have not even read the Wong Kim Ark ruling. Had you read it you would have known there was no mention about “allegiance”
Why do you keep bringing up a case [Wong Kim Ark] which is irrelevant to the question if a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant become a citizen of the United States upon birth under the terms of the 14th Amendment?
JWK
Why don’t you answer the question? Did Wong Kim Ark’s parents have foreign alligence?
I just answered your question. There was no mention in the Court’s ruling about “allegiance”. It is impossible to accurately answer your question, in addition to Wong Kim Ark being irrelevant to the question if a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth under the terms of the 14th Amendment.
Why do you keep bringing the Wong case up?
JWK
Illegal immigrants are subject to our jurisdiction. Their children born here are US citizens. Full stop. QED. Sit down.
1 Like
