If alligence is so important to determining citizenship by the 14th amendment, why wouldn’t it be mentioned in the case?
As for not knowing, you obviously know. Wong Kim Ark’s parents were, at all times during their stay in this country, citizens of China. Do you think being a citizen of China doesn’t necessarily have alligence to that government?
If this and if that. 
Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant!
In Wong Kim Ark the 14th Amendment’s qualifier requiring “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is asserted to have been fulfilled as follows as stated by the Court. (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 considered a citizen.
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.”
JWK
Nah. It just reveals the massive hole in your copy pasta. You want us to believe that the jurisdiction excludes anyone with foreign alligence but the landmark case that determines what jurisdiction means with regard to the 14th amendment completely omits any discussion of the matter.
Even you must see that it is a bit of a problem for your position.
Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant!
In Wong Kim Ark the 14th Amendment’s qualifier requiring “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is asserted to have been fulfilled as follows as stated by the Court. (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 considered a citizen.
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.”
JWK
Although you’re grossly misconstruing the opinion by cutting and pasting sections to give a misleading impression, Let’s ignore that for now.
Notice how none of those qualifiers say anything about allegiance? It would seem that Justice Gray has completely disregarded the quote from Mr Trumbull that you reference in Slaughterhouse. Wouldn’t you agree?
Last time I checked anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
Dems the facts!
We have already gone over this. You are wrong.
JWK
You really need to read up on United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Is he wrong?
If you are born in the United States, are you not given citizenship?
No better proof than that! You lose!
Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant!
In Wong Kim Ark the 14th Amendment’s qualifier requiring “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is asserted to have been fulfilled as follows as stated by the Court. (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 considered a citizen.
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.”
JWK
You need to read it again. And again, until you agree with me.
No, you’ve never gone over this. You keep ignoring the problem and think pasting the same quotes relentlessly somehow make up for it.
Baloney. It was addressed IN THIS POST Your nonsense about Justice Gray has been repeatedly addressed. Justice Gray wrote in ELK v. WILKINS, (1884)
The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ 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. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other.
Why do you keep making stuff up?
JWK
.
Well, dantes? Is it not a fact that Justice Gray confirmed that “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “… completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance”?
JWK
Where is Trump on this executive order? Anyone got an update?
Last I heard it was moving along full steam ahead. I hope it gets challenged in the courts. Trump wins on this all day. We know the original intent of birthright citizenship only applied to former slaves and their children. It wasn’t designed for anchor babies or Russian or Chinese birth tourists.
LOL… When was the last update and from whom? It will be challenged in the courts immediately… It will never take effect… Are the states preparing to amend birth certificates to include citizenship status?
And, I might add, "jurisdiction thereof” does not grant jus soli, just because we enforce laws which make it illegal for foreigners murdering American citizens.
Except for over 100 years of precedence, you may be right… Good luck in court!
You are mistaken.
Our courts have never ruled that a foreign citizen can reside in the US, in violation of our immigration laws, and pop out a kid in one of our hospitals, and our laws grant it US citizenship, and chain migration once it reaches adulthood.
