Birthright Citizenship - Supreme Court Precedent

Not a good answer.
E.g., the 2nd amendment is part of the constitution but I don’t agree with it. It was valid in 1780 but not now IMO.
Why is following the actual law not a good answer? If we can simply not follow the laws then we have anarchy.
Of course. But the constitution is constantly interpreted.
Look at how the left wants to ban guns. According to strict terms of the constitution all guns should be legal.
The Constitution can be interpreted but the words can't be changed. A person is always a person.
It is not reasonable to argue that a human being is not a person.
There can be many disagreements about what the meaning of "arms" is since the right has argued that no one was armed on Jan 6 even though they carried weapons that were used to attack police officers.
 
Why did the SCOTUS say Elk was not a citizen . They said Ark was a citizen because:.

That the petitioner’s parents had resided here with the permission of the United States was central to the Court’s holding. Chinese nationals who remain “subjects of the Emperor of China…are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here,” the decision reads, “and are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the same sense as all other aliens [lawfully] residing in the United States” (emphasis added). The Court explained that to “reside,” in this usage, means to live in a place with the intent to remain there, but not necessarily indefinitely. It is a broader category than “domiciled,” and could apply to long-term visa holders, as well as to lawful permanent residents.
And then you completely ignore the part of Elk that blows a huge hole in your argument.


Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States,members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.


Elk lays out that Indians are the equivalent of foreigners born in a foreign country or children born to foreign ambassadors in the US. This clearly shows that Elk supports that foreigners born in the US and not the children of ambassadors are US citizens at birth. Trying to use Elk and Ark the way you are is asinine and ignores the entirety of each ruling.

A domicile as used in Ark is a residence that a person intends to stay at for more than a few days. A foreigner in the US that has been here for months would be domiciled here unless you can prove they have an actual residence that they own or rent and intend to return to elsewhere.
 
Just curious. Why do leftists want children born from illegal aliens to be considered citizens? Why is that so important to them?
Because we want democracy to be spread to as many people as possible.

We want to share the joys of freedom with as many people as possible.

You shitbag trumpers, being the greedy, stingy, vindictive hate-filled assholes that you are, want to withhold it from foreigners because you think you're somehow better or more worthy of it than people from other counties.

Which is the exact opposite of reality.

You are garbage people.
 
Precisely.

These far left loons think it's just swell for an illegal woman to violate our immigration laws, slip across our border...illegally, have a baby...at taxpayer expense... and have the baby be a citizen.

This is one of the factors that caused them to be swamped last Nov.

See below ...

Because we want democracy to be spread to as many people as possible.

We want to share the joys of freedom with as many people as possible.

You shitbag trumpers, being the greedy, stingy, vindictive hate-filled assholes that you are, want to withhold it from foreigners because you think you're somehow better or more worthy of it than people from other counties.

Which is the exact opposite of reality.

You are garbage people.

Earl = garbage.
 
Nope....This is why the court ruled in Ark's favor.:

That the petitioner’s parents had resided here with the permission of the United States was central to the Court’s holding. Chinese nationals who remain “subjects of the Emperor of China…are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here,” the decision reads, “and are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the same sense as all other aliens [lawfully] residing in the United States” (emphasis added). The Court explained that to “reside,” in this usage, means to live in a place with the intent to remain there, but not necessarily indefinitely. It is a broader category than “domiciled,” and could apply to long-term visa holders, as well as to lawful permanent residents.
It appears that you think your argument is valid if you ignore 99% of Wong Ark and select small parts. Foreigners in the US are subject to the jurisdiction thereof according to Wong Ark.

It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution, and their children "born in the United States" cannot be less "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Under the Chinese Inclusion Act Chinese citizens living in the US could not become citizens but must remain citizens of China. Wong shows that even children born to persons that can not become naturalized citizens are citizens of the US at birth. It also shows that even persons in the US that have no right to become US citizens and by law owe allegiance to a foreign power are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof of the United States.

What Wong Ark confirms is prior rulings that persons in the US are subject to the jurisdiction thereof even if they owe allegiance to a foreign country.
 
Born in an Indian reservation at a time and when the US, had no jurisdiction Indian reservations that was true, because there was was no jurisdiction.
Federal marshals enforced federal laws on reservation. If a Native American killed an American a federal marshal could pursue and arrest him on the reservation. Plus the US owns the land not the tribe. Nice try though.
 
Born in an Indian reservation at a time and when the US, had no jurisdiction Indian reservations that was true, because there was was no jurisdiction.
The SCOTUS said Elk was born within the territorial boundary of the US. Try again.

the plaintiff is an Indian and was born in the United States and has severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes and fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is a bona fide resident of the State of Nebraska and City of Omaha.
 
It appears that you think your argument is valid if you ignore 99% of Wong Ark and select small parts. Foreigners in the US are subject to the jurisdiction thereof according to Wong Ark.

It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution, and their children "born in the United States" cannot be less "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Under the Chinese Inclusion Act Chinese citizens living in the US could not become citizens but must remain citizens of China. Wong shows that even children born to persons that can not become naturalized citizens are citizens of the US at birth. It also shows that even persons in the US that have no right to become US citizens and by law owe allegiance to a foreign power are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof of the United States.

What Wong Ark confirms is prior rulings that persons in the US are subject to the jurisdiction thereof even if they owe allegiance to a foreign country.
Two green card holders remain citizens of their country but have permanent domicile in the US and their children born here are citizens like Wong Kim Ark was.

Elk proves if your parents can have allegiance to another political system and you don't have permanent domicile in the US their children are not US citizens.
 
Yes it does Ark was here legally and he was an American Elk was here legally so he wasn't an American.
There is nothing in either ruling that mentions anyone being in the country legally.

What the rulings do say is that a foreigner in this country is subject to the jurisdiction therof.
 
There is nothing in either ruling that mentions anyone being in the country legally.

What the rulings do say is that a foreigner in this country is subject to the jurisdiction therof.
Ark was obviously here legally because SCOTUS said he was a US Citizen. Elk couldn't live here legally because SCTOUS said he wasn't an American citizen.

:facepalm:
 
Which does not change that they actually said "reside in the US with the permission of the government"... the piece you seem to ignore.

This would make it so that tourists, literal tourists, would not quite make it. So, if your mother traveled here and while she was on vacation she pushed out a kid that later became you, since your mama didn't reside here this ruling would not automatically make you a citizen.
They were wrong.
The SCOTUS said Elk was born within the territorial boundary of the US. Try again.

the plaintiff is an Indian and was born in the United States and has severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes and fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is a bona fide resident of the State of Nebraska and City of Omaha.
elk was, in the territory, not not in the jurisdiction.
 
They were wrong.

elk was, in the territory, not not in the jurisdiction.
SCOTUS said:

the plaintiff is an Indian and was born in the United States and has severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes and fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is a bona fide resident of the State of Nebraska and City of Omaha.
 
They were wrong.

elk was, in the territory, not not in the jurisdiction.
The SCOTUS said:

the plaintiff is an Indian and was born in the United States and has severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes and fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is a bona fide resident of the State of Nebraska and City of Omaha.
 
Back
Top