re: NJ challenging EO to end birth right citizenship

quote:

---

It does not

---

You said it does Why else would you share it? You were trying to show that even in 1812 there was some discussion on excluding children of diplomats from citizenship. And that single case shows what the writers of the 14A meant by jurisdiction. This is what I mean by you being hypocritical. You talk legislative intent vs textualism any time someone brings up how this could be applied to anyone here temporarily. Then you talk about intent and understood meanings when people comment on this still being applied to diplomats when that is nowhere in the text.

quote:

---

It doesn’t mention them.

---

It mentions the 2 exception classes.

Everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction. They don't have to list every possible group/person here.

quote:

---

And it’s a legitimate question right?

---

Not within our current law. As Vacherie points out, they're trying to overrule our precedential ruling.

quote:

---

It mentions the 2 exception classes

---

The 14A doesn’t mention any Mr. Textualist

quote:

---

WKA covers children of legal residents of the US; not Illegal. It’s mentioned in the arguments and the opinion. (As quoted above)

---

I know you said it covers legal residents of US, in this case of illegals, migrants and tourists, the only legal ones would be legal migrants and tourists, correct? I also would guess that tourists will be looked at too in this situation and the only ones with actual grounds would be those here on a visa or those going through the naturalization process legally? Of course this will be an opinion for those who choose to reply.

quote:

---

Yet it is only still applied to one of these 3 groups.

---

it was applied to 2/3
we changed the law on NA

Right. I used present tense.

Hence precedent, not "law" itself. Wong doesn't say children of illegals are citizens since illegal immigration was negligible and superbly easy to control then, and therefore not of legal significance to the decision at the time. In fact, immigration policy at the time was extremely loose. The nation was intentional about its desire to grow in population to meet economic growth goals. US population would triple in the 50 years following Wong and doubled in the 50 years preceding it. It must also be considered that the Wong decision would impact the economically vital and massive Chinese laborer community in California at the time.

Wong falls short... perhaps because of the times, perhaps due to biases or economic considerations. We don't know. But it falls short. Either way, not even Wong guarantees completely unqualified birthright citizenship. And the debate over Wong has been going on for over 30 years. This isnt new.

Wanna hear some irony?

The idea of birthright citizenship is based on English Common Law.

Guess what no longer exists in English law? Birthright citizenship.

You keep bringing it up like it means something.

It made a ton of seems in 1866 when we were still killing native americans for their land.

quote:

---

Ummm, Not sure I understand your response. You said that I added a layer of analysis the court didn’t cover. (Legal residency) The courts literal opinion, that I posted, covers the fact his parents were in the US legally. WKA covers children of legal residents of the US; not Illegal. It’s mentioned in the arguments and the opinion. (As quoted above) Sorry if you can’t understand that and want the opinion to mean something it doesn’t. ??

---

You are absolutely correct and SFP is ignoring these parts of the opinion to try and make a point that the current SCOTUS has to overturn WKA and abandon a textual reading of the constitution. The constitution literally says they have to reside here. WKA was dealing with a case in which the parents indisputably resided here. WKA simply didn’t address this question. SCOTUS wouldn’t have to overturn WKA to find that in order for the 14th amendment to apply the parents have to be legally residing here since that is exactly what WKAs parents were doing.

The court also noted that WKA and his parents had not done anything illegal. So, again the court wasn’t addressing a scenario where the parents were here illegally.

quote:

---

The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts agreed by the parties: "That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, and that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer. "That at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid. "That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China. "That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. "That ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to wit, a residence in said State of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, and there resided claiming to be a citizen of the United States….

"That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom."

---

quote:

---

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

---

quote:

---

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

---

The holding:

quote:

---

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

---

The court wasn’t addressing a situation where WKAs parents were not residents, or were here in violation of US laws. SFP is completely misconstruing that these issues are well settled law.