re: Why Trumpsigned EO to end birthright citizenship

quote:

---

An asylum seeker - basically by definition - is trying to set up the US as a permanent domicile. Combine that with the fact (assuming this just for the argument) that the U.S. has consented to them being here then their case seems to be just like that of Wong Kim Ark.

---

quote:

---

(a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b)a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e)a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f)a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g)a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h)a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

---

U.S. code defines citizenship, and in every case citizenship is defined by who the parents are. Not where the person is born except in the case of a child of unknown parentage found in the U.S. (f).

So, when reading the U.S. Code regarding citizenship, I'm supposed to believe that citizenship is defined by the parentage of the child except for those born in the U.S. to foreign aliens? Citizenship is defined by parentage EXCEPT in this scenario? That's bullshite. It was never meant to be that way.

The Revised Statutes state that citizenship isn't supposed to "descend to children whose fathers have never resided in the U.S.", so it's even more specific.

The SCOTUS that claimed Ark was a citizen by virtue of his place of birth, excluded an Indian named John Elk despite being born in a United States territory.

The same justice wrote the opinion in both cases 14 years apart. Horace Gray. The public should have tarred and feathered those bastards for the Ark decision.