Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

What two cases are you referring to?

 

You literally just told me on post #324 that "SC has LONG supported the 14th amendment citizenship clause" so I assume you actually knew which ones (plus whatever ones actually support children of illegals as citizens-the subject of this thread).

One of them has been amply discussed in this very thread, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Is that one of the ones that you think the Supreme Court has affirmed children of illegals as citizens?

 

During the negotiation for the immigration reform bill of 2013, Republicans, especially including the US Chamber of Commerce opposed the end of being able to hire labor from Mexico and then discard them whenever they wanted to - in fact calling on government deportation services.

This was well known to have prevented workers from demanding pay owed them, to have allowed abuse by employers who had ultimate control over their disposition, who had no reason to pay for injury or to provide safety, etc., etc.

The difference between that and slavery is not great.

And, it certainly was not supported by Democrats.

 

Of good lord. So Wo Kim Ark was an illegal alien then? Again, you have not read the cases, much less understood what they were about. Nor have you read the immigration law, much less understood the law.

 

At the time of the draft of the 14th Amendment, we didn't have the customs and border patrol, we didn't have the huge bureaucracy that came with immigration. We literally had open borders and this was apparent even in the Western Territories where Native Americans still roamed pretty much free, well most of them did anyway. Then we had the Indian Wars in which most of those tribes were subjected to American Socialism camps called Indian Reservations where they had to rely on Government for all their needs. And that was a disaster too. And if you came here by boat, depending on which country you were from, you pretty much were allowed entry into this country. If you traveled overland from Canada or Mexico, you were pretty much allowed into this country despite the discrimination in the southern territories and the State of Texas in which discrimination was allowed and was pretty much a personal thing, not law.

 

The Ark Case and the Elkins case, both are used to try to support their verison of what the 14th amendment says or allegedly should say.

 

If you want a look, here it is.

https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html

 

That ruling confirmed Ark's claim to citizenship.

It also resolved the interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". At the time, the US wanted to claim that this family was subject to the jurisdiction of China! The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law. And, this family is clearly subject to US law - unlike ambassadors, or whatever.

So, what are you suggesting here?

 

Great post - clearly helping us understand the court's positions.

 

This has probably been mentioned about a dozen times just in this thread, but Ark's parents were legal residents, so the case doesn't apply to illegals, and the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been defined by the authors of the 14th amendment in the Congressional debates (also mentioned in this thread at least once).

If you are going to bring up points in favor of the illegals-as-citizens theory, could you at least bring up something that hasn't been debunked in this thread already?

 

Aliens? Oh you mean foreign military and diplomats and of course the native American's were not included, kinda like women and voting. Want to try again? lol

 

Musta slipped Trump's mind.
2018.

Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order

Axios
https://www.axios.com › Politics & Policy

Oct 30, 2018 — President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized ...

 

WHERE DO THEY TALK ABOUT BEING LEGAL RESIDENTS IN THEIR RULING??

1. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 693. "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."

 

It is true that those parents did happen to be citizens. But, that's not the point. The court ruled that anyone in the US without some special circumstance (such as ambassadors) is subject to US law - not just citizens.

In that case, the dissenters (who lost) wanted to interpret the 14th to EXCLUDE "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".

As I understand your view, the SC ruled against your view.

 

Yes and no. The Chinese Exclusion Act pretty much made them "inadmissible aliens" and even then we did not have the laws to remedy those aliens in the form of deportation. That did not come about until 1907 or so. But they also left the US sometime after the 1873 Act because they could not find work. That is why their son went to visit them and why he was denied entry because they considered him NOT a US citizen even though he was born here in the States.

 

But this is the complexity of the immigration code, the US Constitution, and so forth. Under the law, there are citizens and aliens. All US nationals are aliens by definition, but by law, are just above green card holder and just below US Citizenship. Those who are US nationals can choose to become US Citizens by filling out the N400 form. As long as they meet the requirements, they can become US citizens. All other aliens must go through a process to become US Citizens, and that can take anywhere from a minimum of 5 years to 15 years or more depending on which type of visas the alien uses. But no matter what, if they have children born here, then those children are US citizens no matter what per the Law, US Constitution, and Supreme Court Cases.

 

"if they have children born here, then those children are US citizens" says the US Constitution and SCOTUS

 

After snickering a little bit at your post, I just have to ask, and please don't take this the wrong way, but do you know what a resident alien is? And no, I'm not talking about the TV show.

 

You're boring me with rehashing the same old same old. If you don't understand the case (and controversy) you're not going to understand the ruling. Try again.

 

So you are saying that Ark's parents were illegal aliens? That seems to contradict the case but go ahead, let's here it.

 

They were inadmissible per the 1873 Chinese Exclusion Act and thus could not legally obtain work or property or citizenship or anything else. Eventually, they left. The son, Wo Kim Ark, got a job with immigration in San Francisco and was the only Asian person in the ranks at that time. He left to visit his parents and when he returned, he was denied entry because they told him he was not a US citizen. He had his birth certificate, the predecessor of what a passport was, and other documentation that proved he was a US citizen. And that is why we have the whole case and why SCOTUS affirmed jus soli doctrine to anyone who is born here regardless of their national origin or legal status in immigration. It is only those who are ambassadors, members of the consulate staff from the home country, and certain international NGO's who are not subject to our laws. This is generally the A and G visa categories.

 

Yes

 

You clearly do not agree with the SC decision in the case cited.

You keep bringing up this notion that there are cases that support your view, but so far you haven't been able to cite any.

 

Does it matter that Ark's parents were not illegal aliens when the Court literally said this?

They list a number of exceptions here. None of them were illegal aliens.

Plus an illegal alien can be a resident alien.