Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

Arks parents came here via boat and entered via the port of SF. They came here under the Treaty between China and the US which allowed for it. They came in amity as used in the WKA opinion and also why Gray makes light of the Treaty.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither case makes that claim.

 

The Chinese immigrants who were here were under treaty, Treaty of Tientsin of 1858, which was that they were allowed to emigrate and they were allowed by the govt, which meant that aliens must be noted as having entered legally.

Why you people keep claiming that alien covers the very broadest of terms to include illegals is beyond the reasoning and scope of the discussion Congress had.

- - - Updated - - -

They were all here legally, via treaty.

 

Both do

 

And if they had come here illegally, there would be no letter of the law, recorded intent or judicial precedence for denying their child citizenship.

 

The amendment was meant to cover the children known to common law, as the 14th is nothing more than declaratory of existing law. No amendment is required.

Directly from Justice Gray in the WKA opinion. Where does he state an amendment must be passed to defeat the purpose of the 14th citizenship clause? What? He says only a law is needed? Well I'll be damned.

Actually, passports and documents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_passport#History

Yes, the conspiracy theory is quite laughable.[/QUOTE]

 

I've got the treaty in front of me, and it doesn't mention immigration, emigration, aliens, etc. There are a few mentions of temporary residency for diplomats, merchants, etc., but you are going for a real stretch here. The Amendment applies to all persons naturalized or born here, with specific noted exceptions and no other exceptions. Period. That's the letter, that's the intention and that's the jurisprudence. If you don't want it to include the children of undocumented immigrants, then you'll need an amendment. Period.

 

Again, neither opinion makes that claim.

You keep claiming to have done something yet you keep getting shown you haven't done it. Why does Gray in his WKA opinion state only the laws need to be changed to defeat the main purpose of the 14th amendment?

You don't seem to have an answer as I have asked it of you for about 30 pages now.

 

His reasoning for declaring him a citizen was from the facts known (reasons ) and US common law.

Its more than just simply "noted". English Common law had no bearing after the DoI was signed, why else do you think Gray made light of Minor (who you claim isn't relevant) and Smith v. Alabama, to also include Elk v Wilkins etc. Those are all common law US cases about citizenship.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither do

 

The only people who matter disagree with you. The letter, the intent and jurisprudence extends citizenship to all people born or naturalized here, with certain noted exceptions. If you want more exceptions, then you'll need to amend the law. You don't get to just pencil them in.

Then get to working on your new law. Current law is clearly on the opposite side.

Yes, passports existed. Now where is the part saying that they were required for all immigrants at the time? Your article mentions only very limited time periods when such documentation was required.

 

You again, are wrong.

"Still, these [people who think an Amendment isn't needed] "are in a very small minority," said Evelyn Cruz, director of the Immigration Law and Policy Clinic at Arizona State University’s law school. "Most scholars believe that the Constitution would need to be amended to achieve a reading opposite to Wong Kim Ark."


Our ruling

....


There are respected academics who argue that the 14th Amendment allows but does not require children of illegal immigrants to receive citizenship just by virtue of having been born on American soil. However, this is a minority of immigration and constitutional law scholars, far outweighed by those who believe the 14th Amendment requires birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants."



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...many-scholars-say-anchor-babies-arent-covere/

 

they would have had legal documents showing they were here legally. There was even a Chinese who claimed to have been born in the US but was denied citizenship. Quock Ting v. United States (1891), 140 U.S. 417,

 

What treaty is it you are reading from? The Treaties between China and the US was the Treaty of Tientsin of 1858, and the Burlingame Treaty of 1868.

How do I need an amendment when the SC Justice clearly states no amendment is needed? All that is needed is a law to defeat the main purpose of the Constitutional Amendment.

 

Because he was not able to establish that he was, indeed, born in the U.S., and the court had positive evidence to doubt his place of birth. If it had been established that he was born here, then the 14th Amendment grants him citizenship (though keep in mind that this case occurred before U.S. v Wong Kim Ark). You are wildly off-topic. This case had nothing to do with the legal status of his parents and he was only denied "birthright citizenship" because the court did not believe he was born here. And, needless to say, people of Mr. Ting's ethnic persuasion were held to a different standard at the time.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm reading from the Treaty of Tienstin (185. And if it only requires a new law then get to work on a new law.

 

That's right, amend the law, not the 14th as many have cried. And until it the law is amended, they are merely assumed to be born citizens per the administrations policy.

Current law doesn't recognize them, they are merely assumed based on the administrations policy in 7fam1110.

Yes, and other times they were recorded on ships logs and recorded for tax purpose at ports of entry, to include the required registration with the local magistrate declaring their intentions.

 

Both do

nope. You are pretending I haven't, even though numerous people keep pointing it out.

- - - Updated - - -

English common law.

No it isnt.

And he then goes on to cite English common law as the basis for his ruling.

Proven otherwise.

 

. . . you do realize that the 14th Amendment is part of the law, right?

Until it is amended, we merely assume that the 14th Amendment means what it literally says, as both this administration and every previous administration have assumed.

Current law does recognized them, as evidenced by the wording of current law and the actions of this administration and every previous administration under which undocumented immigration existed.

None of which bears any resemblance at all to our modern immigration policies, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. If all that was required was port documentation, local formalities and tax records, I'd be a happy pro-immigration camper. That's not even close to being true.

 

So politifact simply makes the claim based on one persons claim

So politifact states pretty much what I have claimed from the beginning

 

You're really, really misreading that portion you keep snipping, without apparently taking into account the other words around what the Opinion delivered.

Congress did enact laws that excluded people -- the Chinese - and Wong Kim Ark struck it down -- and held that the Chinese Exclusion Act could not overrule the citizenship of those born in the U.S. to Chinese parents

 

If he could have shown that his parents were there at the time of his birth he would have been a citizen.

Congress brings it up a new bill every new Congress.

 

Neither does

You keep pretending to have done something you haven't yet done.

US common law.

Its a reason for affirming his status.

Gray states English Common Law was no longer used in the US after the DoI. US common law was read in light of English Common Law. Prior to 1866 only whites were allowed to be born citizens. If what you claim of English Common Law, then what does amity mean? Since English Common Law recognized ligeance and aliens in amity.

You have yet to prove anything other than an inability to actually answer the most basics of questions with proper citation.

 

That's all you do is cherrypick what you want to see. The vast majority of scholars are not on your side.

And the reality that nothing has happened in all these years that has effected any change, even when the GOP held all three - Senate, House, Executive, with a conservative SCOTUS - tells us how solidly the scholars have aligned, for the most part.

For decades legislators have tried to pass bills that restrict birthright citizenship - that go no where.

This is new voo-doo and language twisting, you and the new Trumpateers *wish* were the case. In a heartbeat, the law would be challenged. But hey, gohead and try.

Instantly after it's passed, (if it's passed) it will be challenged. Then and only then, is when you'll find your answer. And you likely won't be happy with it.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Trump supporters do not care about reality. It's like religion. It is only the chants that matter.

 

Proven both do.

Repeatedly demonstrated I have.

Specifically cited English common law.

Simply made note.

It means friendly nations. It has nothing to do with the status of the individual.

Except for proving you are wrong, with Supreme Court citations of course.

 

You do realize the 14th is merely declaratory of existing law, right?

Prior admins stated that illegals "may be" born citizens and that it was yet to be determined, not the declaratory wording we have since Obama took office. He has changed the FAM more then 3 times over the past 6 years.

Current law assumes they are, unless they hold a US Passport stating they are US citizens, they are simply assumed to be.

It doesn't bear any resemblance to modern laws? They had to enter via a port then and now. They had to provide legal documents, then and now. Treaties are no different, The Burlingame Treaty or the Visa Waiver Program, its all the same resemblance. That's not close to being true???