Replies

Both George Will and Ann Coulter want to deny birthright citizenship to the children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Nothing about imposing a two citizen parent rule.

From Ann:

“For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.”

From George:

“Graglia says this decision “seemed to establish” that U.S. citizenship is “a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States.” So: “This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person’s citizenship than to make the source of that person’s presence in the nation illegal.”

Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is “not only without the government’s consent but in violation of its law.”

I agree with both, by the way.

Nothing about two parents. Notice that Ann like WKA?

Both George Will and Ann Coulter want to deny birthright citizenship to the children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Nothing about imposing a two citizen parent rule.

You DO have a knack for getting stuck in the weeds. Yes, they are specifically referring to Illegal Immigrants, but the BASIS by which they are saying they can be excluded is because they do not fit the criteria of "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof." Which is the SAME SITUATION that Barack Sr, as a Foreign National, illegally in our country was in. (He lied on his Visa Application. Had he told the truth, he would not have been allowed in the country.)

From Ann:

“For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

You even QUOTE the part that covers Barack Sr.!

It does not confer citizenship on the children of LEGAL TEMPORARY residents either.

Here is the Debate on the 14th Amendment. John Bingham (The Bill's Author) is Speaking.

Next you'll tell me the guy that WROTE the 14th Amendment is mistaken as to what it means. :)

Nothing about two parents. Notice that Ann like WKA?

The "Two Parents" is not mentioned because it was obvious and redundant. It is like saying "male and female Parents". You will notice that Ann uses the PLURAL of resident(s).

As for Wong Kim Ark, it can be interpreted three ways by my count. Two of them make sense, and the third one is YOUR interpretation.

1. It did not use the term "natural born citizen" and therefore does not address the issue of Presidential Eligibility at all. It declares the children of two Legal residents are "citizens" like any other "naturalized" citizen.

2. Even though it did not use the term "natural born citizen" which must have been left out by an inexplicable and amazing oversight, it DOES address Presidential eligibility, and holds that the Child of two parents permanently and legally domiciled inside the United States (except for Indians) are "natural born citizens" even though the debates on the 14th amendment indicate they had to be "Not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."

3. Anybody born here is a "natural born citizen." (Except for Indians.)

As you can see, the possibility which is most suited to the simple mind is the one you prefer.