Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rides3
Jeff, the U.S. Secretaries of State explicitly cited the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement in determining those men weren't U.S. citizens even though born in the U.S.

It doesn't matter whether they cited it in support of their claim or not. "Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" was never intended to exclude domiciled aliens. Period.

That they misused the phrase it in support of their denial of citizenship to children of domiciled aliens really doesn't matter in terms of what it meant.

The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling actually requires more than simply residence. It requires the parents to have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.

Arguably. Arguably, it didn't. It's arguable either way.

There actually is no law that supports your assertion.

There may not be any STATUTE that supports my assertion, but the rule of citizenship which has always applied supports it. The very definition of "natural born citizen" supports it.

119 posted on 04/25/2013 6:53:29 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Winston
It doesn't matter whether they cited it in support of their claim or not. "Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" was never intended to exclude domiciled aliens. Period.

Actually, that's not true. Birthright citizenship wasn't extended to the children of some aliens until the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision. And even then it was only extended to those whose parents had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth

120 posted on 04/25/2013 7:12:27 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson