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

To: Rides3; SeekAndFind
Jindal is a U.S. citizen via U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but not necessarily a 'natural born citizen' for the purpose of Constitutional Presidential eligibility.

If he falls under Wong Kim Ark, then he's a natural born citizen. The question is whether WKA covers the children of temporary residents.

If it does, then he's good. If not, then he might or might not be.

153 posted on 04/26/2013 9:36:23 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Winston; Rides3

Here’s my personal view — If the 14th Amendment’s Interpretation is UNCLEAR and DEBATABLE, then I believe an amendment to it is in order today.

If we only want to limit babies born of US citizens or LEGAL permanent residents to have birthright citizenship ( as I do ) and exclude those babies born of parents who are here illegally, WE OUGHT TO CLEARLY STATE THIS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

This cannot be done by mere legislation from Congress.


155 posted on 04/26/2013 9:48:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Winston
If he falls under Wong Kim Ark, then he's a natural born citizen.

No. Wong Kim Ark wasn't ruled a natural born citizen. He was ruled "a citizen" ONLY.

Gray had been given the perfect opportunity to redefine U.S. born citizen and even 'natural born citizen' as native-born without regard to parents' status when writing the ruling. But after all the verbal meandering and quotes, he specifically did not do so:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Remember that those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent, if they meet nationality law requirements, are ALSO at the time of their birth a citizen of the U.S. That does NOT make them 'natural born citizens' for Constitutional purposes. The U.S. State Dept confirms such:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

158 posted on 04/26/2013 10:06:29 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | 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