Babies and Immigration Reform (Not one word in the 844-page law mentions Birthright Citizenship)

American Thinker ^ | 04/24/2013 | Cindy Simpson

[Rides3]

That is why we need a Constitutional Amendment to SPECIFICALLY address this issue. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.

We already have one. All we need to do is to actually adhere to it and stop with the political 'policy' of wink, wink... legally, you're not a citizen but we'll "deem" you to be one anyway.

The children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens were never meant to have birthright U.S. citizenship. If their parents actually DO naturalize at some later time, they can acquire U.S. citizenship that way.

[Jeff Winston]

I disagree. There have been several rulings by U.S. Secretaries of State stating EXACTLY such in denying U.S. citizenship to those born in the U.S. to temporarily resident aliens, AFTER ratification of the 14th Amendment.

And have there been any since 1898? Can you name even one?

When it comes to a Secretary of State, versus a federal court, federal court trumps.

[Rides3]

And have there been any since 1898? Can you name even one?

The primary factor in considering precedence established by the court is the question asked and answered and Gray was very specific in the Wong Kim Ark ruling....

"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"

"The single question" asked and answered: 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.

Parents' status matters in regards to whether one born in the U.S. is a born citizen.

Put an end to the political 'policy' of wink, wink... legally, you're not a citizen but we'll "deem" you to be one anyway.

[Jeff Winston]

The primary factor in considering precedence established by the court is the question asked and answered and Gray was very specific in the Wong Kim Ark ruling....

So the answer is "No."

I agree that the Wong decision leaves enough wiggle room for someone to challenge the status of children born to temporary visitors. I don't think it leaves enough wiggle room for them to actually prevail in such a challenge.

And if you disagree, that's fine.