Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Raider Sam

>> “Actually, the US vs Wong Kim Ark supports the opposite” <<

.
No, it was not. Here is the exact wording from WKA:

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

That wording was copied from Minor v Happersett.

Two citizen parents was the standard of the time.


86 posted on 07/16/2011 8:50:32 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: editor-surveyor

That is only the first part of the ruling, and was not the part in question. All that says is that children of citizens are naturally born. It does not say that children of non-citizens are naturally born. And in WKA, the court went on to say that Ark was a citizen at birth because his parents had been living under the US jurisdiction and not acting as agents for China.


90 posted on 07/16/2011 9:00:23 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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