Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: RegulatorCountry
It's not my usage, PugetSoundSoldier. It's the usage of Justice Horace Gray, of the father of the 14th Amendment and other authorities.

Please read again what was written by Justice Gray:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

If you're born on US soil and subject to US laws then you're a citizen. Tortured is trying to argue otherwise, when Justice Gray was quite explicit in his qualification.

At the time of Elk Indian reservations had their own laws and were not entirely subject to US law. That is why they were excluded, and why Gray added the qualifier. You appear to ignore that, and as a result end up with the illogical - and unconstitutional - position you hold.

Wong Kim Ark, who was denied citizenship despite resident alien parents who were themselves denied the option of naturalization by treaty with China.

FALSE. Wong Kim Ark was ruled a citizen by birth. Please see his case; the citizenship of his parents was immaterial to Ark's citizenship. He was a citizen by birth in the US. Your ignorance about the results of the Ark case is startling, but does explain why you hold an unconstitutional position.

57 posted on 05/08/2010 5:16:29 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: PugetSoundSoldier
I've provided Justice Gray's own writing, regarding the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and it clearly means political allegiance in the context of citizenship, PugetSoundSoldier. Go back and read it again.

You're tying yourself up in knots here. The reason for Wong Kim Ark's lawsuit was his being denied entry due to citizenship by immigration authorities at his port of return. That's why he sued. Why do you think he brought suit regarding his citizenship if he actually was regarded as a citizen at birth, at the time of his birth? Clearly he was not, and yet you'd create an anachronism that was not recognized by the courts at that time.

Wong Kim Ark was deemed a citizen on the basis of the 14th Amendment, an Amendment ratified to address the problem of certain States denying citizenship to former slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War. It had no bearing then, nor does it have bearing now, upon eligibility to the office of President, and even if by some flying backflip of logic it did, the original 14th Amendment citizens were not born citizens at all.

It's really not that hard, unless you want it to be. You want it to be.

58 posted on 05/08/2010 5:31:55 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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