14 states may target birthright citizenship

“Granting citizenship rewards bad behavior IMHO and teaches the 2nd generation the wrong thing.”

As opposed to not granting them anything and letting them stay?

“Why does being a citizen matter when the checks don’t care?” Answer, very little. “Why should we bother to learn english?”

The current laws aren’t being enforced. In order for any of this to be effective the current laws must be enforced.

I’m not going to re-post your response here - too long ...

1. You OBVIOUSLY DON’T KNOW how the Supreme Court works. It takes an issue and rules in a narrowly constrained way. Take the seminal Wong Kim Ark Case. Ark argued that he was a citizen under the 14th Amendment by being born in the US of LEGAL immigrants. The Court noted Calvin’s Case from England as MAJOR guidance to the decision, but in the end, ruled solely on the basis of Ark’s assertion. The Court ruled that YES, a child of LEGAL immigrants IS a citizen of the US.

2. Your assertion that ANY child born in the US is under US jurisdiction is ludicrous and falacious. The Court, in ARK, DISAGREED with you. The Court agreed with Calvin’s Case that a child [born in the US] of an enemy IS NOT a citizen.

3. Just because the Mexican government is an ally DOES NOT MEAN that ALL of its citizens are. Take, for example, Mexicans who may be terrorists - are their children [born in the US] citizens?

4. The English Common Law stated that ANY stranger who DID NOT seek permission of the Sovreign to dwell in ENGLAND was an enemy AND a spy. Their children, born in England, WERE NOT subjects.

5. Subjects [and citizens] owe an allegiance to the Sovreign - and [likewise] the Sovreign has a duty to protect them. BUT, a Sovreign CANNOT be held to hold up his end if an alien DOES NOT make a PROPER application to remain in-country. By international treaties, shipwrecked sailors [starting in the 1200s] were allowed to remain on foreign soil until they could return to their homeland [which might be many years]. HOWEVER, immediately after being shipwrecked, they had to report to the local government. Otherwise, they risked being executed when caught.

Summing up, the ONLY decision EVER made by the Supreme Court concerning citizenship was that a child of LEGAL immigrants is a citizen under the 14th Amendment. And, while the Court asserted that children of “enemies” ARE NOT citizens, the Court HAS NEVER ruled on it and HAS NEVER ruled that illegal immigrants are “enemies”. On the other hand, the Court has ALSO NOT ruled illegal immigrants as friends.

Some day, if one of the laws being proposed as the subject of this thread is enacted, a case of a child [born to ILLEGAL immigrants] WILL come before the Court. THEN, the Court will have to decide whether of not such a child is a citizen.

Until the, keep your backyard constitutional interpretations to yourself. Read the cases, do the legwork - and fill your posts with legal citations. Otherwise, your pontifications on the 14th Amendment are PURE conjecture ...

“2. Your assertion that ANY child born in the US is under US jurisdiction is ludicrous and falacious. The Court, in ARK, DISAGREED with you. The Court agreed with Calvin’s Case that a child [born in the US] of an enemy IS NOT a citizen.”

There was a post already in the thread which dealt with your argument. I fail to see the need to repeat the argument made (not by me), but by another poster as to why your interpretation of the Supreme court decision does not apply today.

“the Court HAS NEVER ruled on it and HAS NEVER ruled that illegal immigrants are “enemies”.”

And that, dear sir, ends your argument. Thanks for your post.

Of course you can deport the parents, you don’t reward them for breaking the law. They can either take their child with them, or leave them behind. Deport them.

“the Court HAS NEVER ruled on it and HAS NEVER ruled that illegal immigrants are “enemies”.”

And that, dear sir, ends your argument. Thanks for your post.

Why don't you MAN-UP and copy my post AS WRITTEN?

And, while the Court asserted that children of “enemies” ARE NOT citizens, the Court HAS NEVER ruled on it and HAS NEVER ruled that illegal immigrants are “enemies”. On the other hand, the Court has ALSO NOT ruled illegal immigrants as friends.

You take 1/2 of my point to attempt to "justify" your rationalization. I could just have easily ONLY said:

"The Court has NOT ruled illegal immigrants as friends."

And THAT, dear sir, would end your argument, given your way of thinking.

BUT, NEITHER ONE of our assertions would be correct. Just because the Court HAS NOT ruled for one way DOES NOT make the opposite true - and vice versa.

The plain, simple fact is that the Court has NEVER had the question put before it [as evidenced in the article that is the subject of this thread]:

"A 19th-century Supreme Court precedent also backs that interpretation, though no Supreme Court case has yet dealt with the issue of offspring of illegal immigrant parents.”

The CLOSEST the Court has come is in United States v. Wong Kim Ark [1898], where the SINGLE, SOLITARY, AND ONLY question resolved was whether a child born in the United States to LEGAL immigrants is a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment. And, the answer is yes.

BUT, the Ark Case DOES NOT encompass the status of a child born within the United States to ILLEGAL immigrants.

It remains to be decided by the Supreme Court.

“The Court has NOT ruled illegal immigrants as friends.”

So? Doesn’t mean that they’ve ruled them to be enemies. Another principle of the English common law is innocence before proven guilty. There’s a good reason they haven’t ruled that they are enemies.

“The plain, simple fact is that the Court has NEVER had the question put before it [as evidenced in the article that is the subject of this thread]”

Also put in the thread is the acknowledgment that there is legislation in place which has settled this issue. But that would involve going back and reading the thread.

I’m not going to repost what they posted.

“It remains to be decided by the Supreme Court.”

An excellent point on which to end the thread. You’d like them to rule one way, and I’d like them to rule the other.

Good day sir.

That would require a change in the law. I’d support this change, but you can’t regulate the border until you have control over it, and I’m pretty sure that the southern AZ border is having serious issues with maintaining control south of the interstate.

That needs to be rectified.

Also put in the thread is the acknowledgment that there is legislation in place which has settled this issue.

It has NOT been settled. There are only two AND ONLY TWO ways for it to be settled [BOTH of which have never been done].

1. A ruling [one way or the other] from the Supreme Court as to what is constitutional under the EXISTING Constitution. In this case, the citizenship of a child [born in the United States] to parents who are illegal.

2. A Constitutional Amendment ratified by 3/4 of the States stating that children born in the US to illegal immigrants ARE [OR ARE NOT] citizens. This would trump any previous ruling of the Court [if existing] as in #1, above.

The fact that there is a "regulation" or "legislation" that has been passed DOES NOT mean it is settled. Otherwise, why have a Constitution in the first place - if legislation can supercede it? When the DEMs are in power - they would wholesale change all of our laws to their liking. And when the GOP is in power, they would switch it back.

Posters on this thread have tried to point out to you the simple basics of Constitutional Law. You either don't or won't acknowledge that you CLEARLY have NO CLUE as to how our government works.

One, as you have admitted, the case you cited does not state that illegal immigrants are automatically considered to be ‘enemies’.

Therefore, the argument that there exist legal precedents ruling that illegal immigrants ought to be considered enemies and that their children should be stripped of citizenship is false.

There’s been no supreme court ruling to confirm your analysis, which is why you desire legislation to change the laws currently in place.

There is in fact a constitutional amendment which confirms birthright citizenship, so it seems to me that should you wish to change the law, you would need to meet the same standard as the 14 amendment. To alter the 14th to create again a permanent underclass of non-citizens is a poor use of our time and gets away from the real issues.

1, securing the border.
2, making America more attractive for hardworking legal immigrants and less attractive for illegal immigrants.

Fix both those things and you’ve solved the problem.

One, as you have admitted, the case you cited does not state that illegal immigrants are automatically considered to be ‘enemies’.

Therefore, the argument that there exist legal precedents ruling that illegal immigrants ought to be considered enemies and that their children should be stripped of citizenship is false.

There’s been no supreme court ruling to confirm your analysis, which is why you desire legislation to change the laws currently in place.

And there HAS NOT been a Supreme Court ruling supporting your assertion, that the children of illegal immigrants are citizens.

I don't desire legislation, the Supreme Court taking a case and deciding would be good enough for me - either way. However, they are scared sh*tless to take a case, its too political for them. They have been able to dodge it successfully so far for over 230 years - but if one of the States passes a law denying citizenship to the child of an illegal [and the child sues], the Court WOULD NOT be able to avoid the case due to "lack of standing".

Or by Constitutional Amendment [again declaring either way], by 3/4 of the States [the will of the People].

And your assertion that since there has been no ruling that children of illegals are NOT citizens, then this makes them citizens is TOTALLY bogus. You would MAJORLY fail both Logic 101 and Debate 101.

There is in fact a constitutional amendment which confirms birthright citizenship

That citizenship is conferred by BOTH birth within the US and being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". And, as I have pointed out to you - it is the jurisdiction that is in question.

Without precedent as to "jurisdiction" [vis-a-vis illegal parents], the Court has noted many times that it is INDEED proper to resort to English Common Law in order to determine the issue [Minor v. Happersett, for example].

And, as I have pointed out, English Common Law treated undocumented aliens as enemies AND their children [born in England] NOT to be English subjects.

Give me a Supreme Court Case cite that backs your argument up - you cannot because NONE exist.

“And there HAS NOT been a Supreme Court ruling supporting your assertion, that the children of illegal immigrants are citizens.”

Correct. Which is why there’s a 14th Amendment which says that this is the case. You can argue that it’s the wrong interpretation, but from where I sit, that’s a pretty high evidentiary standard.

The 14th was put in place, because there were no alternatives that would permit the US to make everyone born in US territory to become Americans.

Please understand that things were not so simple back then. A full third of the continental united states, lived in Territories, under the direct administration of the US. They had never had state government.

Then you have the citizens of Mexico, in California, Texas and in the US south that had been patriated in Guadaloupe-Hildago. Then you have the folks in Florida, born under the Spanish crown. Then you have all the different indian tribes. And we haven’t even gotten to the slaves yet! Or the immigrants who were born outside of America! Or all the folks in the South.

Yes, the 14th is radical, but I don’t see how you can come up with a solution that works out for all of these people such that they will be American citizens, other than what was passed in the 14th Amendment.

Why the caveat? The infant can make only decisions in accordance with the parents?

YES, you numbskull. The Law does not recognize the ability of a newborn infant to make ANY decisions for itself whatsoever. None. Zilch. Nada. So what the newborn may or may not personally want, even theoretically, is never even part of the equation in the first place. That is something that the Law simply circumvents altogether. Period.

The child has known nothing but America, and I see no rationale to deny that the child is anything but American.

Wrong again. The infant doesn't even know what country it's in, or even what a country is. The infant doesn't even have the ability to select a name for itself.

The only thing the infant registers is a lot of raw sensory data.

That is not how the law has always worked. The law has been blunt, but clear. You are an American citizen if you are born on American soil. Period.

Wrong. That is precisely why the clause has TWO different criteria necessary for birthright citizenship : born within the U.S. AND subject to the (complete) jurisdiction thereof.

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was written into the Amendment for specific reasons, it was simply not placed there for decorative purposes.

Now you may wish to change the law, but arguing that the child must be born ‘under the jurisdiction’ of America, does not mean what you think it means.

It does so. The people who wrote the amendment said so. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is all about allegiance.

Automatic birthright citizenship for children born of foreigners ( in genereal) wasn't always a reality; -either at the state or federal level.

You do realise that birthright citizenship is opposed by the system that came before it, that a certain class of people was not considered to be a citizen of America, simply because of the colour of their skin. That has changed. The inevitable consequence of eliminating the 14th is to bring slavery back to America

Bullshit. Slavery and involuntary servitude were specifically outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment.

No one is talking about excluding birthright citizenship based on race, but on immigrant status. This is already the way 99 percent of the countries on the planet operate ( they don't actually provide birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants ).

And just because you don't award birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants does not make you a nation that sanctions or promotes slavery. That is utterly preposterous.

Children born of illegal immigrants from England, Cananda, Ireland, Denmark, or Sweden would not be awarded U.S. citizenship, for example. So your pathetic attempt to play the race card just failed right there.

If there are citizens and a class of ‘non-citizens’ who were born in America, who cannot vote, who cannot participate in civil society, then we shall return to the days where not all people are equal. We must gage people based on their actions, not the actions of their parents.

More horsesh*t.

But we still send the children of illegals back with their parents, when the parents are deported. We even routinely do this now with the children of illegals born inside the U.S. ( the child is allowed to return to live in the U.S. after they become an adult).

There have always been two classes of people in this country, citizens and non-citizens.

And even non-citizens participate fully in "civil" society. My own mother was a classic example. With the exception of voting in public elections, she did everything a citizen does, and then some.

And even individuals who are not citizens can ultimately participate as ( naturalized ) citizens, via the naturalization process.

Thank you. So the child then cannot be a Mexican.

YES IT CAN. Because birthright citizenship is actually determined through the parents, not the personal decisions or determinations of a newborn infant.

Every country realizes that there will be some of its citizens who wind up giving birth to children outside of the country, for a multitude of reasons. Therefore, countries do allow ( and make provisions for ) their citizens who give birth to children outside of the country, to have/secure citizenship for those children.

This sort of thing happens throughout the world on daily basis.

And although the parents are illegal immigrants, -they are still citizens of Mexico; every bit as much as citizens who still reside within that country. Therefore that child winds up with Mexican citizenship just as if they were born in Mexico.

Yes, it is simply born within the US. Do you believe that the children of legal immigrants ought to be considered non-citizens? Do you believe that the children born to legal immigrants, who also immigrate with the family ought not to be considered Americans when they take the oath.

I would say children of legal residents get birthright citizenship. Just because you're a tourist, doesn't mean you have allegiance to this county. If you or I are tourists in a given country, we can't possibly claim allegiance to that country, now can we...? No.

Children born without birthright U.S. citizenship still have the citizenship of their parents.

Immigrants, who become naturalized citizens, ought to have their children, who are minors, and who have also been residing in this country with them, also become naturalized citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment wasn't about birthright citizenship per se ( birthright citizenship already existed for citizens ), or about immigrants in general,- but really about American Blacks; - ex slaves and their children. And integrating them into American society in the post Civil War era.

“YES, you numbskull”

Eh, I really don’t see what namecalling does to advance your argument. For a self-proclaimed conservative, that’s really not good form.

“The Law does not recognize the ability of a newborn infant to make ANY decisions for itself whatsoever”

Then there’s no reason to assume that the child has made the decision to become a Mexican citizenship. I think it’s wrong to judge a man by the actions of their parents, something for which they had no control.

The advantage of birthright citizenship is that everyone has exactly the same status if they are born in America. We don’t have a permanent underclass.

“Wrong. That is precisely why the clause has TWO different criteria necessary for birthright citizenship : born within the U.S. AND subject to the (complete) jurisdiction thereof.”

And the second clause does not exclude the child born in America to illegal immigrants. There is no court ruling to confirm your assertion, nor is there legislation. Which is why you are trying to change the law.

“Bullshit. Slavery and involuntary servitude were specifically outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment.”

Excluding a certain class of people from citizenship is no different then slavery and fails the equal protection clause. Again, you would have us accept your understanding of the second clause, and then turn around and argue that the 14th was completely unnecessary.

That’s not a very solid argument. If, in fact the 14th is necessary, then why are both clauses there. The reason is because there were all kinds of circumstances that a person could have been born in American territory, and yet, at their birth, was not under the jurisdiction of America. Even today, anyone older than 51 in Alaska or Hawaii invokes this clause, as the territory is considered to be under the direct jurisdiction thereof.

It also includes military bases, etc. A fact you all to willingly conceded quite some time ago.

“No one is talking about excluding birthright citizenship based on race, but on immigrant status.”

Immigrant status does not apply to the child. Again. We’ve discussed this for a long time. The child is not an immigrant, because they were born in America. They know nothing else but America. Gaging a person based on their parents is no different that gaging them based on their race, or any other irrelevant exterior quality.

“Children born of illegal immigrants from England, Cananda, Ireland, Denmark, or Sweden would not be awarded U.S. citizenship, for example. So your pathetic attempt to play the race card just failed right there.”

Appealing to foreign law? Would you prefer sharia simply because other nations do it? No. So why would the fact that ‘other nations do it this way’, say that America should do it this way? This is a leftist argument, and unworthy of debate.

Yes, each nation has their own immigration standards. Why would it be beneficial to America to inflict European immigration standards on themselves?

“But we still send the children of illegals back with their parents, when the parents are deported. We even routinely do this now with the children of illegals born inside the U.S. ( the child is allowed to return to live in the U.S. after they become an adult).”

No, sorry. They are routinely deported if the illegal immigrants were all born outside of the US. And I would question ‘routinely’. Even in the case of proven status, deporting anyone is difficult.

“And although the parents are illegal immigrants, -they are still citizens of Mexico; every bit as much as citizens who still reside within that country. Therefore that child winds up with Mexican citizenship just as if they were born in Mexico.”

So if the children are Mexican because they have Mexican parents how does that make you an American? Wouldn’t you be English?

What if the parents of the Mexican citizens, the grandparents of the child were born in America? Would they still be Mexican or American?

Birthright citizenship makes this simple. Are you born in America? Then you are American, regardless of what other citizenship you may also possess. It cannot be taken away by the state. This is an important principle, because if the state decided who is and was a citizen, then it is very easy for this power to be abused, such that the state will strip political dissidents.

“The Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t about birthright citizenship per se ( birthright citizenship already existed for citizens ), or about immigrants in general,- but really about American Blacks; - ex slaves and their children. And integrating them into American society in the post Civil War era.”

I agree. Removing said clause would have the same effect, in creating another underclass of not-Citizens who had no role in their not-citizenship.

There is no court ruling to confirm your assertion, nor is there legislation.

I have just about had enough of your crap ...

There is no Supreme Court ruling that supports your position or mine. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

The Ark case decided ONLY that a child of LEGAL immigrants is a citizen.

And, just because there isn't a ruling that declares children of illegals NOT TO BE citizens DOESN'T MEAN that they are. And, likewise, just because there isn't a ruling that declares children TO BE citizens DOESN'T MEAN that they aren't.

This is why we are having the discussion. On our side, we give you plenty of ACTUAL historical law as to why they aren't. You, on the other hand WHINE that because there isn't a decision that they aren't THEN they are.

BUT, you have NO historical law to back you up - just your incessant babbling. I have asked for it from you - REPEATEDLY, although I already knew the answer would be THAT YOU CAN'T since it doesn't exist. All you have is your half-baked opinion.

Your circular reasoning only goes to prove that you are a miserable, incompetant simp.

“There is no Supreme Court ruling that supports your position or mine. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.”

That is because there is an Amendment to the constitution which already has stated that those who are born in America are American citizens.

You are trying to convince me that the fact that you position lacks a supreme court ruling in support is advantageous to your position. It is not. Quite the opposite.

“The Ark case decided ONLY that a child of LEGAL immigrants is a citizen.”

The Ark case says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants, therefore it doesn’t support your argument. The law does not work that way.

“And, just because there isn’t a ruling that declares children of illegals NOT TO BE citizens DOESN’T MEAN that they are.”

Actually, the 14th Amendment explicitly states that they are citizens. Lacking a supreme court ruling in your favour, simply states that it is your opinion alone that those who are born to illegal immigrants ought not to be citizens.

Which is fair enough. I disagree with your opinion, and I disagree that removing birthright citizenship will do much to stem the tide, when you can get all the benefits of citizenship without actually being a citizen.

“This is why we are having the discussion. On our side, we give you plenty of ACTUAL historical law”

And we cited actual historical legislation to the contrary. Which is why you are trying to change the law. It’s one thing to argue that the law ought to be changed. I personally disagree that the law ought to be changed, and I think there are some very good reasons why it should stay the same. You disagree. Fair enough.

If the American people decide that they do not wish to have birthright citizenship, then they can amend the constitution. Until then, those born in America will be considered Americans with all the associated privileges and responsibilities.

“BUT, you have NO historical law to back you up”

It is called the 14th Amendment, which explicitly says that all those who are born in America are American citizens. Now you can argue that the intent was never to apply to the children of illegal immigrants, but there is a distinct lack of jurisprudence to confirm your opinion.

“Your circular reasoning only goes to prove that you are a miserable, incompetant simp.”

I would have thought that those ‘conservatives’ arguing their position could do so without personal attacks. Apparently, I was quite wrong. These tactics are very common among liberals, and rather then being shocking or effective, simply confirms in my mind that this is not a truly conservative position on the issue.

That is because there is an Amendment to the constitution which already has stated that those who are born in America are American citizens.

You keep ignoring the operative phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Thats because you can't defend it. Perhaps you believe that if you ignore it, it will go away. It won't.

I admit that my position has never been settled - you, OTOH, won't admit that your position has never been settled either.

I keep saying that this is a question that the Court [or the States] have to decide - you say that it has been decided already. This is not true. The citizenship of such a child of illegal immigrants has never been decided. Why are you afraid of the Court visiting this issue? Is it because you know that there is no data to back up your position?

I started out in FR believing the same as you do - then, other posters told me to do the research. I did. Since there is no precedent, the Court has stated that it is proper to resort to English Common Law in order to reach a decision. Per Common Law, there is a plethora of evidence that indicates that such children [of illegals] are not citizens. That is because the illegal parents were considered enemies and NOT under the jurisdiction. As such, their children were NOT under the jurisdiction either. There is NO evidence [per Common Law] that indicates otherwise.

However, our system of laws and justice dictate that it is either the Court or the States [through Constitutional Amendment] to decide. I have stated that and will abide accordingly. You, OTOH, seem to believe that it is your interpretation that is the final arbiter.

This situation is akin to a woman breaking into an unoccupied house, giving birth in the house, living there for lets say 18 years with the child, then being found to be trespassing.

Your position would remove the mother from the premises, but let the child remain simply because he was born there. ABSURD !!!

“You keep ignoring the operative phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Is there a Supreme Court ruling that affirms your interpretation? No? That’s a shame.

“This is not true. The citizenship of such a child of illegal immigrants has never been decided.”

It has been decided, by the states in the 14th Amendments, not the courts.

“Why are you afraid of the Court visiting this issue?”

Where did I say I was afraid of anything? Take it up to the Supreme Court, and see what they say. Until they rule, or the states successfully amend the constitution, the law states that they are citizens.

“You, OTOH, seem to believe that it is your interpretation that is the final arbiter.”

It has been ratified by all 37 states that were in the union at the time. Ohio and New Jersey were the last two, both of whom ratified the 14th Amendment in 2003.

I abide by the decision of those 37 states to confirm the 14th Amendment.

“This situation is akin to a woman breaking into an unoccupied house, giving birth in the house, living there for lets say 18 years with the child, then being found to be trespassing.”

How so? I’ve stated that the state has an interest in deporting the mother. The state also has an interest in the welfare of the child.

“Your position would remove the mother from the premises, but let the child remain simply because he was born there. ABSURD !!!”

Absolutely, if that is what the mother chooses. The alternative is that the mother would choose to bring her child along with her, and they both would leave the country.

The child would retain their citizenship rights, and could return when they have reached the age of majority. Otherwise the child will be placed into adoption.

Is it a perfect solution? No. 80 percent of the time it will result in the exact same result as yours.

It has been decided, by the states in the 14th Amendments, not the courts.

By your reasoning, United States v. Wong Kim Ark would never have gotten to the Supreme Court. All Ark would have had to say is, "It has already been decided by the States through the 14th Amendment."

In Marbury v. Madison, the Court asserted the right of judicial review. As Justice Marshall wrote:

" ... it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. ..."

NOW, since you don't know how the Supreme Court works, I'll tell you. The Court rules on the facts presented in a particular case - not all of the permutations. No "If its Tuesday it must be Belgium, except in months that end in 'R'" scenarios. Just the facts presented before it.

Need proof? Lets look at Wong Kim Ark. I'll start with the ruling paragraph at the end of the opinion:

" ... 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.

And what are the facts alluded to in the ruling paragraph? Lets go back to the beginning of the opinion:

" ... The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco ..."

And, what was that single question allude to by the Court? Lets go back again to the beginning of the opinion, just after the facts:

... "The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ..."

Hmmm - didn't I see that the Court said that it ruled ONLY rule on a single question? YES, I DID. And, notice that [in the question] the parents have permanent domicil within the United States.

So, there WAS NO RULING on the child born in the United States to illegal aliens.

And, FYI, permanent domicil, at law, can only be established through legal residency. Which, per federal law AND English Common Law, cannot be established by illegal aliens since they are subject to deportation when identified. Wong Kim Ark's parents WERE NOT subject to deportation since they had LEGALLY registered upon their initial entry into the United States. Thus, they were able to establish permanent domicil.