Replies

What did you fix? You simply crossed out the first part of the 14th Amendment which is the definition of US citizenship and the paths in which it is acquired, naturally & naturalization, it is exclusive allegiance to the United States, either at birth or naturalization. And both paths wholly reply upon one being physically in the United States when the birth or naturalization takes place.

How come you never mention the allegiance requirement? Why ignore the Elk v Wilkins case? Why omit the Expatriation Act of 1868?

And as far as WKA goes, that case so abused by both parties to this discussion because they fail to actually go and study the entire history of WKA who, upon the coming of age sought a visa to reenter the US after visiting China. Upon that request, he had to formally renounce his Chinese citizenship and because he had never resided anywhere else but the US, that meant he had already fulfilled all the other requirements for naturalization and therefore, he did not have to go through the formal naturalization process. But since most are too lazy to go and actually do a thorough study of the case, they come up with this ignorant meme that somehow WKA introduced a new class of citizenship.

I am here to simply dispel this ignorance and correct the record so that we might have some hope of restoring the Constitution & US citizenship so future generations will actually have a future as a free citizen of the United States and the State wherein they reside.