Birthright Citizenship: Game On!

Was it adjudicated that it included people who were here on non-immigrant visas who swore an oath that they had a domicile in their home country that they had no intention of abandoning and that they were only in this country temporarily?

I'll save you the trouble, it has... erroneously in my opinion... in the Wong Kim Ark decision by the same court that later ruled on racial segregation in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. Here's why:

I say that the Supreme Court was wrong in their ruling in UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., citing section 93 as the basis for my challenge.

93
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.

So far, so good. SCOTUS references "resident aliens" and "domiciled within the United States." At first, I assumed they were referring to Black's definition of "domiciled," but I was wrong. Very wrong.

SCOTUS continues...

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'

SCOTUS goes way off the reservation here, completely discarding the definition of "domicile" as described in the earlier portion of the text and in accordance with Black's Law definition. Now, "domicile" is construed to be "local and temporary," but yet "strong enough to make a natural subject." Also, "his child" is no longer subject to the law of "domicile of origin," but is now "as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen."

This is where any legal challenge to Wong Kim Ark should be directed.

SCOTUS finishes section 93...

It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.'

This last part is a non sequitur to the issue of "domicile." Being temporarily subject to our laws for the brief time that one is habitually residing here should not be strong enough to overrule "domicile," "domicile of origin," or to be put on par with a "resident alien."

I'd post all the rest of my boilerplate with the Black's Law definitions of all the terms that I cited, but that should be easily found here in my posting history.

SCOTUS should overturn the conclusions in section 93 of the Wong Kim Ark decision and cast off the notion that an alien here casually has the same strength of allegiance as someone who became a permanent resident alien.

-PJ

dersh came out against

Thank you, PJ. As many of us have said from the very beginning, and that beginning started with Barack Obama’s illegal presidency, there is only one definition for an Art. II, §1, Cl. 5 natural-born Citizen, and that is being born solely within the jurisdiction of two citizen-parents.

I most strenuously disagree and so would the founders and framers of the Constitution who had to deal with a multitude of still loyal British subjects living in our newly formed country after independence. Add to that the all-important fact that the Constitution added the office of Commander-in-Chief of all the nation’s armed services to the office of the presidency, the founders and framers had even reason to hold forth the highest criteria for the presidency.

Likewise, my objection to Wong. It allows the offspring of mere permanent residents to be considered natural-born Citizens, weakening that original resolve to set the highest qualifying criteria for the presidency.

I have no objection to granting birthright citizenship to the children of permanent residents living in this country. However, I become concerned when these children are classified as natural-born citizens under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. I would argue that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment is fundamentally a naturalization clause and should be interpreted as such, at birth or afterward.

Was it adjudicated that it included people who were here on non-immigrant visas who swore an oath that they had a domicile in their home country that they had no intention of abandoning and that they were only in this country temporarily?

I'll save you the trouble, it has... erroneously in my opinion... in the Wong Kim Ark decision by the same court that later ruled on racial segregation in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. Here's why:

I say that the Supreme Court was wrong in their ruling in UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., citing section 93 as the basis for my challenge.

93
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.

So far, so good. SCOTUS references "resident aliens" and "domiciled within the United States." At first, I assumed they were referring to Black's definition of "domiciled," but I was wrong. Very wrong.

SCOTUS continues...

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'

SCOTUS goes way off the reservation here, completely discarding the definition of "domicile" as described in the earlier portion of the text and in accordance with Black's Law definition. Now, "domicile" is construed to be "local and temporary," but yet "strong enough to make a natural subject." Also, "his child" is no longer subject to the law of "domicile of origin," but is now "as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen."

This is where any legal challenge to Wong Kim Ark should be directed.

One would expect a natural hierarchy of rights: Citizen > Permanent Resident Alien Visa > Non-Immigrant Alien Visa > Illegal Alien (no visa).

Citizens can vote and hold federal office.
Permanent Resident Aliens can remain here indefinitely and seek naturalization.
Non-Immigrants swear an oath that they have a permanent residence (domicile) in a foreign country that they have no intention of abandoning, and that their stay here is only temporary.
Illegals have no entry permission and must be sent home when caught.

And yet, SCOTUS in section 93 has put non-immigrants and illegal aliens on the same level as citizens!

SCOTUS finishes section 93...

It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.'

This last part is a non sequitur to the issue of "domicile." Being temporarily subject to our laws for the brief time that one is habitually residing here should not be strong enough to overrule "domicile," "domicile of origin," or to be put on par with a "resident alien" or "citizen.

SCOTUS should overturn the conclusions in section 93 of the Wong Kim Ark decision and cast off the notion that an alien here casually has the same strength of allegiance as someone who became a permanent resident alien or the child of citizen parents.

Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) Definitions:

Domicile: A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning.; The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile.; The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges.; The established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwellingplace or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence.; It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.; "Citizenship," "habitancy," and "residence" are severally words which in particular cases may mean precisely the same as "domicile," while in other uses may have different meanings.; "Residence" signifies living in particular locality while "domicile" means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home.

Domicile of origin: The home of the parents. That which arises from a man's birth and connections. The domicile of the parents at the time of birth, or what is termed the "domicile of origin," constitutes the domicile of an infant, and continues until abandoned, or until the acquisition of a new domicile in a different place.

Residence: Place where one actually lives or has his home; a person's dwelling place or place of habitation;; an abode; house where one's home is; a dwelling house.; Personal presence at some place of abode with no present intention of definite and early removal and with purpose to remain for undetermined period, not infrequently, but not necessarily combined with design to stay permanently.; Residence implies something more than mere physical presence and something less than domicile.

"Domicile" compared and distinguished
As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile.
Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home.
Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile.

Resident alien: One, not yet a citizen of this country, who has come into the country from another with the intent to abandon his former citizenship and to reside here.

-PJ

Yes, the amendment was made after a referendum which indicated the people's choice. Sounds like a good route to go. From your wiki link:

It was approved by referendum on 11 June 2004 and signed into law on 24 June of the same year.

If you look at the world map for “unconditional birthright citizenship” the adherents are mainly from the western hemisphere (north, central, south America). Other European countries usually have some kind of conditions on the births and rights.

All told, only about 30 countries are like the US.

I agree. That’s the operative clause needing specific clarification from the USSC.

I don’t think some cow from China here on a ‘birth tourism’ vacation qualifies to the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part because it is ONLY that part of their property, belongings or actions here in the US that are possibly subject....none of their home country interests are adjudicated, etc.

The Amendment was meant for the children of freed former slaves.

“The Amendment was meant for the children of freed former slaves.”

Yes, exactly. The Dems are twisting and distorting the original intent of the Amendment. They are using the same pathetic argument they used to try to keep President Trump off the ballot in 14 states last fall because he violated Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which bars any individual from holding federal or state office who has “engaged in insurrection.”

Birthright Citizenship BUMP!