[Political Junkie Too]

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

[batazoid]

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.