Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Publius6961
Do any legal types out there have a clue as to what court decision established that the children of the persons actually listed could claim citizenship?
Although, clearly, that was not the intent.
9 posted on 04/24/2005 9:03:47 AM PDT by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Publius6961
Thank Ted Kennedy.

1965 Immigration Reform Act

20 posted on 04/24/2005 9:37:16 AM PDT by TheOracleAtLilac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961
Do any legal types out there have a clue as to what court decision established that the children of the persons actually listed could claim citizenship?

Cannot find any. In fact, through 1898 the Supreme Court consistently ruled the opposite. Even Native Americans born on reservations were deemed not to be US Citizens.

Link

38 posted on 04/24/2005 10:49:09 AM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961
Do any legal types out there have a clue as to what court decision established that the children of the persons actually listed could claim citizenship?

In Wong Kim Ark v. United States (1898), the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment conferred citizenship on anyone born here, except for children of foreign diplomats (who had diplomatic immunity, and thus were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.) and American Indians born in those parts of Indian country which were still sovereign and had not been subjected to U.S. law.

96 posted on 04/26/2005 11:39:18 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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