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

To: Mr Rogers

Cherry picking is exactly what you are doing by citing the a couple of sentences from the dissent in WKA. The argument in the dissent is that the existing treaties with China (which didn’t allow foreign naturalization of its subjects) are not and cannot be overridden by the 14th amendment.

“In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.”


216 posted on 08/17/2010 7:41:15 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

I didn’t cherry pick WKA. I quoted several pages, covering the first part of their argument: that WKA was a natural born citizen, and thus a citizen. I have also posted the link to the entire decision for anyone to read.


218 posted on 08/17/2010 7:45:25 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | 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