Posted on 01/17/2016 3:30:54 PM PST by Walt Griffith
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
No. 18 Argued March 5, 8, 1897
Decided March 28, 1898
169 U.S. 649
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
"All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This was a writ of habeas corpus issued October 2, 1895, by the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California to the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco, in behalf of Wong Kim Ark, who alleged that he was a citizen of the United States, of more than twenty-one years of age, and was born at San Francisco in 1873 of parents of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, but domiciled residents at San Francisco, and that, on his return to the United States on the steamship Coptic in August, 1895, from a temporary visit to China, he applied to said collector of customs for permission to land, and was by the collector refused such permission, and was restrained of his liberty by the collector, and by the general manager of the steamship company acting under his direction, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, not by virtue of any judicial order or proceeding, but solely upon the pretence that he was not a citizen of the United States.
Do you usually let others do your thinking for you or just occasionally?
That’s because it wasn’t part of the case...just a bit of rebuttal.
Minor vs Happersett is more illuminating on natural born citizen
Ok. So it’s your take, or some other outside take, and should be evaluated vs. some case law or other authority. Thank you.
Here ya go...
I guess the customs agent picked on the Wong Kim.
Is this to which you are directing our attention:
“The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.”
The jus sanguinus quote is from alegal article on immigration and naturalization found on the findlaw site and carries no citation or official weight of law as a citation.
Nice patronizing pile of crap there my friend but I limit my discussion efforts to people that actually wish to intelligently debate.
Have a nice evening.
FWIW, I've studied the case law, and while the paragraph is technically correct, it is grossly misleading, and tends to lead the reader to false conclusions.
Well, so much for trying to challenge people to read and become informed so a civil discussion can be started.
Some have indicated they have knowledge of the case.
Very sad since it covers common law from China to US law in the late 1800.
The thread should just be pulled.
I said no such thing.
But sight me some actual determinate case law and I’ll listen.
I would say my replies have answered questions 1 and 3.
Of course, their conclusions are completely at odds with what all of the experts who were alive back then said at the time but keep on with your fantasizing. For example,no less a personage than George Mason, in the Virginia ratifying convention, said that American law is not English common law.
If that is so, then a person born of alien parents who are lawful residents of the Virgin Islands, are NBC, in the common vernacular. See 8 USC 1406. No naturalization process, citizens at birth, no citizenship requirement to the parents. Guam is similar, but phrased differently.
All persons born in the island of Guam on or after April 11, 1899 (whether before or after August 1, 1950) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States
“BOTH if his parents were NOT US Citizens at the time of his birth”
Are you sure about that.
I understand that you are not the author of that paragraph. I didn’t know until you pointed to a source. I initially said it was either yours or some other outside (of WKA) source.
You need to add "Admin Moderator" in the "To" box.
AFAIK "Walt Griffith" is the wrong person to ask to pull a thread.
Tell Andy Disney hi for me when you see him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.