They need to revisit the
Elk vs. Wilkins decision. That is the "correct" ruling regarding the 14th Amendment; -because it actually takes into account the intentions of the people that drafted the Amendment.
In Elk, they ruled that birthright citizenship was only confered upon those that fell completely within the jurisdiction of the United States, and owing it "direct and immediate allegiance".
The Wong decision simply ignored the rulings laid down in the Elk and even Slaughterhouse decisions.
They need to revisit the Elk vs. Wilkins decision. That is the "correct" ruling regarding the 14th Amendment; -because it actually takes into account the intentions of the people that drafted the Amendment.
Elk v. Wilkins is of no help here. That's because Elk v. Wilkins dealt with Indians, which were a whole separate and distinct issue from all others born here to non-citizen parents.
Just after Howard put forth the citizenship clause, Senator Doolittle proposed that Howard's amendment be amended to include "excluding Indians not taxed," such that it would read, "All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside."
Senator Howard replied:
I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.
Most all of the debate on the citizenship clause concerned "Indians not taxed," and it is from those debates which informed the court in Elk v. Wilkins. And again, Indians were a whole separate and distinct issue, and has no relevance to those other than Indians.