Replies

The Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 expanded upon earlier efforts of John Ward in securing The Treaty Of Tianjin. An understanding of the principal of reciprocal extraterritoriality would likely be helpful to you, but it appears your grasp of domestic state and federal legislation is tenuous at best, let alone immigration law, constitutional law or international law. Chinese law, lol? It doesn't appear to have dawned upon you that Chinese subjects are under the jurisdiction of Chinese law even in the United States.

Suffice it to say that China claimed Chinese as subjects within the United States, and this included children born to subjects. The United States reciprocated in order to reach an agreement upon further opening China, to trade primarily but there was also a quaint desire to assist the spread of Christianity, too.

I suppose that offends your sensibilities as well. If so it doesn't change a thing as far as facts on the ground at the time, though. Modern sentiment does not constitute a time machine that somehow reaches back and erases law we now find disagreeable, no matter how hard the left tries to leave that impression.

Suffice it to say that China claimed Chinese as subjects within the United States, and this included children born to subjects.

I'll take your word for it.

US law said that persons born in the United States were US citizens, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents at the time they were born.

That in fact is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled.

And the treaties with China did not exclude children born to Chinese subjects resident here from that US law.

So you claim that the decision in Wong abrogated the treaty. But you can't point to any clause in the treaty that the decision abrogated.

In other words, your claim was complete BS. Just like I said. Because there WAS no clause in the treaty that was overruled by the Court in Wong.

Gee. This is pretty predictable. A birther says something, I say it's BS, we explore it further, and lo and behold - it turns out to be BS.

I suppose that offends your sensibilities as well.

By no means. I'm not offended by Christianity at all. In fact, I just got back from church.

The principle of citizenship that you want to pretend doesn't exist, by the way, was originally FOUNDED upon St. Paul's writings in the Bible.

Modern sentiment does not constitute a time machine that somehow reaches back and erases law we now find disagreeable, no matter how hard the left tries to leave that impression.

Then why are you trying so hard to substitute your ideas for what the Founding Fathers SHOULD have done, for what they actually did?