Replies

Birthright citizenship for the children of persons in the Country ILLEGALLY was a judicial misinterpretation of Article 14 in the 1889 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case:

“The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents.”

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

Here is a little more:

Using native Americans as a reference to show that “born on soil” does not always confer “natural born Citizen” status:

“After the Civil War when citizenship rights were extended through the Fourteenth Amendment to ex-slaves and to ‘{All} persons BORN or naturalized in the United States,’ that Amendment still excluded individual Indians from citizenship rights and excluded them from being counted towards figuring congressional representation unless they paid taxes. This demonstrates that Congress still considered Indians to be citizens of OTHER sovereign governments even in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” (emphases mine)

http://www.flashpointmag.com/amindus.htm

STE=Q