***
@ 405, rxsid wrote:
The WKA decision is addressed in two ways:
1 (a). Their ruling applied only to lawful residents. It did not, of course, apply to those here illegally. It also did not apply to those not permanently domiciled here. Which would of course rule out situations like “birth tourism.”
(b)Which then means, any ambassador or other gov’t official who is a lawful permanent resident (one who isn’t a citizen, but also not here temporarily) can then have a child born here become a citizen. This, of course, would be absurd, but could be argued using the WKA decision.
2. This overreaching case can be overturned...just like the Dread Scott decision was (& others). Once a case goes to this supreme court, they only need to look to what the framers of the amendment stated. Their own words are plain as day as to what they meant and what the 14th Amendment was intended for.
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”
Plain as day.
.................................................................................................
The WKA decision is now brought up out of context to the current issue, as WKA’s parents were legal immigrants.
The issue for WKA is he went out of the country on business and stayed away for many years and came back. His citizenship was questioned when he returned.