But the elephant in the room is illegal aliens. These didn't exist in the time of Wong Kim Ark because there were no laws barring people from entering the country.So your intention of applying that section from Wong Kim Ark to modern America doesn't really work. It's not quite honest about the difference between how things worked then, and how things work now.
He swings... and he misses again.
14A apples to all persons.
Are you really giving me your best effort, or do you still lack zeal?
All persons 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.
Are you one of those who thinks that the Constitution morphs with time?
Or do you just have a terrible problem understanding the meaning of "all persons." Perhaps you think it means all persons except those without your approval?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329
31 CFR § 515.329 - Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;
(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.
[50 FR 27437, July 3, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003; 80 FR 2292, Jan. 16, 2015; 81 FR 13991, Mar. 16, 2016]
- - - - -
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.330
§ 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States;
(3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, which is owned or controlled by any person or persons specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.
(b) [Reserved]
[28 FR 6974, July 9, 1963, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003]
With the governments of all the Southern states replaced by Vichy governments with Union bayonets at their back, do you believe these occupation governments could legitimately ratify a constitutional amendment that was very much opposed by the people of their states?
Can constitutional amendments be ratified by Military controlled governments?
I have personally been told by Law Professor Glenn Reynolds at "Instapundit" that this particular topic is the subject of much debate in academic legal circles.
Which side of it do you fall on?