Lion of the Blogosphere

Wong Kim Ark and illegal aliens

The lying fakestream media says that U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) says that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional.

They have not bothered to understand the law.

Wong Kim Ark’s parents were permanently domiciled in California at the time of his birth.

Illegal immigrants are not permanently domiciled in the United States, because they are here illegally. Also, they are not living in “obedience” to the United States because if they had been obeying U.S. law they wouldn’t have been here in the first place.

The Court specifically said that children born of foreign occupiers are not entitled to citizenship.

The concept of illegal aliens didn’t exist at the common law of England so was never discussed in old cases. But today’s illegal aliens are like foreign occupiers who are not entitled to citizenship.

* * *

Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, agrees with me. Maybe he has been reading my blog?

He writes for Fox News:

Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. But that decision only stands for the very narrow proposition that children born of lawful, permanent residents are U.S. citizens.

The high court decision says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants or the children of tourists, students, and other foreigners only temporarily present in this country being automatically considered U.S. citizens.

By the way, just kidding about him reading my blog. It’s just the plain common sense understanding of the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions. Anyone with half a brain would conclude the same thing as me or Mr. von Spakovsky.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 31, 2018 at EDT am

Posted in Immigration, Law

39 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Capital reasoning, Lion!

    Yakov

    October 31, 2018 at EDT am

  2. At the least, the text of the 14th Amendment is ambiguous enough to deserve a court challenge, but it seems to me that who is and isn’t a citizen is defined in law, 8 U.S. Code § 1401, not the 14th Amendment. So I think Graham’s proposed legislation would constitutionally solve the issue nicely. However the forces that want to grant US citizenship to all 7 billion people on this planet will keep this in court for years.

    So hopefully Trump adds another SC justice.

    Mike Street Station

    October 31, 2018 at EDT am

    • 8 U.S. Code § 1401 only repeats the first sentence of the 14th Amendment and doesn’t add anything.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 31, 2018 at EDT am

      • Right, the law is as ambiguous as the 14th Amendment. So what happens if 1401’s text is changed by legislation?

        Mike Street Station

        October 31, 2018 at EDT am

      • There are two type of citizenship: Constitutional citizenship and citizenship granted by congressional statute. Congress can extend citizenship beyond what the Constitution requires, but can’t take it away.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 31, 2018 at EDT am

      • That brings up an interesting OT question: Can Congress remove Puerto Rican’s citizenship if the island is ever granted independence? It would seem not.

        Anyway, I support the proposed Graham legislation. Let’s change the law, let it go through the courts, and if the Supreme Court does affirm that the 14th protects birthright citizenship, then on to the next step of constitutional amendment.

        Mike Street Station

        October 31, 2018 at EDT am

    • Ultimately the problem is the extent of judicial review. Because even if the current Court sides with Trump, if liberals ever took control of the Supreme Court again, they would just reverse the decision.

      Hermes

      October 31, 2018 at EDT am

    • “the forces that want to grant US citizenship to all 7 billion people on this planet ”

      They want to give them all free health care and education too.

      Rosenmops

      October 31, 2018 at EDT am

  3. Interesting. But the fourteenth amendment, which is the main source of the argument for *jus soli*, says “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” On the surface, this seems to be enough justification for birthright citizenship. That is, everyone in the United States, whatever his immigration status, is subject to the “jurisdiction” of the United States. No one, except for accredited diplomats, enjoys extraterritoriality.

    Gilbert Ratchet

    October 31, 2018 at EDT am

    • Wrong. If they wanted EVERYONE who was born here to be a citizen they wouldn’t have added the qualifier, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

      Everyone agrees that this qualifier limits the scope of the clause.

      We only have the Wong Kim Ark case which holds that people permanently domiciled here are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

      Tourists, and guest workers, there’s a case to be made that they are excluded.

      But illegal immigrants, by any common sense reading, are definitely excluded, because they are defying the laws of the U.S. by being here in the first place, so they are like foreign occupiers.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 31, 2018 at EDT am

      • But what if the illegal has been here for decades?

        GondwanaMan

        October 31, 2018 at EDT am

      • Illegal East Asian immigration practically serve no benefit to any party or anyone. Illegal Latinos for example encourage good voting blocs for the Democrats and provide cheap labor for Republican types and their minions.

        Ok,what,who's this again?

        October 31, 2018 at EDT am

      • The very fact that illegal immigrants are meaningfully breaking the laws of the US surely means they are subject to its jurisdiction?

        A foreign occupying force, on the other hand, is living under the sovereignty of the invading country.

        F

        October 31, 2018 at EDT pm

      • They are subject to being deported, but they aren’t obeying it’s jurisdiction.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 31, 2018 at EDT pm

      • If the illegal has been here for decades, he has benefited from a form of recognition by executive branch of citizenship that can’t be taken away.

        It’s obviously for people under 18 yo who don’t have any recognition of citizenship that could be excluded by this new reading of the 14th amendment.

        True, illegals are subject of the jurisdiction for many things : if they commit a crime for example. They may also have some rights not based on nationality.

        I would say that the illegal alien has protectable interests that entitle him to some rights without making him a subject of the jurisdiction.

        But in most countries, the link among citizenry and rights – except electoral – has been diminished.

        The clause would have been better if it said « therefrom » , from being born in the USA. It’s only « thereof », meaning USA.

        If illegal aliens have a constitutional right to free public education, basic health and other public services, it will be hard not to seen them as subjects of USA jurisdiction …

        Bruno

        October 31, 2018 at EDT pm

      • You are wrong. The qualifier was necessary to exclude diplomats, occupying armies (the English) and, originally, Native Americans. It has 0 to do with illegal aliens since that concept didnt exist for hundred of years thereafter.

        Dieter

        November 1, 2018 at EDT pm

  4. Incredibly, my phone just notified me of this mainstream media (NBC) article which, though ultimately coming down on the side of birthright citizenship as a good idea, is remarkably even-handed and allows that there is a reasonable case against birthright citizenship. And by somebody with a Hispanic surname, no less. Another example of how useful it is just for Trump to shift the Overton window.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna926501

    Hermes

    October 31, 2018 at EDT am

  5. I had no idea how rare birthright citizenship is among nations. Basically, only Canada, the USA, and most South American countries have it. Practically no European or Asian countries have it.

    I wonder if this is another example of Trump Overton-ing an issue. My initial reaction was annoyance that he was wasting political capital on something so absurd, but now I’m wondering if it has legs.

    Steverino@steverino.com

    October 31, 2018 at EDT am

    • Canada needs to get rid of birth right citizenship ASAP. But it won’t happen with Trudope as PM.
      We have all kinds of grifters exploiting it.

      Rosenmops

      October 31, 2018 at EDT am

    • It is next to impossible to get citizenship in China without any racial relationship/Chinese descent.

      chris

      November 1, 2018 at EDT am

  6. The general consensus among the high IQ crowd who understands immigration whether legal or illegal, is that East Asians are the fasting growing group in Meriprolestan, surpassing Hispanics. Unlike the stereotype of Latinos crossing the Mexican border in order to try to secure a path to citizenship, the Chinese especially are like Cuckoo birds that give birth in a foreign entity, hoping their young are successful via a parasitic arrangement. The birther industry in California, where foreign nationals from East Asia give birth to their young in the States so they will be de facto citizens by birth is this phenomenon.

    Now, what people need to do is to make sure Trump can stop this arrangement for good!

    Ok,what,who's this again?

    October 31, 2018 at EDT am

    • The birther industry is also big business in Canada. All run by Chinese.

      Rosenmops

      October 31, 2018 at EDT am

    • Ya but Chinese birther scams still more profitable to USA than letting in asylum seekers from either middle east or Europe or south/central America.

      wt

      October 31, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Not really profitable at all. They will send the kid to the USA to get free high school and low cost university, even though they have contributed absolutely no tax. Then chain migration will be used to bring the rest of the family over including elderly grandparents.

        Rosenmop

        October 31, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Asylum seekers from Europe? Never hear of any, and I’d imagine it would be better for the US then legal immigration from anywhere else in the world.

        chris

        November 1, 2018 at EDT am

  7. So you’re analyzing this instead of Trumps Obamacare replacement?

    Right – there is not, nor ever was, an Obamacare replacement. Carry on.

    Heyoka

    October 31, 2018 at EDT am

  8. If the common understanding of the decision by the executive branch, the child of a Mexican ambassador born and raised in Washington is not American. The child of alien born in a retention center at the border is immediately American. That doesn’t make much sense !

    And the executive branch understanding of 14th amendment doesn’t create stare decisis if there is no judgment or statutes or laws to back it up ….

    The only thing is that a reversal should be limited for the future. Not retroactive.

    Bruno

    October 31, 2018 at EDT pm

  9. How being gay would help you think like a teen girl ? When Robert Lindsay describes gay sexuality, you can’t be further away from a female teen dreams
    or aspirations

    Bruno

    October 31, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Gays are like teen girls hopped up on large amounts of testosterone. So mentality of a girl. Sexual drive of a man.

      chris

      November 1, 2018 at EDT am

  10. what kind of name is “von Spakovsky”? in the german speaking world “von” is like “sir”, so instead of “sir paul mccartney” there’s “paul von mccartney”. and i know sir paul’s knighthood isn’t hereditary. so “von” is more like “sir oswald mosley, bart”.

    but “spakovsky” is obviously not a german surname. maybe from the old austo-hungarian empire?

    cue the marching music!

    October 31, 2018 at EDT pm

    • It indicates that his patrilineal ancestor was a Slav ennobled by a German-speaking government, most likely Austria-Hungary. Possibly Prussia. Sometimes rich people also added von to their surname without being ennobled.

      Lot

      November 4, 2018 at EDT am

  11. You don’t need a good reason. Many of the cases that used the 14th Amendment didn’t have good reasons. They just made stuff up and people accepted it.

    ttgy1

    October 31, 2018 at EDT pm

  12. You know adopting the rule that at least one of your parents was a legal resident of the country when you were born is going to make proving you are a citizen orders of magnitude more complex. I assume you all have documents to prove that your parents were citizens or legal residents when you were born?

    My mother died 50 years ago and my father died 20 years ago. I have no documents for my mother and only a death certificate for my father. Nothing to show they were citizens, although they both were. I don’t have their birth certificates and have no idea where they might be. Maybe if I could remember where they were born, I could get copies of their birth certificates.

    The current standard is difficult enough for some people. There are people who cannot get their birth certificate now because the records were kept in the county court house and it burned down. Today the records in most states are kept electronically at both the state and county level, but many years ago that was not true.

    Congress may have the power to change the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” with respect to people in the country illegally, but I don’t think the president can do that.

    MikeCA

    October 31, 2018 at EDT pm

  13. Apparently in Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that school-aged children of illegal immigrants are “under the jurisdiction” of the states they reside in. The context was that the court ruled states cannot restrict these children from public education. Before conservatives made court appointments a major issue, scotus was just making liberal legislation freely.

    Blue Tribe Dissident

    November 1, 2018 at EDT am

    • That is correct and makes the relevant point. The only two paths to ending BRC are a) change of the constitution, for which there will neve be a 2/3 majority. b) passing a law that overrides current federal law codifying the consensus interpretation of the 14th amendment. Such law would first have to pass and then survive the inevitable challenge, which would no doubt reach the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS would then have to reverse its own Wong Kim Ark and Plyer v Doe precedents. While not entirely impossible, that appaears like a highly unlikely outcome.

      Dieter

      November 1, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Would be a good start if they just overturn Plyler, so only permanent legal residents get citizenship for their kids.

        Blue Tribe Dissident

        November 1, 2018 at EDT pm

  14. genuine objectivity sometimes comes to surprising and disturbing conclusions.

    for example:

    the 14th amendment does NOT guarantee birthright citizenship.

    the 2d amendment does NOT guarantee “self defense”.

    the greatest baller of all time is a white man and a commie…

    sabas.

    cue the marching music!

    November 1, 2018 at EDT am

  15. That is unfortunately a fundamental misintepretation of the ruling based on assertions that have nothing to do with jurisprudence. There was no ‘obedience’ test in that ruling, and the ruling also did not differentiate between illegal and legal aliens since that distinctiin did mot exist at the time. The term resident does not imply any immigratuon status, as a matter of fact it is a tax term. And aliens, legal and illegal, are liable to pay taxes in the US. Furthermore, the ruling was grounded in English common law as explicitly stated in the text. English common law is entirely unambiguous in its definition of jurisdiction. Save for diplomats and foreign hostile armies, every person born within the territory is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Lastly, no court or lawyer would ever define an illegal immigrant as an invader. While that may express your politicql emotions, it is not applicable to unarmed civilians.

    Dieter

    November 1, 2018 at EDT pm

  16. If we lived in a sane country, we could just pass an amendment to ban it in order to eliminate any confusion over it, but there are so many people in this country that are nuts, we can’t do it.

    It only takes 66 percent of each branch of Congress, so you could still have 34% who are nuts and still pass it. Even Harry Reid thought it was to allow birthright citizenship.

    You pretty much have to be an idiot to want children of illegals to be citizens especially if you are white..

    ttgy1

    November 1, 2018 at EDT pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: