Abracadabra
New member
It's not Wong Kim Ark because that one only applied to permanently domiciled Chinese who were disallowed from naturalizing.
It's not Perkins v. Elg because her parents were naturalized Americans at the time of her birth.
So which specific SCOTUS precedent applies?
Because according to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, any native born baby owing allegiance to any other country at birth cannot be a US citizen (at birth) though they could naturalize later. Nothing has superceded the CRA of 1866, and even the 14th amendment agrees with it (and was passed 2 years after).
14th says cannot be but under only the jurisdiction of America if native born to be a US citizen...and if your parents are aliens (citizens of another country) you are under that country's jurisdiction.
Wendy C: Wong Kim Ark only applied to those Chinese permanently domiciled precluded from naturalization. It's not otherwise in the ruling.
Here’s the final holding of the case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
Justice Gray was serving when none other than the OTHER usurper was president...
Chester Arthur, and it shows in the wobbly writing in WKA
ps wendy, why don't you try another shampoo on your dogs you groom their butts are still yellow
It's not Perkins v. Elg because her parents were naturalized Americans at the time of her birth.
So which specific SCOTUS precedent applies?
Because according to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, any native born baby owing allegiance to any other country at birth cannot be a US citizen (at birth) though they could naturalize later. Nothing has superceded the CRA of 1866, and even the 14th amendment agrees with it (and was passed 2 years after).
14th says cannot be but under only the jurisdiction of America if native born to be a US citizen...and if your parents are aliens (citizens of another country) you are under that country's jurisdiction.
Wendy C: Wong Kim Ark only applied to those Chinese permanently domiciled precluded from naturalization. It's not otherwise in the ruling.
Here’s the final holding of the case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
Justice Gray was serving when none other than the OTHER usurper was president...
Chester Arthur, and it shows in the wobbly writing in WKA
ps wendy, why don't you try another shampoo on your dogs you groom their butts are still yellow