고정된 트윗
Birthright Citizenship Clause
It’s not what you’ve been told, but what’s been accepted.
Just like universal injunctions have been around for 70 years, and now they’re gone, in the law, something persists until it’s challenged. Courts can only hear “controversies,” if no one challenges a ruling, then it just continues on.
———————————————
Wong Kim Ark is factually distinct from illegal immigrants because the parties at issue were permanent legal residents, which means the federal government had approved their presence in the country. It logically follows that their child could have citizenship because the government granted permission for his parents to live here permanently, which one could argue, granted jurisdiction over them. The key fact being, the government approved their presence.
Then you have what are called Canons of Construction. There’s a canon against surplusage, which means each word has effect, and there are no superfluous words.
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has to mean something before the child is born, otherwise it’s circular. You look to their parents to determine if they’re subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The 14th amendment Framer, Senator Howard, and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Trumble, both said it meant “complete jurisdiction” or “political jurisdiction” in that the parents must be able to vote. Because only citizens can vote, you can see where this is going…
The first case to test and actually explain the citizenship clause was Elk v US, where an Native American said he was born in the boundaries of the U.S. and therefore should be a citizen, but the court found he was a member of another nation (a tribe), so he was NOT a citizen. Hence why Congress later passed the Indian Citizenship Act.
In conclusion, birthright citizenship only exists insofar as Wong Kim Ark is current law, because you don’t get that from the text of the 14th Amendment.
English
