"I also forgot to link to any case law on this particular matter, so I'll direct your attention to United States vs Wong Kim Ark ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark ) in 1898 which established that a man born in the United States to parents who were not citizens (his parents were both Chinese nationals) was, indeed, a citizen by his birth here. This ruling is particularly germane as it came in challenge to the Chinese Exclusion Act which tried to prevent anyone of Chinese descent from becoming a citizen and trying to keep all the Chinese out. Sound at all familiar?""
This case is particularly germane. His parents were *legal* immigrants. "That's quite the reach there Jerry. The American Indian example specifically denies the automatic citizenship for someone born in the territory because that person was born on a reservation that was, by law, a sovereign nation." You are entitled to your opinion. I don't think it is a reach at all, especially if you consider this line: "no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, " It also seems that you ignored this part: Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant *every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.** If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.* Notice that is a quote from the framer of the first section of the amendment. Here is some more if you have time to read it: During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendments citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. *Additionally, Sen. Fessenden (co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country* - an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine - and of course, the question of Indians. Sen. Trumbull attempted to assure Senators that Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Sen. Johnson argued that Sen. Trumbull was in error in regards to the Indians not being under the jurisdiction of the United States. *This must have raised concerns with Howard because he strongly made it known that he had no intention whatsoever to confer citizenship upon the Indians under his amendment, no matter if born within or outside of their tribal lands.* This is the complete opposite of your reservation argument. Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: *It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens * Note that Trumbull does not say *temporarily within our jurisdiction,* but *completely within our jurisdiction*. So, if this amendment wasn't designed to give citizenship to undocumented democrats, oops, I mean illegal aliens, then why was it written? Look at the date. It was to make sure freed slaves became ci ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317038 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
