I am worried that the Supreme Court will side with Trump, in part, on whether his executive order re birthright citizenship will be held to be constitutional.
The long-standing precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), found it important that Wong Kim Park, born to Chinese residents then residing in the U.S., had maintained his residence in the United States after his birth, even though he made a couple of temporary trips to China, after which he had returned to the U.S.
The Supreme Court will now need to decide if the wording of the 14th Amendment applies to the modern phenomenon of pregnant mothers coming into the U.S. for short-term visits for the purpose of having their babies be born here and become American citizens. If the mothers whisked their newborn infants back to the mothers' home country shortly after they were born, then the babies may never have been "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), dealt with the situation where the baby was born in the U.S. and then maintained his residence in the U.S. until he was 17 years old. The Court found it important that, through his alien parents, he had a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. That was recognized as subjecting him to the jurisdiction of the U.S., thus meeting the requirements of the 14th Amendment.
In Wong Kim Ark: "Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."
"The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States."So-called "anchor babies" may not qualify for citizenship if they were never domiciled or never resided in the U.S., because they may never have been "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
I will miss the Constitution.
It is on life-support, but not dead yet...
I am worried that the Supreme Court will side with Trump, in part, on whether his executive order re birthright citizenship will be held to be constitutional.
The long-standing precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), found it important that Wong Kim Park, born to Chinese residents then residing in the U.S., had maintained his residence in the United States after his birth, even though he made a couple of temporary trips to China, after which he had returned to the U.S.
The Supreme Court will now need to decide if the wording of the 14th Amendment applies to the modern phenomenon of pregnant mothers coming into the U.S. for short-term visits for the purpose of having their babies be born here and become American citizens. If the mothers whisked their newborn infants back to the mothers' home country shortly after they were born, then the babies may never have been "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), dealt with the situation where the baby was born in the U.S. and then maintained his residence in the U.S. until he was 17 years old. The Court found it important that, through his alien parents, he had a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. That was recognized as subjecting him to the jurisdiction of the U.S., thus meeting the requirements of the 14th Amendment.
In Wong Kim Ark: "Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."
"The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States."So-called "anchor babies" may not qualify for citizenship if they were never domiciled or never resided in the U.S., because they may never have been "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."