Quote:
Originally Posted by Fbomb
The only reason this went to court is because it was Chinese child and US passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 due to opium war.
Never did they question anybody's right to become US citizen in cases when a child was born on US soil.
|
yes, that was the reason for it going to court but i can see how the case can be applied as precedent here. but, again, i am not a lawyer and simply trying to understand this issue better.
anyhoo, my comment was re: this earlier post
Quote:
|
The Constitution doesn't expressly guarantee citizenship just because a child is born here, Fourteenth Amendment or otherwise. That's a common misconception. Nor has the Supreme Court ever stated so. About the only thing it has said is in fact citizenship is provided if the baby is born here, and the parents are subject to a foreign country and live here permanently (no migrant workers), and they are here on business. Pretty narrow definition.
|
to me the opinion means that ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.