House Republican Calls for Deportation of U.S. Citizens

[one...two...tree 2,762]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship.

Wong Kim Ark^[1] (黃金德; Toisanese: wong11 gim33 'ak3; Cantonese: wong4 gam1 dak1; Mandarin: huáng jīn dé) was born in San Francisco, California, sometime between 1868 and 1873.^[2] His father, Wong Si Ping and his mother, Wee Lee^[3] were immigrants from Taishan, China and were not United States citizens.

In 1890 Wong's parents returned to live in China. Later that year Wong himself traveled to China and, having returned, was granted entry "upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States". Four years later, however, the circumstances had changed, as Wong, who was employed in San Francisco as a cook, sailed to China on another temporary visit in 1894. When he returned to the U.S. in August 1895, he was detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs, who denied him permission to enter the country — arguing that Wong, "although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."

........

Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Judicial activism. I rest my case. But, this injustice can and should be undone.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship.

Wong Kim Ark^[1] (黃金德; Toisanese: wong11 gim33 'ak3; Cantonese: wong4 gam1 dak1; Mandarin: huáng jīn dé) was born in San Francisco, California, sometime between 1868 and 1873.^[2] His father, Wong Si Ping and his mother, Wee Lee^[3] were immigrants from Taishan, China and were not United States citizens.

In 1890 Wong's parents returned to live in China. Later that year Wong himself traveled to China and, having returned, was granted entry "upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States". Four years later, however, the circumstances had changed, as Wong, who was employed in San Francisco as a cook, sailed to China on another temporary visit in 1894. When he returned to the U.S. in August 1895, he was detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs, who denied him permission to enter the country — arguing that Wong, "although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."

........

Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

[Sofiyya 1,687]

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED: CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES

In the Dred Scott Case, 1 Chief Justice Taney for the Court ruled that United States citizenship was enjoyed by two classes of individuals: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendents of ''persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States and [who] became also citizens of this new political body,'' the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been ''born outside the dominions of the United States,'' had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein. The States were competent, he continued, to confer state citizenship upon anyone in their midst, but they could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States. The ''Negro,'' or ''African race,'' according to the Chief Justice, was ineligible to attain United States citizenship, either from a State or by virtue of birth in the United States, even as a free man descended from a Negro residing as a free man in one of the States at the date of ratification of the Constitution. 2 Congress, first in Sec. 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 3 and then in the first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 4 set aside the Dred Scott holding in a sentence ''declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law. . . .''5

While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. 6 The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. 7 Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, 8 as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. 9 The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas. 10

In Afroyim v. Rusk, 11 a divided Court extended the force of this first sentence beyond prior holdings, ruling that it withdrew from the Government of the United States the power to expatriate United States citizens against their will for any reason. ''[T]he Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other government unit. It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment was the desire to protect Negroes. . . . This undeniable purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure would be frustrated by holding that the Government can rob a citizen of his citizenship without his consent by simply proceeding to act under an implied general power to regulate foreign affairs or some other power generally granted.'' 12 In a subsequent decision, however, the Court held that persons who were statutorily naturalized by being born abroad of at least one American parent could not claim the protection of the first sentence of Sec. 1 and that Congress could therefore impose a reasonable and non-arbitrary condition subsequent upon their continued retention of United States citizenship. 13 Between these two decisions there is a tension which should call forth further litigation efforts to explore the meaning of the citizenship sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States. 14

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 404 -06, 417-18, 419-20 (1857).

[Footnote 2] The controversy, political as well as constitutional, which this case stirred and still stirs, is exemplified and analyzed in the material collected in S. Kutler, The Dred Scott Decision: Law or Politics? (1967).

[Footnote 3] ''That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right. . . .'' Ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27.

[Footnote 4] The proposed amendment as it passed the House contained no such provision, and it was decided in the Senate to include language like that finally adopted. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2560, 2768-69, 2869 (1866). The sponsor of the language said: ''This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United States.'' Id. at 2890. The legislative history is discussed at some length in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 282 -86 (1967) (Justice Harlan dissenting).

[Footnote 5] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898).

[Footnote 6] Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 74 (1873).

[Footnote 7] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

[Footnote 8] Id. at 682.

[Footnote 9] Id. at 680-82; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 99 (1884).

[Footnote 10] United States v. Gordon, 25 Fed. Cas. 1364 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1861) (No. 15,231); In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (C.C.Cal. 1884); Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir. 1928).

[Footnote 11] 387 U.S. 253 (1967). Though the Court upheld the involuntary expatriation of a woman citizen of the United States during her marriage to a foreign citizen in Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915), the subject first received extended judicial treatment in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), in which by a five-to-four decision the Court upheld a statute denaturalizing a native-born citizen for having voted in a foreign election. For the Court, Justice Frankfurter reasoned that Congress' power to regulate foreign affairs carried with it the authority to sever the relationship of this country with one of its citizens to avoid national implication in acts of that citizen which might embarrass relations with a foreign nation. Id. at 60-62. Three of the dissenters denied that Congress had any power to denaturalize. See discussion supra pp. 272-76. In the years before Afroyim, a series of decisions had curbed congressional power.

[Footnote 12] Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 262 -63 (1967). Four dissenters, Justices Harlan, Clark, Stewart, and White, controverted the Court's reliance on the history and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and reasserted Justice Frankfurter's previous reasoning in Perez. Id. at 268.

[Footnote 13] Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). This, too, was a five-to-four decision, Justices Blackmun, Harlan, Stewart, and White, and Chief Justice Burger in the majority, and Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall dissenting.

[Footnote 14] Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed. Cas. 67 (C.C.D.La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable ''to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment or impairment by the law of a State.'' Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 561 (1869). This conclusion was in harmony with the earlier holding in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869), to the effect that corporations were not within the scope of the privileges and immunities clause of state citizenship set out in Article IV, Sec. 2. See also Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126 (1912); Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908); Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Tobacco Growers, 276 U.S. 71, 89 (1928); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936).

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship.

Wong Kim Ark^[1] (黃金德; Toisanese: wong11 gim33 'ak3; Cantonese: wong4 gam1 dak1; Mandarin: huáng jīn dé) was born in San Francisco, California, sometime between 1868 and 1873.^[2] His father, Wong Si Ping and his mother, Wee Lee^[3] were immigrants from Taishan, China and were not United States citizens.

In 1890 Wong's parents returned to live in China. Later that year Wong himself traveled to China and, having returned, was granted entry "upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States". Four years later, however, the circumstances had changed, as Wong, who was employed in San Francisco as a cook, sailed to China on another temporary visit in 1894. When he returned to the U.S. in August 1895, he was detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs, who denied him permission to enter the country — arguing that Wong, "although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."

........

Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

that's nice, i see nothing about his parents being here illegally.

[Heracles 417]

This black and white approach of using the Constitution is just idiocy. When was the last time the United States had a genuine amendment to reflect the 21st century we live in?

The population back then was 76 million - not 309 million. Not to mention a totally different era. For starters, it took a good few weeks to travel by ship.

The problem I have with the judicial system here is that it takes it upon itself to force square pegs into round holes. Whereas, I am used to a system where the high courts will pass any ambiguity back to parliament to be voted on by the government (the republic) established to represent the people.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

that's nice, i see nothing about his parents being here illegally.

At the time the 14th amendment was constituted, there was no concept of illegal immigration because immigration wasn't very restrictive.

I'll be back with more.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

This black and white approach of using the Constitution is just idiocy. When was the last time the United States had a genuine amendment to reflect the 21st century we live in?

The population back then was 76 million - not 309 million. Not to mention a totally different era. For starters, it took a good few weeks to travel by ship.

The problem I have with the judicial system here is that it takes it upon itself to force square pegs into round holes. Whereas, I am used to a system where the high courts will pass any ambiguity back to parliament to be voted on by the government (the republic) established to represent the people.

1890 United States Census

The total population of 62,947,714[3] was announced after only six weeks of processing. The public reaction to this tabulation was disbelief, as it was widely believed that the "right answer" was at least 75,000,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_United_States_Census

At the time the 14th amendment was constituted, there was no concept of illegal immigration because immigration wasn't very restrictive.

I'll be back with more.

point is, the article indicates his parents were here legally.

[Heracles 417]

At the time the 14th amendment was constituted, there was no concept of illegal immigration because immigration wasn't very restrictive.

1870 - US population - 38 million

Is this not the problem with a number of amendments? Does anyone actually think that when they first thought of freedom of speech in 18th century, they ever fathomed that 200 years later that would mean being able to watch videos of people being killed for amusement?

Edited April 29, 2010 by Booyah!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

ELK V. WILKINS, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)

U.S. Supreme Court

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

Elk v. Wilkins

Argued April 28, 1884

Decided November 3, 1884

112 U.S. 94

Syllabus

An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a state, but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution.

A petition alleging that the plaintiff is an Indian, and was born within the United States, and has severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes, and fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still so continues subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is a bona fide resident of the Nebraska and City of Omaha, does not show that he is a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution.

This is an action brought by an Indian in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska against the registrar of one of the wards of the City of Omaha for refusing to register him as a qualified voter therein. The petition was as follows:

This is an action brought by an Indian, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, against the registrar of one of the wards of the City of Omaha, for refusing to register him as a qualified voter therein. The petition was as follows:

Page 112 U. S. 95

"John Elk, plaintiff, complains of Charles Wilkins, defendant, and avers that the matter in dispute herein exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars, to-wit, the sum of six thousand dollars, and that the matter in dispute herein arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and, for cause of action against the defendant, avers that he, the plaintiff, is an Indian, and was born within the United States; that more than one year prior to the grievances hereinafter complained of he had severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes, and had fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still so continues subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and avers that, under and by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, he is a citizen of the United States, and entitled to the right and privilege of citizens of the United States."

"That on the sixth day of April, 1880, there was held in the City of Omaha (a City of the first class, incorporated under the general laws of the State of Nebraska, providing for the incorporation of cities of the first class) a general election for the election of members of the city council and other officers for said city."

"That the defendant, Charles Wilkins, held the office of and acted as registrar in the Fifth Ward of said city, and that as such registrar it was the duty of such defendant to register the names of all persons entitled to exercise the elective franchise in said ward of said city at said general election."

"That this plaintiff was a citizen of and had been a bona fide resident of the State of Nebraska for more than six months prior to said sixth day of April, 1880, and had been a bona fide resident of Douglas County, wherein the City of Omaha is situate, for more than forty days, and in the Fifth Ward of said city more than ten days prior to the said sixth day of April, and was such citizen and resident at the time of said election, and at the time of his attempted registration, as hereinafter set forth, and was in every way qualified, under the laws of the State of Nebraska and of the City of Omaha, to be registered as a voter, and to cast a vote at said election, and complied with the laws of the city and state in that behalf. "

Page 112 U. S. 96

"That on or about the fifth day of April, 1880, and prior to said election, this plaintiff presented himself to said Charles Wilkins, as such registrar at his office, for the purpose of having his name registered as a qualified voter, as provided by law, and complied with all the provisions of the statutes in that regard, and claimed that, under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, he was a citizen of the United States, and was entitled to exercise the elective franchise, regardless of his race and color, and that said Wilkins, designedly, corruptly, willfully, and maliciously, did then and there refuse to register this plaintiff, for the sole reason that the plaintiff was an Indian, and therefore not a citizen of the United States, and not therefore entitled to vote, and on account of his race and color, and with the willful, malicious, corrupt, and unlawful design to deprive this plaintiff of his right to vote at said election, and of his rights, and all other Indians of their rights, under said Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States, on account of his and their race and color."

"That on the sixth day of April, this plaintiff presented himself at the place of voting in said ward, and presented a ballot, and requested the right to vote, where said Wilkins, who was then acting as one of the judges of said election in said ward, in further carrying out his willful and malicious designs as aforesaid, declared to the plaintiff and to the other election officers that the plaintiff was an Indian, and not a citizen, and not entitled to vote, and said judges and clerks of election refused to receive the vote of the plaintiff, for that he was not registered as required by law."

"Plaintiff avers the fact to be that by reason of said willful, unlawful, corrupt, and malicious refusal of said defendant to register this plaintiff, as provided by law, he was deprived of his right to vote at said election, to his damage in the sum of $6,000."

"Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant for $6,000, his damages, with costs of suit."

The defendant filed a general demurrer for the following causes: 1st, that the petition did not state facts sufficient to

Page 112 U. S. 97

constitute a cause of action; 2d, that the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant; 3d, that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action.

The demurrer was argued before Judge McCrary and Judge Dundy, and sustained, and, the plaintiff electing to stand by his petition, judgment was rendered for the defendant, dismissing the petition, with costs. The plaintiff sued out this writ of error.

By the Constitution of the State of Nebraska, article 7 section 1,

"Every male person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, belonging to either of the following classes, who shall have resided in the state six months, and in the county, precinct, or ward for the term provided by law, shall be an elector. First, citizens of the United States. Second, persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens, conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization at least thirty days prior to an election."

By the statutes of Nebraska, every male person of the age of twenty-one years or upward, belonging to either of the two classes so defined in the constitution of the state, who shall have resided in the state six months, in the county forty days, and in the precinct, township, or ward ten days, shall be an elector; the qualifications of electors in the several wards of cities of the first class (of which Omaha is one) shall be the same as in precincts; it is the duty of the registrar to enter in the register of qualified voters the name of every person who applies to him to be registered, and satisfies him that he is qualified to vote under the provisions of the election laws of the state, and at all municipal, as well as county or state elections, the judges of election are required to check the name, and receive and deposit the ballot, of any person whose name appears on the register. Compiled Statutes of Nebraska of 1881, c. 26, § 3; c. 13, § 14; c. 76, §§ 6, 13, 19.

Page 112 U. S. 98

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Judicial activism. I rest my case.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

point is, the article indicates his parents were here legally.

True, and the Supremes have never ruled on that point. Cases establishing jus soli citizenship have involved children of parents who were here legally. It is assumed that these children have birthright status, and that assumption has not been challenged. I predict it soon will be.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Heracles 417]

You need to remember how some members here look at issues and the challenges America faces in 2010 and then their reasoning makes sense.

This should help..

Edited April 29, 2010 by Booyah!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If that's your best reaction, opposing your point of view is a piece of cake.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If that's your best reaction, opposing your point of view is a piece of cake.

Even the most ardent constitutional constructionist would get a chuckle out of that one. That was good, Sofi. Oh man...

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Even the most ardent constitutional constructionist would get a chuckle out of that one. That was good, Sofi. Oh man...

Yea, they count among the "all economists" you cited as in glowing support of the now failed Obama stimulus.