LSU-SIU
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 11,618
- Likes
- 6,491
All that sounds alot like how I take it to mean. Though it is easy to distort the interpretation to suit ones angle, and satisfy an agenda with the masses.
There could be a thing or two but basically its pretty clear that the 14h amendment does not establish 100% right to citizenship if one is born here, the initial creator of the amendment even said so. The other issue is things like you have to willfully submit yourself to the jurisdiction, which is kind of touched on in wong kim ark. The parents appear to have legally lived in the United States and established legal residency i.e. they weren't transit in nature. I won't say the Supreme Court ruling is 100% hits on every issue but its very clear they were looking for much more than whether a person was just born here i.e. some type of allegiance, resident, conforming to its jurisdiction, etc.
If an American Indian isn't guaranteed a spot at the table, its hard to reason why an kid born of people not from here should.