[Tzqowwyt]

.

It is alleged by supporters of amnesty that the children of illegal aliens are citizens of the united States by virtue of the 14th Amendment. This fiction is then used to justify allowing illegal aliens to stay here so as to not separate families. But the truth is, those who make up such fiction would be hard pressed to come up with one SC ruling establishing the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was intended to apply to people who invade our borders who may then give birth, and then extend citizenship to those born on America soil under such circumstances.

The case the myth makers generally refer to is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), but, there is no wording in the case stating that the 14th Amendment is intended to grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens who are born on American soil by mothers who have invaded our borders and ignored our immigration laws!

So, let us put to rest the myth generated that the SC in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) asserts that the children in question become U.S. citizens upon birth.

Although Wong Kim deals with a citizenship question, it does not deal with the circumstances involved with illegal aliens! I will say the Court in Wong Kim does make reference to another court decision which pinpoints the legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, with regard to citizenship, and it has nothing to do with illegal aliens or their children being granted citizenship!:

…and in an opinion delivered by Justice Van Syckel, with the concurrence of Chief Justice Beasley, said: 'The object of the fourteenth amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race. The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized, or in any way have become entitled to the right of citizenship. The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens. The same rule must be applied to both races; and, unless the general rule that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the fourteenth amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens. The fourteenth amendment, by the language, 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' was intended [169 U.S. 649, 693] to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time pertained to the white race.' Benny v. O'Brien (1895) 58 N. J. Law, 36, 39, 40, 32 Atl. 696. (my emphasis) So the very purpose of the 14th Amendment is to prohibit law based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery___ PERIOD.

It is also pointed out in Wong Kim that:

By the constitution of the United States, congress was empowered 'to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' In the exercise of this power, congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled 'An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,' passed at the second session of the first congress under the constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time 'within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,' and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, 'dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization.' Third. Foreign- born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by congress. By the above documentation, and prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment which is conceded in Benny v. O'Brien, “was intended [169 U.S. 649, 693] to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule” it would seem pretty clear children of illegal aliens, who may have been born on American soil after their mother invaded our borders and ignored our immigration “rules” [naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record] would not be considered to be citizens.

It should also be pointed out the Court in Wong Kim was very cognizant that

The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. (my emphasis) And so, the assertion that children of illegal aliens born on American soil are citizens of the united States by virtue of the 14th Amendment is nothing more than a myth, unsupported by the SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.


Why are they, the creators of such a myth, so eager to defend those who have invaded our borders, have ignored our laws and are infecting our population with contagious diseases such as TB which would have been detected had they followed our laws?

Regards,

JWK