this makes me nervous

[Nous]

One formally renounces allegiances through the naturalization process.

All I can do is ask again: when did the thousands of European parents noted by the Court go through the naturalization process?

How do you account for your idea that the Court was so grossly mistaken about this matter of thousands of children in the US with parents who had become naturalized citizens before the births of these children?

 

[Curious George]

All I can do is ask again: when did the thousands of European parents noted by the Court go through the naturalization process?

Foreign born people became citizens through the naturalization process. This was done en masse by congressional act or by formal ceremony authorized by congressional act.

How do you account for your idea that the Court was so grossly mistaken about this matter of thousands of children in the US with parents who had become naturalized citizens before the births of these children?

I account for this by the courts lack of accounting. I am simply asking for a better explanation. It seems clear that the majority was concerned with thousands of white children who were considered citizens. Yet, I see no rarionale that indicates the laws sufficiently neglected such a class. Or that it was earnestly believed that children white aliens were by law assumed to have citizenship.

 

[Nous]

Foreign born people became citizens through the naturalization process. This was done en masse by congressional act or by formal ceremony authorized by congressional act.

I account for this by the courts lack of accounting. I am simply asking for a better explanation. It seems clear that the majority was concerned with thousands of white children who were considered citizens. Yet, I see no rarionale that indicates the laws sufficiently neglected such a class. Or that it was earnestly believed that children white aliens were by law assumed to have citizenship.

So you don't know of any evidence that the majority of Justices on the Supreme Court were horribly mistaken about a bunch of Europeans going through the naturalization process back in the 19th century.

 

[Curious George]

So you don't know of any evidence that the majority of Justices on the Supreme Court were horribly mistaken about a bunch of Europeans going through the naturalization process back in the 19th century.

Nor do I know of any evidence that supports their contentions that it was well settled that white alien children were considered citizens. Do you?

 

[Nous]

Nor do I know of any evidence that supports their contentions that it was well settled that white alien children were considered citizens.

What the Court actually said was that there are "thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States," and that these childrend would be denied citizenship if the Fourteenth Amendment were interpreted as Fuller and you want to interpret it.

And evidently what you are claiming here is that you reject the Court's statement about the existence of such thousands of children, and you do so on the basis of an alleged absence of evidence.

I definitely side with the Court. These erudite people knew more about what was going on in the 19th century than you do today in the 21st, by which you have fallaciously reasoned. (The absence of evidence, even if that were true in this case, is not evidence of absence.)

 

[Curious George]

Nor do I know of any evidence that supports their contentions that it was well settled that white alien children were considered citizens. Do you?

@Nous

We are to assume that the lack of laws addressing natural born citizens yet imvoking the term natural born citizens in laws such as the 1790 Naturalization Act. Meant that Jus Soli was always used and that the 14th Ammendment in no way changed this. These are major arguments. Arguments that the majority does not carry with supporting evidence but rather with pointing to the lack of evidence to the contrary.

In other words, The Court doesn't point to instances where we have assumed white children, born to white aliens are citizens. Rather, the court simply notes that we have never held they are not and that we have relied on common law up until that point.

This leaves open the question of fact, were we relying on Jus Soli? Children under 21 years of age [at least not born in the U.S] were considered citizens when their parents became citizens. Children of citizens born abroad were considered natural citizens. This interpretation relies on the assumption that children born in the U.S. to parents not yet citizens received their citizenship upon birth and not upon their parents receiving their citizenship.

 

[Curious George]

What the Court actually said was that there are "thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States," and that these childrend would be denied citizenship if the Fourteenth Amendment were interpreted as Fuller and you want to interpret it.

And evidently what you are claiming here is that you reject the Court's statement about the existence of such thousands of children, and you do so on the basis of an alleged absence of evidence.

I definitely side with the Court. These erudite people knew more about what was going on in the 19th century than you do today in the 21st, by which you have fallaciously reasoned. (The absence of evidence, even if that were true in this case, is not evidence of absence.)

The irony of your last sentence. For that is precisely why the court failed in their accounting. Instead of looking at the argument, you would prefer defer to the Majority opinion at the time. You do this based on the fact they were "erudite people [who] knew more about what was going on." Yet Fuller was also an erudite person who knew what was going on.

Please do not attack me to try to prove a point. I have already explained that this is academic. I do not disagree with the majority. I only hold that the dissent was also reasonable in its interpretation. This does not mean that it was more reasonable. That different judges have different opinions is a part of our judicial system that should be embraced.

 

[Nous]

The irony of your last sentence. For that is precisely why the court failed in their accounting. Instead of looking at the argument, you would prefer defer to the Majority opinion at the time. You do this based on the fact they were "erudite people [who] knew more about what was going on." Yet Fuller was also an erudite person who knew what was going on.

Fuller didn't dispute, much less refute, the majority's statement about thousands of children born in the US of European parents who were considered and treated as citizens merely on account of having been born in the US.

What you're implying is actually worse than what I said about equating the alleged absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Your "reasoning" is evidently that the alleged absence of evidence that you have found means the these thousand of parents did go through naturalization during the 19th century before their children were born, and the majority on the Court were just ignorant of all these Europeans having gone through naturalization.

 

[Curious George]

Fuller didn't dispute, much less refute, the majority's statement about thousands of children born in the US of European parents who were considered and treated as citizens merely on account of having been born in the US.

What you're implying is actually worse than what I said about equating the alleged absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Your "reasoning" is evidently that the alleged absence of evidence that you have found means the these thousand of parents did go through naturalization during the 19th century before their children were born, and the majority on the Court were just ignorant of all these Europeans having gone through naturalization.

No, what I am suggesting is that it is reasonable to assume the children of white aliens were never assumed to be natural born citizens. And, their citizenship could only be found in statute or once no extrajurisdictional authority existed.

 

[Nous]

No, what I am suggesting is that it is reasonable to assume the children of white aliens were never assumed to be natural born citizens.

No, there is nothing reasonable about assuming that the Court was so grossly mistaken about thousands of children of non-naturalized European citizens living in the US and being treated as US citizens.

I do not recall coming across any other statement of fact in any majority Opinion that is so blatantly false as the statement in Wong that you want us to assume is false.

 

[Curious George]

No, there is nothing reasonable about assuming that the Court was so grossly mistaken about thousands of children of non-naturalized European citizens living in the US and being treated as US citizens.

I do not recall coming across any other statement of fact in any majority Opinion that is so blatantly false as the statement in Wong that you want us to assume is false.

Why were they assumed citizens? How were they assumed citizens? The court simply assumes that they were assumed citizens and this interpretation would void that assumption. The majority offers no grounds for such an assumption of citizenship that would make a ruling against such an assumption unreasonable.

The truth is that it was not legally certain that children of white aliens were indisputably citizens. The majority makes this claim but does not offer support. In the end we are left with two opinions, the majority that excepts an entire class of people based on the novelty of Native Americans and presumes that the Ammendment did alter the treaty makimg powers of the United states. And the Dissent which assumes absent clear evidence that common law was not assumed throughout the history of the U.S. concerning natural born citizens and that the 14th Ammendment was to limit citizenship more clearly than the law already provided.

If there is a problem with me suggesting what I have please point it out without appealing to the authority of the very court i am questioning while ignoring that same court (in the dissent) when it suits your interest.

 

[Nous]

Why were they assumed citizens? How were they assumed citizens? The court simply assumes that they were assumed citizens and this interpretation would void that assumption. The majority offers no grounds for such an assumption of citizenship that would make a ruling against such an assumption unreasonable.

The truth is that it was not legally certain that children of white aliens were indisputably citizens. The majority makes this claim but does not offer support. In the end we are left with two opinions, the majority that excepts an entire class of people based on the novelty of Native Americans and presumes that the Ammendment did alter the treaty makimg powers of the United states. And the Dissent which assumes absent clear evidence that common law was not assumed throughout the history of the U.S. concerning natural born citizens and that the 14th Ammendment was to limit citizenship more clearly than the law already provided.

If there is a problem with me suggesting what I have please point it out without appealing to the authority of the very court i am questioning while ignoring that same court (in the dissent) when it suits your interest.

There were hundreds of thousands of citizens of Ireland alone who had migrated to the US during the 50-year period prior to Wong. There were also great waves of German and Italian immigrants to the US during this same period. The very idea that all of these shoeless, starving, tired, poor huddled masses went through the naturalization process and officially became US citizens before they began giving birth to children in the US is laughable. When these children became adults, they were allowed to vote, were counted in the census, and, unlike Wong on return from his second trip out of the country, were allowed re-enter the country. These were among the ways that these people were considered and treated as US citizens despite their parents being citizens of another country, despite their parents having not “renounced their allegiance to their former country” before the births of their children.

For the Court to have used Fuller's tendentious interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” in the Citizenship Clause, it would have rendered all of these persons non-citizens--even though they may have generally continued on being considered and treated as US citizens. Under Fuller's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, undoubtedly only people who looked like Wong would have been treated as aliens. There is nothing reasonable about such an interpretation of Citizenship Clause. It only sets up the conditions for invidious discrimination. Indeed, it only makes a mockery of the Equal Protection and Due Process provisions of the same Section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which are explicitly intended to apply to any person. It isn't reasonable to impose this tendentious distinction between the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause and the meaning of "within [the] jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[Curious George]

There were hundreds of thousands of citizens of Ireland alone who had migrated to the US during the 50-year period prior to Wong. There were also great waves of German and Italian immigrants to the US during this same period. The very idea that all of these shoeless, starving, tired, poor huddled masses went through the naturalization process and officially became US citizens before they began giving birth to children in the US is laughable. When these children became adults, they were allowed to vote, were counted in the census, and, unlike Wong on return from his second trip out of the country, were allowed re-enter the country. These were among the ways that these people were considered and treated as US citizens despite their parents being citizens of another country, despite their parents having not “renounced their allegiance to their former country” before the births of their children.

They were allowed to vote, they were counted in the census, and they were allowed to return from trips. Yet none of these events are demonstrative of citizenship, let alone natural citizenship.

For the Court to have used Fuller's tendentious interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” in the Citizenship Clause, it would have rendered all of these persons non-citizens--even though they may have generally continued on being considered and treated as US citizens. Under Fuller's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, undoubtedly only people who looked like Wong would have been treated as aliens. There is nothing reasonable about such an interpretation of Citizenship Clause. It only sets up the conditions for invidious discrimination.

This is speculation.

Indeed, it only makes a mockery of the Equal Protection and Due Process provisions of the same Section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which are explicitly intended to apply to any person.

A conclusion drawn from your speculation.

It isn't reasonable to impose this tendentious distinction between the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause and the meaning of "within [the] jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause.

A much better argument. But how come they did not use the words "within the jurisdiction" as is used in the equal protection clause if they intended to give the Ammendment the same effect?

 

[Shad]

There seems to be some barrier to our communication. I am not sure how to proceed.

Cheers

It is not a barrier. We just completely disagree. Neither of us has been able to convince the other of our position. Simple really. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Nous]

They were allowed to vote, they were counted in the census, and they were allowed to return from trips. Yet none of these events are demonstrative of citizenship, let alone natural citizenship.

???? The claim that Wong was not a US citizen was the reason he was given as to why he could not re-enter the country when he returned from China!

The Court noted that thousands of children born in the US of European citizens were considered and treated as citizens, and that to interpret the Citizenship Clause as Fuller proposed would deny citizenship to these persons.

A conclusion drawn from your speculation.

False. The fact that the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of Section 1 of the Amendment explicitly apply to any person is not a speculation, and to try to state a law that would enact the tendentious distinction that Fuller wanted to impose between the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause and "within [the] jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause would be nothing more than a law that discriminates against some native-born children but not other native-born children who are similarly situated. I.e., such a law would merely mean that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to any person similarly situated.

A much better argument. But how come they did not use the words "within the jurisdiction" as is used in the equal protection clause if they intended to give the Ammendment the same effect?

Dunno. I am unaware of any of the Framers or others at the time of crafting and ratifying the Amendment explaining that or why the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause was intended to be or should be interpreted differently than the phrase "within [the] jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[Curious George]

???? The claim that Wong was not a US citizen was the reason he was given as to why he could not re-enter the country when he returned from China!

No, it was that he was not a citizen in conjunction with the Chinese Exclusion act.

The Court noted that thousands of children born in the US of European citizens were considered and treated as citizens, and that to interpret the Citizenship Clause as Fuller proposed would deny citizenship to these persons.

I am aware that the court said this.

False. The fact that the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of Section 1 of the Amendment explicitly apply to any person is not a speculation, and to try to state a law that would enact the tendentious distinction that Fuller wanted to impose between the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause and "within [the] jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause would be nothing more than a law that discriminates against some native-born children but not other native-born children who are similarly situated. I.e., such a law would merely mean that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to any person similarly situated.

True, It was absolutely a conclusion based off your speculation. Go and read what you wrote again. Fuller's interpretation does not make a mockery of anything.

Dunno. I am unaware of any of the Framers or others at the time of crafting and ratifying the Amendment explaining that or why the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause was intended to be or should be interpreted differently than the phrase "within [the] jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause.

They needn't give an explanation if they used different words. Are you aware of them saying anywhere that it should be interpreted with the exact same meaning?

 

[Curious George]

It is not a barrier. We just completely disagree. Neither of us has been able to convince the other of our position. Simple really. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes. But what we disagree on is 1) what is clearly written, and 2) whether I have read the case.

There is nothing I can do about your insistence on 2) despite me saying differently.

Further, I have tried to explain what the case says and used quotes to say it. You have told me that you will not address those quotes because of you believe I have not read the case.

This barrier cannot be passed unless something changes.

 

[Nous]

Fuller's interpretation does not make a mockery of anything.

Prove it.

Are you aware of them saying anywhere that it should be interpreted with the exact same meaning?

No, but it would seem to be a very sensible rule of construction to not interpret a word or phrase in the Constitution in one particular way in one sentence, then interpret the same word or basically identical phrase used later in the same Section in an entirely different way.

 

[Curious George]

Prove it.

You are the one who made the positive claim first. I said that ypur conclusion relied on your speculative premise. You said false. Get there without the speculation.

No, but it would seem to be a very sensible rule of construction to not interpret a word or phrase in the Constitution in one particular way in one sentence, then interpret the same word or basically identical phrase used later in the same Section in an entirely different way.

I acknowledge the rule of interpretation. But you are sliding the goal posts when you say "basically the same phrase." We are clearly discussing different phrases.

 

[Nous]

You are the one who made the positive claim first. I said that ypur conclusion relied on your speculative premise. You said false. Get there without the speculation.

I explained what I meant the best I can:

. . . to try to state a law that would enact the tendentious distinction that Fuller wanted to impose between the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause and "within [the] jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause would be nothing more than a law that discriminates against some native-born children but not other native-born children who are similarly situated. I.e., such a law would merely mean that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to any person similarly situated.​

I acknowledge the rule of interpretation. But you are sliding the goal posts when you say "basically the same phrase." We are clearly discussing different phrases.

The phrases "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within [the] jurisdiction" sound to me like they should be referring to basically identical matters, and should entail basically identical principles of a person being encompassed by a jurisdiction.