Thread by @Mivo68

1) Thread
So when will @realDonaldTrump end Birthright citizenship for the children of Non Legal resident aliens? The Chinese steal our very citizenship by birth tourism - FACT

2) Here is a story about a Chinese woman who was making millions on birth tourism to the United States.

insider.com/birth-tourism-…

3) Birthright citizenship is based on a 122 year old lie about the case of Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649. It is no where in the 14th Amendment, never held to be the law in the US Supreme Court, and is only established by Congressional practice.

4) Go ahead, Google "Birthright Citizenship". The first 20 entries will all be about the case of Wong Kim Ark, and how "a child of Chinese non US Citizen parents was held to be a US Citizen after birth in the US."

5) Well like all good lies that is a nugget of the truth. The truth is that Wong Kim Ark's parents were subject to the Chinese Exclusionary Acts 1882.
loc.gov/rr/program/bib…

6) The Act was a treaty between China and United States that occurred after mass immigration of Chinese nationals to work in the US. It prevented the naturalization of Chinese citizens in the US.

7) The Act DID allow Chinese nationals working in the US to become Legal US Residents, but not to naturalize.

8) Wong Kim Ark's parents WERE Legal US Residents, they were not simply "aliens". Legal Residence in a country implies allegiance to the host country for as long as that legal inhabitance lasts, a tenet of original common law- law of nations

9) Wong Kim Ark, born in the US to Legal resident parents, traveled to China, and on return was detained because he was not a US Citizen.

10) Contrary to ALL narrative about the case of Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898), the case turned on the fact that WKA parents were LEGAL residents, not simply "aliens" or "non US Citizens". Simply google "birthright citizenship", and the lie is exposed.

11) Because WKA parents were US LEGAL residents, which was allowed by the Chinese Exclusionary Act 1882, there was an implied allegiance to the United states.

12) Though the case meanders into many aspects of British Common Law, it's natural law holding is very clearly stated on page 693.

13) "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country,..."

14) "...including all children here born of resident aliens...The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, DOMICILED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES..."

15) "Domiciled" is LEGAL RESIDENCE. Wong Kim Arks parents were not simply aliens here on a visa, or illegal aliens.
thelawdictionary.org/domicile/

The case holding continues:

16) "... Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States..."

17) "...His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject,..."

18) "... for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

19) There Justice Horace Gray affirms the definition of natural born Citizen, which is cited from 88 US 162, 167 (1875) earlier, "born in the US to US Citizen parents." SEE 169 US 649, 655 (1898)
@Patriotress @im2byteme @MikiBooth @michaelvolin

20) "... It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides ."

21) A simple reading of the case (although it is a meticulous slog of more than 60 pages) reveals the lie that Wong Kim Ark was given US Citizenship simply by birth in the US.

22) That 122 year old lie is perpetuated by big tech, our Congress, and US Law schools (students probably never read the case, and are given a "summary" of it)
@Barnes_Law @RonColeman @RandyEBarnett @Cernovich

23) there are 2 prongs to citizenship by birth in the US. One is birth on US soil (in the United States), the other is "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" (Allegiance).

24) Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 693 (1898), established that LEGAL INHABITANCE is ALLEGIANCE. Therefore the children born to Legal residents within the US are US Citizens. The Chinese Exclusionary Acts could prevent the naturalization of Chinese nationals...

25) ...but not the application of the 14th Amendment on their children, giving US Citizenship. Further if "born in the US" meant "subject to the jurisdiction of the US", the subject to.." clause would have no meaning,-- statutory construction says it must have separate meaning.

26) Lawyers and Congress know this well worn tenet of statutory construction, yet are in denial, and claim to not know what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. It has to have separate and distinct meaning from "born in the US".

27) I know that @realDonaldTrump knows what "subject to the jurisdiction" means:

28) He tweeted specifically about it on 10/31/ 2018. And he said he could do it by executive order.

29) @realDonaldTrump , during his second term will issue EO declaring that "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" in the 14th Amendment means that the parent of any child born in the US must be at least legal resident to be considered a US citizen (SEE 169 US 649, 693 (1898))

30) After so many years of Chinese and Russian nationals stealing our precious US Citizenship, the 122 year old lie will be over. It will go to SCOTUS and the Liberal harpies (and Breyer, but I repeat myself) will stomp their feet, but it will be for naught. #MAGA
End/