The Post & Email by Leonard Daneman, blogging at Paraleaglenm, 8/9/2025
Birthright Citizenship came out of gross violations of jurisprudence, causing Conflicts of Law and de facto, unconstitutional, ‘revisions’ to the 14th Amendment and Article II of the ConstitutionForward: Birthright Citizenship is generally understood to be a constitutional right. WRONG! It was created, unconstitutionally, by the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898. Unfortunately, any analysis and rejection of the decision is objectionable to Chinese-Americans, to whom Wong is a hero. Yes, the Chinese were excluded from citizenship, born or naturalized; but this was in agreement through treaty with the Chinese Emperor who jealously guarded the ‘subjection’ of his people, a distinct regional and racial heritage from a culture with 5000 years of history. Subjection is not unique to Imperial power. Islam shares complete subjection; renouncing of the faith considered apostasy. This aspect of foreign law is summarized at the very end of the Wong Kim Ark decision, citing Chinese law.1
Why was the Wong Kim Ark case unconstitutional? It violated two constitutional laws–One being that naturalization law was to be uniform and completely the plenary power of congress (a fact admitted by the court). And, secondly, the judiciary was to adjudicate cases and controversies, not legislate or create conflicting ‘revisions and amendments’ to existing constitutional laws. When the 1898 court created ‘birthright citizenship,’ it was in direct conflict with existing law and resulted in the eventual general misinterpretation of Article II and the 14th Amendment. The law, and treaty, were clear; and Wong had no case.2
OPINION OF THE GOVERNMENT “Rather, it [the government] argued that because Wong’s parents were “Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperor of China,” Wong inherited this status and was also a “Chinese person and subject of the Emperor of China.” The government further reasoned that “Wong Kim Ark has been at all times, by reason of his race, language, color and dress, a Chinese person” and was not an American citizen (Wong Kim Ark 650). If Wong were not a U.S. citizen, he would be legally barred from entering the country under the Chinese Exclusion Act. https://omeka.reed.edu/s/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark/page/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-rulingMore:
https://www.thepostemail.com/2025/08/09/the-jurisprudence-of-birthright-citizenship/Read the rest here:
https://paraleaglenm.com/2025/07/13/the-jurisprudence-of-birthright-citizenship/
