There is no such thing as citizenship without consent. In the same way that an American citizen cannot declare himself a French citizen and vote in French elections without consent from the French government, a foreign national cannot declare himself a U.S. citizen without consent.Citizenship in a Constitutional Federal Republic means holding equal political power over the collective decisions. That is something only existing citizens hold the right to offer to others, something which must be decided through elections and the lawmaking process.The court's ruling in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 - just 16 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment -endorses "the principle that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." By making entry into the United States without approval a federal offense, Congress has effectively denied that consent.I argue that the 14th Amendment does not provide this consent. Instead it sets a limitation. To the authors of the 14th Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" conveyed a limit to natural citizenship grounded in mutual allegiance. That means if people are free to deny their old national allegiance, and an independent nation is free to decide its own membership, the recognition of a new national identity must be mutual.Immigrants living in the United States illegally have not accepted the sovereignty of the nation's laws. On the other side of the coin, the government has not officially accepted them as residents under its protection.The ruling made by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark further reinforces this interpretation of the 14th Amendment in that the court only considered Permanent Legal Residents like Wong Kim Ark's parents, but not residents here illegally or temporarily.This is a landmark case and will have a bigger impact on America's demographics than even Hart-Celler.The media doesn't want to talk about it because they are TERRIFIED by it
>>524606983Are indians going back?
>>524607105SCOTUS rulings on Constitutional Questions are RETROACTIVE going back to when the Constitutional Amendment or Clause was ratified (In this case 1868!)
>>524607105Never.
>>524606983While I agree, why does a literal jeet give a fuck about constitutional protections in the United States?
>>524607173Retroactive sounds nice, think we can get some retroactive antisemite laws too?
>>524606983Fake
>>524607228If you can't trace your lineage back to BEFORE July 9th, 1868 in an unbroken chain then you are about to lose your Citizenship!
>>524607173I feel like doing this retroactive would be a nightmare. Wishful thinking.
>this schizo is back after being wrong 30 times
>>524607379SCOTUS doesn't have a choiceTheir rulings are RETROACTIVE by DEFAULTEither they rule that anchor babies are granted citizenship retroactively which would be the single biggest grant of amnesty in world history or they don't>Hint: They don't
>>524607476Fingers crossed. Just think it would be near impossible to track down people to prove residency at the time of their birth. People with dead parents trying to find documentation with the right data.
>>524607720It would be simple going back to 1929 which is why it is one of the likely limitations that SCOTUS will add to their majority opinion. They can't make their rulings on Constitutional Questions non-retroactive but they can limit how far back their ruling applies so long as they believe they can justify that decision. So they will go back to 1929 when the Permanent Resident Card System which would instantly save all future generations born from that sub-group granting them citizenship.It's the H1Bs and the Temporary Visas and the Illegal Migrants which have all crossed the border in the last 40 - 60 years that are in deep shit.
>>524606983oh thank god
>>524606983I like how you people sit around writing up these little nuanced legal distinctions meanwhile in reality actual Americans whose ancestors fought in the revolutionary war to create this country, those people have their rights violated every day and nobody gives a shit, yet somehow you think these little distinctions matter for your argument when the rights don’t even exist and are just imaginary to begin with. They are only real when you want them to be. So how does your system work exactly when it will just be unreal to others?
>>524606983You eat shit Rajesh,.a very disgusting animal
>>524611059The reality is that SCOTUS is making their ruling on or before June 30th and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
