I don't think I've disliked a post yet. I'm a pretty friendly guy.:thumb:

 

I disliked one for fun, but @theguru was less than amused.

:idunno:

I don't think I've disliked a post yet. I'm a pretty friendly guy.:thumb:

 

Since this thread started with a link to a reference to Native Americans and the 14th Amendment has raised its head people may want to look into the Elk case (John Elk, not Bad Elk) of the supreme court.

 

Native Americans (Indians, using less PC language) were ruled to not be 14th Amendment citizens in the Elk case. They could become naturalized citizens via various laws from Congress.

 

The more famous case involving the 14th is that of Wong Kim Ark.

 

The court concluded:

 

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

 

(empahsis added above)

 

It seems the case contradict other in a sense. And the WKA case has the standard bearer for the archor baby concept using the 14th A.

 

Like the phrase 'natural born Citizen' as it specifically deals with Article II Section 1 and Presidential office qualification (though the phrase was speciically defined and ruled on by the court in Minor v. Happerset) there has been no specific case to specifically address the legality of all anchor babies.

 

If there was the following phrase from WKA would likely become the center of debate.

 

"...but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States..."

 

What is a 'permanant domicil and residence'? Is it possible for someone who is not legally in the country to have such a thing? That would likely be the debate.

 

Food (or rather reading) for thought.