Her parents being non citizen immigrants doesn't make her ineligible. If you believe this, please provide the evidence. US v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't make this case.
1. The Child Was Born in the U.S.: This is correct. The child must be born on U.S. soil to be considered for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
2. Birth Parents Are Citizens of a Foreign Country: This is not entirely accurate in the context of the decision. The ruling in Wong Kim Ark affirmed that the child is a U.S. citizen regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, as long as the child is born in the U.S. and is subject to its jurisdiction. The parents’ citizenship status (foreign or otherwise) does not disqualify the child from U.S. citizenship.
what is ambitious is situations where the child is born with dual citizenship. This has never been ruled on, and would need the SC to rule on it.
Where exactly is that written? Sounds sketchy
Her parents being non citizen immigrants doesn't make her ineligible. If you believe this, please provide the evidence. US v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't make this case.
1. The Child Was Born in the U.S.: This is correct. The child must be born on U.S. soil to be considered for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
2. Birth Parents Are Citizens of a Foreign Country: This is not entirely accurate in the context of the decision. The ruling in Wong Kim Ark affirmed that the child is a U.S. citizen regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, as long as the child is born in the U.S. and is subject to its jurisdiction. The parents’ citizenship status (foreign or otherwise) does not disqualify the child from U.S. citizenship.
what is ambitious is situations where the child is born with dual citizenship. This has never been ruled on, and would need the SC to rule on it.