SuicideFuel for blackcels : why I think vice-president candidate Kamala Harris is a natural-borne American citizen

[Sheogorath]

In WW2, some already tried to overturn WKA to strip Japanese-Americans of their citizenship
in Regan v. King. SCOTUS didn't even bother to hear it.

The problem, despite stuff like https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Regan_v._King/ saying it was to overturn WKA, it is clear by summary that "established the principle of citizenship for all U.S.-born persons" that they do not understand WKA.

The summary of WKA only addresses this specific situation:

a child born in the United States, of parents 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 ​

It does not address:

1) parents of non-Chinese descent​

2) parents lacking a permanent domicil in US​

3) parents not residing permanently in US​

In Nishikawa v. Dulles, SCOTUS never even considered your "birthright citizenship" argument
even in the case of an natural-born U.S. citizen
(whose parents were Japanese citizens)
who later served in the Japanese military.

Not considering it was an oversight. The failure here is them focusing on whether or not a citizen loses their citizenship fighting for a foreign army, and not whether or not he actually is a citizen in the first place.

Do you recall if this was even brought up during the trial?

The question here is basically whether or not, when born 1916 in California , Mitsugi Nishikawa's parents were permanent residents (like Wong Kim Ark's were) or whether or not they were non-immigrant visitors (like Kamala Harris' were)

I'm sure that there's a fringe minority of legal scholars who do believe that WKA does not extend to the offspring of non-permanent residents

It's not a fringe. They wouldn't specify 'permanent' in the decision if it didn't matter.

What Eastman fails to understand is that SCOTUS accepted not only WKA's citizenship
but chose to interpret the jurisdiction clause in the light of English common law

I expect that Eastman does understand it, as well as the Dissent written by Chief Fuller and Associate Harlan pertaining to US having broken with English common law.

...where "natural-born" simply refers to being...born here.

This depends on which version/interpreter of English common law you're talking about.

English common law that did endow that also expected "natural allegiance" to the king of the realm, which the United States was founded upon breaking, so I don't see the relevance.

The State Department clearly accepts this interpretation of WKA, or otherwise, they wouldn't have been granting U.S. passports to the offspring of illegal immigrants for years.

Please explain why you think a passport is proof of citizenship.

What are you smoking? Democratic groups have been grooming Kamala Harris for the Presidency even when she was still the California AG. Republicans did run for California's Senate seat in 2016. They just weren't competitive.

They got ~5% in prelims, dropped out.

So if WKA isn't a sound judgment, what is? Elk? The one rendered moot by Congress in 1924?

Choosing to override previous judgments does not mean those previous judgments were incorrect.

Because Native American reservations, in the 19th century, had "tribal sovereignty"; that indigenous tribes had the ability to self-govern. That sovereignty was gradually whittled down throughout the 20th century as more and more delegated administrative and law enforcement responsibilities to the federal government, and as they gained citizenship.

What a joke, they were still subject to US criminal persecution, you know that.

All "original intent" allows is for so-called judgest to cherry-pick quotes to make decisions based on otherwise spurious legal reasoning.

The stated intent/meaning of those who voted the amendment into law in the first place isn't spurious or cherry-picking.

I don't know much about the situation surrounding American Samoa and the Northern Marianas.

Samoa is part of the United States (one of it's territories)
It is subject to US criminal jurisdiction
They are NOT citizens unless children of US citizens.

If it doesn't apply to them it doesn't apply to anchor babies like Kamala.