Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Dannyalcatraz]

The various categories of natural citizens are listed in 8 USC § 1401:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

 

[El Mahdi]

Fundamentally different things. The military agrees to additional restrictions on their rights, and does so voluntarily, but that doesn't mean they lack due process.

Neither I nor Danny said "lack due process"; we said different.

And Danny refuted your statement that "You don't get less due process because of another law." The UCMJ - something considered "another law" - limits due process in many ways; some subtle, some more prominent. It does this most notably during periods of Declared War and other conflicts.

Limits equal Less.

Trying to compare the voluntary agreement to the UCMJ when you join the military to the denial of a US citizen's rights by executive decree is both ludicrous and deeply insulting to anyone who's served.

Well, Danny did make that comparison - and I served - and I'm not insulted. You don't speak for all of us. If you are personally insulted, then say so. In the future though, you may want to leave the rest of us out of your personal opinions.

Of course though, Danny made that comparison to highlight that it's not so black-and-white, and not as an insult. He was pointing out a similar legal aspect, as lawyers are wont to do; and Danny is a lawyer.

Danny didn't say anything insulting. There's only insult in his comments if one wants to see insult there, or one is trying to bring in a sense of faux moral outrage in an attempt to counter an argument of legitimate logic.

I don't know about the rest of the veterans around here, but I didn't serve so that Americans can have their rights revoked by legal brief.

Neither did I. I'm also pretty certain that Danny wasn't advocating for that either.

However, you know as well as I that war is not so black-and-white anymore.

When was the last time there was a declared war? Yet we have been "at war" for 14 years.
How does the definition of combatant apply in a conflict with an enemy that doesn't acknowledge the Geneva Convention, follow its tenants, or fight in a manner even remotely reflective of the spirit of it?
When an American takes up arms against the United States, when does he cease being a citizen and become an enemy combatant?
Aren't his actions a clear renunciation of citizenship? A clear expression of intent?

It's not so black-and-white anymore...

 

[El Mahdi]

Really? Has that highlighted part been taken as precedent? Could you site the case in which that occurred. It should make for interesting reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#Immigration_status

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.

In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction.

This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Illegal immigrants are by definition, not lawful residents - therefore domicile does not apply - therefore the 14th Amendment does not cover them.

 

[Umbran]

What a ridiculous statement. Due process is clearly defined under the Constitution and related laws. You don't get less due process because of another law.

You seem to be missing a major point. You get a different process because *you are at war with the US*. That's what "enemy combatant" means. Moreover, in many contexts these days it also (confusingly) means "unlawful combatant" - one who has broken the laws of war such that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them.

Given that determination, what followed was an act of war, not an act of civil justice. Soldiers do not wait to be handed sentences from courts before they shoot at the enemy. They just shoot at the enemy.

No. We ALL get standard process.

Most of the time, yes. But not if we take up arms against the country. I think the Civil War pretty much established that fact. A whole lot of people who were otherwise citizens got shot dead. I don't hear you complaining about them.

Now, you may disagree with classifying him as such. But that's really a separate question. Once he's considered an enemy in the field, just killing him is an option.

 

[El Mahdi]

Of course not. You probably served so some politician's kid didn't have to risk being shot in the head or have his legs blown off in some third world mud hole.

I served, quite simply, to defend the Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. That may sound trite, but it's the truth. And one of those freedoms I defended was Freedom of Speech - regardless of the insulting use it's put to.

 

[MechaPilot]

I'll address more stuff later, but:


Tell that to people subject to the UCMJ, and you'll get laughed at. Due process under the UCMJ looks VERY different from what you'd see in a civilian criminal court. Your rights to free speech are more restricted under the UCMJ. Your rights to freedom of movement are more restricted under the UCMJ.

Long story short, what rights you have can be and are modified by subsequent legislation or judicial decisions. Happens all the time.

Besides, most of your Constitutional rights apply only within the USA and its territories. If you commit a crime and are extradited to the USA, those rights will probably- but not necessarily- attach.

Here's another example of what you're talking about.

Everyone who has watched a court drama is familiar with the concept of "rules of evidence" even if they don't know all the specifics. However, they don't always apply. I am a tax accountant. According to Circular 230 section 10.73(a), promulgated by the Department of the Treasury, "The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity are not controlling in hearings or proceedings under this part."

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#Immigration_status

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.

In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction.

This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Illegal immigrants are by definition, not lawful residents - therefore domicile does not apply - therefore the 14th Amendment does not cover them.

Just curious, but did you read the portion where they go over the opinion of the court in the first link you provided?

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I served, quite simply, to defend the Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. That may sound trite, but it's the truth. And one of those freedoms I defended was Freedom of Speech - regardless of the insulting use it's put to.

So you decided to serve because you had this overwhelming sense of patriotism, and you decided you wanted to protect the rights afforded by the Constitution for your fellow Americans? Was that the only reason you decided to join the military?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No. We ALL get standard process. The military agrees to be held to a second set of laws, with a second set of rights assigned under those laws, but they agree to those up front and clearly -- it's briefed and understood that you are agreeing to a new paradigm. Further, that paradigm isn't very much removed from "standard" as far as due process goes -- you still have a right to a jury trial, you still have right to representation, you still have the right to face your accuser, etc.

No, you don't have a right to a jury trial in all cases under the UCMJ, and for those cases in which a "jury" is appointed, its composition, restrictions and powers vary greatly from a standard criminal trial. Essentially, your "jury" is also a panel of judges, and the verdict need not be unanimous. Said "jury" is also chosen by the convening authority: the defendant has no right to challenge who is sitting in judgment as long as they are of the proper rank.

Your due process is handled by a different system, but is still there. And, to top it off, if you commit a civilian crime while enlisted, you're prosecuted by the civilian authorities and get your full set of due process there. So the military has a second set of laws, they don't obviate the "standard" set.

This is simply incorrect.

Most military bases have concurrent police authority with the city & state in which they are located. That means you can face charges from 2 separate sovereign authorities. Since both the state and the Federal government have jurisdiction, someone committing a crime on a base can be charged twice, once by the base and once by the locals. Usually, the military will defer jurisdiction over civilian crimes to the civilian authorities, but they don't have to.

If you're military, and the crime happens on base, they simply won't. You WILL be tried by the military. You might also face charges in state court.

However, some military bases- like Andrews AFB- are exclusively under federal jurisdiction. That means that if you commit a crime on Andrews AFB (or a similar facility) you will only face prosecution from the military.

http://www.andrews.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123233859

IOW, a civilian or a soldier committing a crime on Andrews AFB is going to wind up in Federal court, not state.

Enemy combatants are not US citizens nor are they on US soil. (Edit) Even if you accept the concept that you can name a US citizen as an enemy combatant for whatever reasons, that naming doesn't remove his citizenship and the due process that goes along with it.

We know one thing for sure, Americans can be declared "enemy combatants":

...Supreme Court (edit) in the case of Yasser Hamdi. The justices said an American detained on the battlefield in Afghanistan could be declared an enemy combatant, as long as he had an opportunity to challenge his detention.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856

It is not a legal process.

It is 100% a legal process. You may not like it, but those are the rules as defined in law...and they were followed. The term "due process" does not define a certain set of rights, only that when procedures are set up, they are followed. In an example regarding students in Ohio:

Thus, the due process clause doesn't govern how Ohio sets the rules for student discipline in its high schools; but it does govern how Ohio applies those rules to individual students who are thought to have violated them — even if in some cases (say, cheating on a state-wide examination) a large number of students were allegedly involved.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

There was no legal process followed here. The Administration dubbed Alwaki and enemy combatant and solicited a legal opinion from Justice as to whether or not they could kill him. Justice said, 'Yup, we think so,' and so they did. At no point did this ever become a legal process.

There is a process, and- truncated & secret though it is- all publicly available evidence shows that it has been followed. Now, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights have filed several cases challenging the nature of those procedures. So far, I believe they have lost each case: the last I know of were Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta- dismissed and not appealed in 2014- and ACLU et al. v. CIA et al., currently awaiting an appeal of dismissal.

So, right now, the judiciary is not buying the assertion that due process is being violated.

So, your contention is that if something is left somewhere, which is not illegal but maybe foolish, and someone else does something horrible, then blame needs to be apportioned between the person that, without coercion, did something horrible, and the person that did something foolish? Mmkay. I suppose, then, that you apportion blame to Obama for people that use the ACA to commit fraud? He left it there, right?

Any argument that apportions blame based on another party's actions is a straight up fail. Bush didn't do anything right with the Patriot Act, and he did plenty more wrong under it and other things, but none of that, none of that, in any way makes him responsible in the least for Obama deciding, on his own, to pursue a new understanding of the law that allowed him to assassinate a US citizen without trial.

Umbran is wrong, and you should know it.

I have stated that you are incorrect, and I stand by that.

Where was Alwaki's US citizenship revoked? Under what circumstances can your due process be diminished?

He was a US citizen, and had the full suite of those protections. He was also an enemy combatant, with many fewer protections. Under due process, he's entitled to ALL of the legal rights and protections he can have. So he got the ones under enemy combatant, and conveniently was bureaucratically denied those under his US citizenship.

NOTHING revoked Alwaki's citizenship. He died a (scumbag adherent of a vile ideology) US citizen. One denied his due process.

Yes, they do. No warrant to search or seize Alwaki was issued. You misunderstand what the FISA courts had jurisdiction over.

No, you are correct. Grand juries can be used to indict ham sandwiches. We appear to be in full agreement that Alwaki has not yet had his due process.

As defined in law, that IS due process. You may not like it, but the isn't a court in this land that will say otherwise about a Grand Jury style proceeding.

Your source says nothing about courts, and Alwaki's "case" didn't go through any court. I scare quoted "case" because there wasn't anything like a case.

Your source does, however, vet my explanation of events. Obama sought a legal opinion from Justice on whether or not he had the legal fig leaf to assassinate a US citizen abroad. He then made the call.

Firstly, the only law Obama used to assassinate Alwaki was the AUMF. The Patriot Act, grand pile of steaming mess that it was, really has no bearing here.

God forbid you ever hand your neighbor a screwdriver and he kills someone with it, because you'd have blame. Right?

Well, if you know he was planning on stabbing someone, yes. But otherwise, your analogy fails.

In this case, the tool left to Obama was a system of secret courts, etc., designed to let the Executive branch carry out certain kinds of covert operations with minimal oversight.

As Umbran correctly noted, this is like handing someone a loaded gun or leaving one where it may be found. The purpose of a screwdriver is to insert or remove screws; guns are designed to kill at range. As such, the ethical & legal standard of responsibility is very different.

This policy was created to let the Executive branch kill at range. It is being used for its intended purpose. The responsibility for its use is as much on those who crafted the policy as those who subsequently use it.

No, I disagree with the notion that we had the right to assassinate Alwaki the way we did. Why on Earth would you think that I would like a splashier method of assassination?

I don't.

I'm just trying to ascertain the scope of what tactics you consider valid in the fight against terrorism.

Again, what? If I manage to parse that properly, you're asking what the fallout would be for repealing the laws authorizing generic drone strikes? I dunno, no one tried. I've not be happy with the drone program for quite some time. When used in direct support of US troops, I like drones. When used as roving assassination tools, I hate them. I'd have been fine with they're authorization revoked.

But that aside, the issue here isn't that Obama could either decide to reinterpret the AUMF to authorize drone strikes anywhere in the world (he did this) AND that they allowed the assassination of US citizen OR he could advocate for their repeal. Obama did not have to use the tools left him. Further, he didn't have to expand them in scope. Even further, he didn't have to seek a new legal opinion about the legality of assassinating US citizens. This isn't a serious case of 'he had to do it that way or he had to risk the political fallout of seeking the repeal of the laws that formed the basis of the drone program.'

I had thought you were wanting to be 100% honest, but it seems you'd rather just frame the conversation in stilted and illogical ways so that you can reach your desired outcome: Obama had no choice.

Friend, when given a choice between voting for McCain and Obama, I chose independent candidate Bob Barr. Why? Because Bob Barr left the GOP over one issue: he had been lobbied by fellow Republicans to help pass the Patriot Act. He asked them key questions about whether the law was eventually going to be used to justify certain expansions of Federal power in the Executive branch and narrow the scope certain civil rights. They promised him it wouldn't...and then did so after it passed.

Did Obama have a choice? Certainly, in a moral, legal, ethical sense he did, just like any sitting President has over the tools at his disposal. And ethically, the drone program is no different than any other military weapon: you have to decide what it does in the context of what the externalities of its use will be, and if you (as commander in chief) are willing to make that decision to use them.

Personally, I see drones in much the same way as the Executive branch saw the nuclear bomb in WW2. The a-bombs achieve a desired military goal with minimal risk to our soldiers, and with comparable number of civilian deaths to the Allied bombing of Dresden. It ended the conflict with Japan with hundreds of thousands of fewer casualties than standard military tactics were expected to result in.

Drone strikes drop thousands of inadvertent civilian casualties to single or double digits. Regrettable, yes, but far better than past tactics.

Likewise, they drop hundreds of foreseeable military casualties to single or double digits. That's an unvarnished good thing in my book.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Ovinomancer
Trying to compare the voluntary agreement to the UCMJ when you join the military to the denial of a US citizen's rights by executive decree is both ludicrous and deeply insulting to anyone who's served.

As noted, you don't speak for all US soldiers. They are not monolith in opinion or in taking umbrage.

(FWIW, I have many friends & family who have served or are in the armed forces right now. Some serve on ships in or near the Persian gulf. Others are in other Arabic lands. A couple are in or near the Korean border. My Dad is a Vietnam & Desert Storm vet. 2 of my Mom's cousins are also Vietnam vets. The only branch in which none of my friends or families have served is the Coast Guard.)

 

[Maxperson]

Pardon me, but apparently you have a misunderstanding of "due process": all that that means is that a person is entitled to the legal proceedings the government has set forth in its judicial/legal frameworks.

In the case of the American targeted by the drone strike, he got due process under current US law. As noted upthread, all 4 drone strikes were authorized by the secret courts set up during the Bush admin- by the laws passed in our Legislative branch- for handling the targeting terrorists, either for certain kinds of surveillance, capture, or termination.

Yeah. I didn't use the right term. It's wrong for courts, especially secret ones, to authorize the murder of Americans. I also fail to see what Bush has to do with things. You keep bringing up how Bush started something as if it absolves Obama. It doesn't. It was wrong of Bush. It is wrong of Obama who has done it more times than Bush.

 

[MechaPilot]

Yeah. I didn't use the right term. It's wrong for courts, especially secret ones, to authorize the murder of Americans. I also fail to see what Bush has to do with things. You keep bringing up how Bush started something as if it absolves Obama. It doesn't. It was wrong of Bush. It is wrong of Obama who has done it more times than Bush.

From what I've read, his point is not that Obama isn't wrong. His point is that Obama would not be legally capable of performing those ethically/morally wrong actions without using powers voted for by congress (who were trying to appease constituents who blindly wanted something done thanks to climate of fear that was whipped up at the time), and singed into law by Bush. The people who make morally/ethically wrong actions legal do bear a lasting blame for what they've done. That doesn't absolve those who then legally perform those morally/ethically wrong actions, but the future bad actors don't absolve the enablers of their lasting blame either.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah. I didn't use the right term. It's wrong for courts, especially secret ones, to authorize the murder of Americans. I also fail to see what Bush has to do with things. You keep bringing up how Bush started something as if it absolves Obama. It doesn't. It was wrong of Bush. It is wrong of Obama who has done it more times than Bush.

I never said it absolves Obama. I actually said there is blame enough to go around between the last 2 presidents and our legislators. Some have asserted that the judiciary's deference to the executive branch's legal positions regarding national security needs make hem culpable as well.

However, unless & until the ACLU or someone else successfully pierces that particular veil, we have no way to accurately gauge which (if any) drone strikes were justified and which were not; which (if any) drone strikes followed proper procedures as set forth in law and which have not.

Until then, my position is that the burden of proof that the gov't has violated the procedures in place has not been met, and as such, throwing around charged prose like "murdered" and "assassinated" is not helpful to civil discussion of the issue.

 

[Maxperson]

How many? That's the question. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough.

I don't know how many, but the fact that they exist is evidence enough that you can't just toss the whole number of illegals into a neat category.

You keep on asserting these things, but give no evidence. You are not an accepted authority. And *how many* get paid more is extremely relevant to your point.

My point was that the minimum wage law is not enforced for these people - it isn't like they can file a grievance about it. So, why would we expect a significant number of them to be paid above minimum wage?

How many get paid more would be better, yes, but it's a fact that there are numbers that do get paid more. People don't pay them $5 an hour to clean the pool or do the lawn.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Sources, Links/illegal_immigration.htm

"Juan and María (not their real names) follow a simple strategy — staying out of trouble and undercutting competitors. Juan does landscaping, charging about $600 for major yard work — about $400 less than the typical legal contractor. María cleans houses for $70; house-cleaning services normally charge $85 or more."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129028587

"Annette's painter is not authorized to work in the U.S. In fact, he's not authorized to live here, either. His name is Raphael, and he's cheap. Annette says an American painter quoted her $1,200 for the job. Raphael charges $500.

Annette believes American prices are inflated, so paying Raphael the lower wage is justified.

"If Raphael didn't come, he would work in a maquiladora in Juarez, and he would make $1 an hour or $2 an hour, whereas here he can make $500 in a matter of five hours," Annette says. "So I have no problem giving him the keys to this condo, because I know he'll do a good job."

"He and his wife, Patricia Butler, pay Spanish-speaking men who roam their neighborhood seeking work about $30 a piece to trim about a half-dozen palm trees that tower above their pool."

They get paid less for the same job, but they are doing jobs that make more than minimum wage, so even making less, they're still getting minimum wage or better.

And *WHAT IS THE HUGE NUMBER*? You wave your hands around making claims, and you don't back them up. Why should anyone listen to you if you don't back up your assertions?

I did a quick search for how many people make under $10/hour, and the number I found was about 15 million. Took me about 30 seconds to find a CNN article. You're welcome.

When I went looking for the number of unauthorized immigrants in the workforce, the number I got was about 8 million. At least twice as many as you assert. You seem to have estimated that about a third of illegals were working, when the numbers say more like 70% or more of them are working.

Now, 8 is less than 15. But, it means that illegals make up about a third of this low-wage pool, and therefore their impact can't be ignored.

I'm not saying that there won't be an impact. That impact, however, could be absorbed by out of work Americans, albeit at higher wages. There would be an increase in the cost of produce and such, but not a significant one. I'm willing to pay it.

 

[MechaPilot]

Some have asserted that the judiciary's deference to the executive branch's legal positions regarding national security needs make hem culpable as well.

I think that might be an accurate assertion myself. However, the judiciary doesn't have a great track record of going against presidential power. Certainly, one example of this is the Supreme Court's decision that forcibly resettling Native Americans was against the law. To which, it is said, President Jefferson said of the chief justice of the Court "He has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Certainly the US judiciary has a spotty track record. Some have even said the SCOTUS has gotten it wrong more often than it gets it right.

 

[Maxperson]

Danny covered this quite well. The idea of having children here to "anchor" citizenship is simply not a major factor in illegal immigrants coming to the US or for having children here. They are coming for jobs. Having children is merely a part of living their lives - no ulterior motives other than to have a family. It's essentially a manufactured issue. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/

Not to mention that children of illegal immigrants are not automatically considered American Citizens. I suggest reading up on the 14th Amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That highlighted part has been taken as precedent that there is no valid basis for granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Subject to the jurisdiction requires living legally within the United States.

There is no court that has said otherwise, including the Supreme Court. The only way it works is if the parents are here legally.

Except that you're wrong and so are your biased websites. These children are granted citizenship. Each and every one of them. Since the rest of your arguments rely on the incorrect statements of your bad websites, I'm going to ignore them.

Nearly 100 years later, in 1982, the Supreme Court used language that seemed to indicate the protection applied to children of illegal immigrants as well.

In ruling that Texas must provide a free public education to undocumented children, the court said in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

On a personal note, I can't help but notice that this is the only post of mine to which you've replied. Reading through these most recent pages, I've noticed a trend where you remain silent on posts that provide solid references and data against a claim or statement you've made. You don't acknowledge the posts even exist, let alone state whether you agree, disagree, or acknowledge a claim or statement you've made is incorrect.

I often ignore posts where I've already answered the issues in another post. A lot of the time I'm not going to respond 3 times to the same thing.

Has anything that anybody has posted informed or changed your opinions?

If so, what?

Danny and his statement about due process. He's right. I used it incorrectly.

I'm especially interested in your thoughts on what I posted about the First Red Scare. Do you find it interesting or ironic that if Americans between 1917 and the early 1920's had given in to the desire to do the same thing you want to do now (ban ethnic groups from immigration based on fear of who might come with them), that you quite possibly might not have grown up American...?

That was different than what is going on now. Now we have very real groups that have been proven to try to sneak into our country and blow us up. It's not just imagines hysteria.

 

[Maxperson]

From what I've read, his point is not that Obama isn't wrong. His point is that Obama would not be legally capable of performing those ethically/morally wrong actions without using powers voted for by congress (who were trying to appease constituents who blindly wanted something done thanks to climate of fear that was whipped up at the time), and singed into law by Bush. The people who make morally/ethically wrong actions legal do bear a lasting blame for what they've done. That doesn't absolve those who then legally perform those morally/ethically wrong actions, but the future bad actors don't absolve the enablers of their lasting blame either.

I agree. Congress was wrong, too. The Patriot Act was one of the worst pieces of legislation to be enacted that I can think of.

 

[Maxperson]

I never said it absolves Obama. I actually said there is blame enough to go around between the last 2 presidents and our legislators. Some have asserted that the judiciary's deference to the executive branch's legal positions regarding national security needs make hem culpable as well.

However, unless & until the ACLU or someone else successfully pierces that particular veil, we have no way to accurately gauge which (if any) drone strikes were justified and which were not; which (if any) drone strikes followed proper procedures as set forth in law and which have not.

Until then, my position is that the burden of proof that the gov't has violated the procedures in place has not been met, and as such, throwing around charged prose like "murdered" and "assassinated" is not helpful to civil discussion of the issue.

My position is that there is no justification for the U.S. to be targeting Americans with drone strikes. If there is a law that allows it, then that law be damned. It's murder.

 

[Umbran]

Illegal immigrants are by definition, not lawful residents - therefore domicile does not apply - therefore the 14th Amendment does not cover them.

I think you're reading that wrong. Specifically, you're reading a case that granted inclusion to be a case that grants exclusion. United States v. Wong Kim Ark is about a person who's parents were in the country legally when he was born. Then, they were denied re-entry to the US when a law on Chinese immigration changed. He sued to be allowed entry, due to his being a citizen. He won.

A statement of, "We grant persons of type A citizenship," does *NOT* then also automatically mean, "We exclude people other than type A from citizenship." My understanding is that this is how the courts prefer to work - they draw lines of explicit inclusion when necessary, but avoid drawing lines of explicit exclusion when possible.

This case *does not speak* to the case of an illegal immigrant, as there were no illegal immigrants involved. The wikipedia article you link to, and the article on the specific court case, specifically notes that the Supreme Court has never heard a case questioning the citizenship of a child of illegal immigrants.