# Proof that Birthright Citizenship is NOT Given to Illegal Aliens in the 14th A



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are *illegals and legal aliens* both *not eligible for birthright citizenship* if *born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island*?

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly the US government has jurisdiction on its own territory, but aliens do not get citizenship if born in those territories.

Why if Plyler ruled on jurisdiction = birthright citizenship?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 27, 2015)

No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.

Things are not going to change to the way you want.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.
> 
> Things are not going to change to the way you want.



Starkey either answer the question or shut the hell up and blow away like the wind blown trash you are.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 27, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.
> ...


Because your question is not pertinent.  They are territories not states.  Run along.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


"Because your question is not pertinent.  They are territories not states.  Run along."

roflmao, you truly are a stupid ass.

They are STILL UNDER US JURISDICTION, are they not?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 27, 2015)

Jimbo, you have already failed.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 27, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


They are not in the United States.  Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that *birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship*. _Lacap v. INS,_ 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); _Valmonte v. INS,_136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); _Rabang v. INS,_35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 *The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States.*" _Id._ at 1453 & n. 8; _see also Valmonte,_ 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's _Insular Cases_ jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. _Valmonte,_ 136 F.3d at 918-19; _Rabang,_ 35 F.3d at 1452. The _Insular Cases_were a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. _Rabang,_ 35 F.3d at 1452;_Valmonte,_ 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER   | Leagle.com


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 27, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Paddy is the one with the facts:

They are not in the United States.  Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that *birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship*. _Lacap v. INS,_ 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); _Valmonte v. INS,_136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); _Rabang v. INS,_35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 *The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States.*" _Id._ at 1453 & n. 8; _see also Valmonte,_ 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's _Insular Cases_ jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. _Valmonte,_ 136 F.3d at 918-19; _Rabang,_ 35 F.3d at 1452. The _Insular Cases_were a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. _Rabang,_ 35 F.3d at 1452;_Valmonte,_ 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER   | Leagle.com


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 27, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are *illegals and legal aliens* both *not eligible for birthright citizenship* if *born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island*?
> 
> Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



I wonder at times why you bother to post citations- and then do not read them


*U.S. territories*
The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.[5]

There are special provisions governing children born in some current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth".[6]

*Outlying possessions*
According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. (which is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled _Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions_ explains the complexities of this topic.[7]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

The answers to your question is within your own citation.

American Samoa and Swains Island are not 'incorporated territories' and not considered part of the United States.

Remember the language of the 14th Amendment?

_*All persons born ...... in the United States*, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States_

They may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but they were not born in the United States.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Jimbo, you have already failed.



Jake, you have failed to make me concerned about whether you think I have failed, lol.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



But territories are under the jurisdiction of the US, are they not? They are under our laws, so they are under our jurisdiction according to you stupid ass reading of Plyler.

*The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States.*"

And Wong Kim Ark states that not only jurisdiction is called for but also the legal residence or domicile and permission of the US government. 

You cant say there are no exceptions then claim that there are exceptions when it suits your stupid ass.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are *illegals and legal aliens* both *not eligible for birthright citizenship* if *born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island*?
> ...




But according to your reading of the Plyler decision, all that is required is the jurisdiction of the US.

Make you mind up punk.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Aug 27, 2015)

if the Baby was "Created In South America" then the baby is a citizen of South America,,,what if some chick got pregnant on earth, then 8 months later she is on vacation on Mars, has the baby,,,then what?


----------



## Toro (Aug 27, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are *illegals and legal aliens* both *not eligible for birthright citizenship* if *born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island*?
> 
> Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Plyler v Doe wasn't about giving birthright citizenship to anyone. It was a case about taxpayer funding of public education for illegal aliens. 

It is relevant to Wong Kim Ark in that it reaffirms US jurisdiction over illegal aliens.


----------



## Toro (Aug 27, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Wong Kim Ark doesn't say anything about "legal residence" as defined in immigration law. It says "domicile."  Those are two different concepts.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are *illegals and legal aliens* both *not eligible for birthright citizenship* if *born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island*?
> ...




"In footnote 10 (_dicta_?) of _Plyler_ the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:

"impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

"Justice Gray concluded that:

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

"The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous.

"If undocumented aliens cannot be excepted from the protection of the laws of the State, then they cannot be excepted from subjection to the laws of the State."


Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Jurisdiction

So in Plyler the critical factoid was not that the illegals were in the US but within the jurisdiction of the US, in fact people in Samoa have constitutional rights just like anywhere else in the jurisdiction of the US, but THEY DONT HAVE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Toro said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I know that they are different concepts Toro as domiciles are subset of legal residences.

lol, it is amazing what I have to essplain to libtards.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Toro said:


> Plyler v Doe wasn't about giving birthright citizenship to anyone. It was a case about taxpayer funding of public education for illegal aliens.
> 
> It is relevant to Wong Kim Ark in that it reaffirms US jurisdiction over illegal aliens.



I agree, and with the jurisdiction it also gives due process rights, but does not imply anything about birthright citizenship.

In US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 and 118 state specifically the parents have to have domicile in the US (which is a type of legal residence) and they have to be here with the permission of the US government.

Spin it all day if you want, but the meaning is clear, Toro, or should I say 'Bull'.


roflmao


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.
> 
> Things are not going to change to the way you want.



So you say, but  I don't give a rats ass about your blatherings, dumbass.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 27, 2015)

That is why you are so obssessive with an issue that is a failure to overthrowing the 14th.  Mental masturbation is fun, yes, but it is in your case as in all that it is sterile.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Aug 27, 2015)

but what if a dog has sex in Mexico, then crosses the border, has her puppies,,,are the puppies illegal?


----------



## Toro (Aug 27, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know that they are different concepts Toro as domiciles are subset of legal residences.



Wrong.

A "legal residence" does NOT mean that they are in compliance with immigration law.

What it means is that this is where you live and have a legal claim to it.

For example, if an illegal immigrant buys a house and lives there most of the time, that is their legal residence.  It's irrelevant if they are here illegally.  Under the law, that is their "legal residence," because under the law, that is where they live and have a claim to it.  Without the claim for legal residence, someone could usurp the illegal's property, abrogating their property rights, which American law disallows.  Even if the illegal alien is deported, American law protects the illegal's property.  A "domicile" under American law means that is where they live most of the time, nothing more. 

There is nothing - zero, zip, nada - in the current law stipulates that "legal residence" means that they are here legally under immigration law as you think it does.


----------



## Toro (Aug 27, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Plyler v Doe wasn't about giving birthright citizenship to anyone. It was a case about taxpayer funding of public education for illegal aliens.
> ...



Wrong.

Once again, you do not understand the concept of "legal residence."  Legal residence merely means that they live at a place most of the time.  It does not mean they are here legally under the immigration code.

If someone buys a house and lives there, that is their "legal residence."  They have property rights and are considered "domiciled" there irrespective of immigration law.

Sorry, angry old man.  You lose.  American law says so, no matter what you make up to satisfy your ideological worldview.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> but what if a dog has sex in Mexico, then crosses the border, has her puppies,,,are the puppies illegal?



Yes, and the mom is a real bitch too.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Toro said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know that they are different concepts Toro as domiciles are subset of legal residences.
> ...




"There is nothing - zero, zip, nada - in the current law stipulates that "legal residence" means that they are here legally under immigration law..."

Lol, do you ever just listen to yourself?

roflmao

How does one get legal residence that requires legal paperwork, legal ID, etc, when one does not have such? Obvously there is some level of fraud that prevents it from being a legal residence.


----------



## Toro (Aug 27, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Sorry, angry old man.  That you think it means something does not mean what you think it means.

You do not have to be a legal resident to own property in this country, or even live here.

You should learn more about property and immigration laws.

Feel free to link to anything that "domicile" means someone is here legally under immigration law.  I'll wait.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Toro said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Legal Residence Law & Legal Definition

"Legal residence means the permanent home of a person. It is the principal residence for legal purposes."

No, YOU lose, sheister.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Aug 27, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > but what if a dog has sex in Mexico, then crosses the border, has her puppies,,,are the puppies illegal?
> ...


and what about those locust swarms? its not fair! no one ever stops them from crossing the borders and then eating all our plants!!!!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx Taylor said:
> ...



Sorry mofos


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Aug 27, 2015)

and dont forget "The Killer Bees"!!! they come from Mexico and no one ever stops them from crossing the border.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> and dont forget "The Killer Bees"!!! they come from Mexico and no one ever stops them from crossing the border.



But they are descendants of slave bees brought over by force from Africa, so they can do whatever the fuck they want anyway.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Aug 27, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > and dont forget "The Killer Bees"!!! they come from Mexico and no one ever stops them from crossing the border.
> ...


i really feel sorry for all of those stray dogs in California who inadvertanly ran into those killer bees nests.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx Taylor said:
> ...



Yeah, me too, those poor sons of bitches.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Aug 27, 2015)

i wonder if Killer bees were created when a regular white racist bee had sex with a tryannasorux rex in the 1800's, then the dinasour gave birth to 3 trillion killer bees over a period of 5 years.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> i wonder if Killer bees were created when a regular white racist bee had sex with a tryannasorux rex in the 1800's, then the dinasour gave birth to 3 trillion killer bees over a period of 5 years.



It's plausible, logical and if you find the right libtard academic, a revolutionary new finding that will qualify him for more government grants and research money to explore the issue.

It's all about the pesos, man.


----------



## Toro (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Nope. 

You don't understand what you are reading, angry old man. 

"Principal residence" is irrespective of immigration status. For example, if an illegal immigrant has lived in his home in the U.S. for a decade, that is his "principal residence" under the law.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Toro said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



No, it is not irrespective of immigration status at all, in fact the documentation required to buy or rent a residence is designed specifically to keep illegals from obtaining legal residence. Thus they have to use some form of fraud (such s using fake IDs or stolen personal information) to conduct such agreements.

Face it there is a reason they call it 'LEGAL residence'.

And it is all moot anyway, since there is still the requirement from US v Wong Kim Ark that they be in the country with the permission of the US government, fool.

So yes required LEGAL residence and permission of the US government makes the intent and meaning very clear except to lying shyster fools like you.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


A requirement that does not exist.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Plyler v Doe wasn't about giving birthright citizenship to anyone. It was a case about taxpayer funding of public education for illegal aliens.
> ...



Text of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship once again

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and *subject to the jurisdiction* thereof, are citizens of the United States

Birth and jurisdiction are what are relevant. 

Domicile is not even mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

Plyler v. Doe specifically states that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- their children born here are born citizens- as per the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Nowhere in Wong Kim Ark does it say that birthright citizenship requires that the parents be in the country with the permission of the parents.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You can't actually read- can you?

The footnote explains it to you clearly- but you either can't read it- or refuse to read it.

"In footnote 10 (_dicta_?) of _Plyler_ the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:

"impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

"Justice Gray concluded that:

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

"The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous.

"If undocumented aliens cannot be excepted from the protection of the laws of the State, then they cannot be excepted from subjection to the laws of the State."

A child born in Samoa does not become a U.S. citizen because he is not born within the United States- even if he is born within the jurisdiction of the United States.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



No- that is just your lack of reading comprehension at work again- I have repeatedly quoted the text of the 14th Amendment

_*All persons born ...... in the United States*, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States_

So once again- They may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but they were not born in the United States.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


He seems to not see that "and" right there between "born...in the United States"  and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Those are the only two conditions to confer citizenship. He adds words when it suits him and ignores other words when it suits him.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Your inability to read- or comprehend full sentences- is not my problem. 

_*All persons born ...... in the United States*, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States._

Doesn't get much clearer than that. 

You don't like it- that is what the Constitutional Amendment process if for.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Your pretense that case law and the intended meaning of the 14th Amendments authors is hilarious.

US v Wong gives further clarifications to Birthright citizenship and among them is permission of the US government and LEGAL domicile.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




So then why don't the aliens on American Samoa get birthright citizenship? They are also under US jurisdiction.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



"Nowhere in Wong Kim Ark does it say that birthright citizenship requires that the parents be in the country with the permission of the parents."

Now where did I say that?

I stated, "Face it there is a reason they call it 'LEGAL residence'.

And it is all moot anyway, since there is still the requirement from US v Wong Kim Ark that they be in the country with the permission of the US government, fool.

So yes required LEGAL residence and permission of the US government makes the intent and meaning very clear except to lying shyster fools like you."


roflmao


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie is now trolling and spamming his own thread. 

He does not understand the 14th, Pyler, or Wong.

Please move this to the Conspiracy Forum.  Everyone who agrees should do the same.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




I agree, but that is not what you state when it pleases you. You say that the requirement in Wong for permission of the US government is irrelevant since they are in jurisdiction of the US, but then why isn't the restriction on being born in an incorporated state then not also simply swept aside as well? Because your lies about the 14th amendment are bullshit. The word domicile means 'primary legal residence' and implies that they are here with the permission of the US government, as stated specifically in paragraphs 96 and 118 of Wong Kim Ark.

lol, suck it bitch


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> JimBowie is now trolling and spamming his own thread.
> 
> He does not understand the 14th, Pyler, or Wong.
> 
> Please move this to the Conspiracy Forum.  Everyone who agrees should do the same.



OMG, now we got the Jake the Fake Delegate bringing his own special kind of bullshit in.

Jake, no one gives a flying fart about what you think since you never back anything up with facts links or reason.

You are just a stupid troll and a poor one at that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie does not understand realty law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie is now trolling and spamming his own thread.  He does not understand the 14th, Pyler, or Wong.  Please move this to the Conspiracy Forum.  Everyone who agrees should do the same.
> ...


  You are a conspiracy nut, and you offer nothing here.  You offer nothing in terms of realty law, above.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Text of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship once again

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and *subject to the jurisdiction* thereof, are citizens of the United States

Birth and jurisdiction are what are relevant. 

Domicile is not even mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

Plyler v. Doe specifically states that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- their children born here are born citizens- as per the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



There is no requirement established in Wong Kim Ark for 'permission of the U.S. government' and Wong Kim Ark has no relevancy to the citizenship of a child born in Samoa because that child is not born within the United States. 

Two requirements: born in the U.S.- and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

A child born in the United States is within the jurisdiction of the United States unless his parents are acredited diplomats. 
A child born outside the United States is not born in the U.S. and is not a citizen under the 14th Amendment(though may be a citizen under other laws)


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



There is no such requirement in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. 

As per Plyler v. Doe- an illegal alien in the United States is within the jurisdiction of the United States.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Once again- because they are not born in the United States

Your inability to read- or comprehend full sentences- is not my problem.

_*All persons born ...... in the United States*, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States._

Doesn't get much clearer than that. 

You don't like it- that is what the Constitutional Amendment process if for.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 28, 2015)

This thread is proof of the ignorance and hate common to most on the right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


...and entitled to due process of the law.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Plyler states that illegal babies are entitled to due process, nothing else, so again you lie.

Wong Kim Ark states that illegal have to be here with the permission of the US government and have a legal residence aka domicile here to be eligible for birthright citizenship.

You argue that jurisdiction ruling from Plyler also applies to birthright citizenship, ignoring Wong requirement for domicile and permission of the US, but you embraced the statehood restrictions and dismiss the effect of Plyler's jurisdiction ruling when it suits you with American Samoa, etc.

You are a liar and a fraud and it is plain you do not have the slightest concern with understanding these laws and rulings.  You are a shyster and are tryi9ng to destroy this country. It isn't going to happen. Your ilk is going to be stopped and we WILL TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK, ass hole.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And Wong is clear as well they have to have legal residence and permission of US government, paragraphs 96 and 118.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This thread is proof of the ignorance and hate common to most on the right.



STFU, you stupid ignorant fool. You probably haven't even read the decisions in Plyler, or Wong.


----------



## Toro (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Wrong. 

Property can be bought and sold in the U.S. by people who've never been to the U.S.  Property can be transferred, willed, etc.  One can legally buy property in the U.S. from outside the country then enter the country, live there, and the law will recognize that as one's permanent residence, even if that person is eventually deported. One can have property legally willed to them even if they are an illegal alien and are eventually deported. 

Besides, "legal residence" does not imply ownership. "Legal residence" merely means where one permanently resides. One can rent a permanent residence.

I was once a legal immigrant. I've been through the system, angry old man!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2015)

Now JB is merely spamming and trolling his own thread.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> There is no requirement established in Wong Kim Ark for 'permission of the U.S. government' and



Yes there is in paragraphs 96 and 118 of the US v Wong Kim Ark decision.



Syriusly said:


> Wong Kim Ark has no relevancy to the citizenship of a child born in Samoa because that child is not born within the United States.
> 
> Two requirements: born in the U.S.- and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.



Wong is relevant as it is the ONLY RULING BY SCOTUS ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, idiot.



Syriusly said:


> A child born in the United States is within the jurisdiction of the United States unless his parents are acredited diplomats.
> A child born outside the United States is not born in the U.S. and is not a citizen under the 14th Amendment(though may be a citizen under other laws)



But you say all that has to happen is that they be born under the jurisdiction of the US, so that should include American Samoa. Oh, but there y9ou want to include the restriction that it cant be a territory, but that's OK if it Puerto Rico or Guam, etc, etc, etc as you spin a web of bullshit rhetoric to defend the dissolution of the USA.

Your days are done, sheister bitch.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Toro said:


> Property can be bought and sold in the U.S. by people who've never been to the U.S.  Property can be transferred, willed, etc.  One can legally buy property in the U.S. from outside the country then enter the country, live there, and the law will recognize that as one's permanent residence, even if that person is eventually deported. One can have property legally willed to them even if they are an illegal alien and are eventually deported.



And they all require legal documents and IDs. Where are illegals here in the US supposed to show those without fraud?

They cannot, hence the difference between them and a Saudi prince buying a penthouse in Manhatten, dumbass.



Toro said:


> Besides, "legal residence" does not imply ownership. "Legal residence" merely means where one permanently resides. One can rent a permanent residence.



Back to that old lie, that 'legal residence' does not mean legal documentation.

roflmao,  you libtard fools just kill me.

Your time is coming to an end, and this system you feed off of is going to be tilled into the soil of this country like the horse shit it is.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.

Birth in the US and subject to US jurisdiction are the only requirements per the Constitution.  Pyler and Wong do not alter any of the above.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.
> 
> Birth in the US and subject to US jurisdiction are the only requirements per the Constitution.  Pyler and Wong do not alter any of the above.



You don't even grasp how stupid your comment is, and you don't care because you are just a senile old troll.

Fuck off Jake the Fake Delegate.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > There is no requirement established in Wong Kim Ark for 'permission of the U.S. government' and
> ...



The word permission is mentioned 5 times in Wong Kim Ark- here they are:

(1&2)
on his return to the United States on the steamship Coptic in August, 1895, from a temporary visit to China, he applied to said collector of customs for permission to land, and was by the collector refused such  permission,

(3 & 4) and he did return thereto by sea in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such  permission upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.

(5) that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission

Nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say that citizenship is dependent upon government permission for the parents to be in the United States.


----------



## Toro (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Property can be bought and sold in the U.S. by people who've never been to the U.S.  Property can be transferred, willed, etc.  One can legally buy property in the U.S. from outside the country then enter the country, live there, and the law will recognize that as one's permanent residence, even if that person is eventually deported. One can have property legally willed to them even if they are an illegal alien and are eventually deported.
> ...



I make more money than most people. I support you, 47-percenter!

Domicile under the law doesn't mean what you think it means, angry old man. 

Too bad for you Trump is just a flash in the pan. And when he's not President, you all will still be angry old men, screaming at people to get off your lawn!


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > There is no requirement established in Wong Kim Ark for 'permission of the U.S. government' and
> ...



Wong is very relevant- as it establishes that a citizen born to alien parents in the United States is a citizen under the 14th Amendment- because he was born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

There are only two requirements under the 14th Amendment- birth in the United States- and within the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Being born in Samoa is not being born in the United States.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > There is no requirement established in Wong Kim Ark for 'permission of the U.S. government' and
> ...



No- you keep saying that- but you just keep lying. 

As I keep saying is what the 14th Amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.
> ...



LOL- Jimie Foul Mouth just gets more desperate and foul mouthed every time his delusions are pointed out.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Oh, he is just a delusional old man that time has passed by. If a constitutional convention is called, he is not going and I am.  He hates that.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.
> ...


I don't think I have ever seen anyone as determined as Jimmy in proffering such a clearly erroneous opinion.  It is almost like he has invested so much into his moronic construction of Wong that if he admits what everyone knows, that he is wrong, he is somehow lesser as a person.  I have this image of this disheveled man, looking older than he really is, typing furiously at his keyboard, spittle flying from his mouth all over the screen and keyboard.  Attacking anyone who dares to point out where he is wrong, except, of course those, like me, who he is afraid to engage with because I actually use the words of the decisions to prove him wrong. Does he not understand that today, in this country, there is no dispute that the children of illegal aliens born here are US citizens?  You can certainly argue that that should not be but it is the current state of the law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. No Court has ever construed Wong as he claims it should be construed with an additional requirements regarding the legal status of the parents.  No scholars seriously disputed the long settled principle that being born here made you a citizen until the Donald made his ridiculous claims and right wing talk show lawyers joined.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




But...but....but what about Samoa!


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


He has asked about Samoa repeatedly, often in response to posts where it was explained that the Courts have held that territories are not in the United States and, therefore, birth there does not confer citizenship via the 14th.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


This is an exemplar of trolling and has been reported.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, he is just a delusional old man that time has passed by. If a constitutional convention is called, he is not going and I am.  He hates that.



1. I don't want to go to any kind of convention as it is likely to be populated with too many ass holes like you.

2. You aren't going to any fucking convention, idiot. Which makes you comment about  me being delusional somewhat ironic.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> But...but....but what about Samoa!



So when you  libtards fail to win an argument based on facts and reason you resort to you infamous circle jerks, high fiving each other over nothing.

roflmao, liberalism is a mental disease.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



As if Wong Kim Ark doesn't exist, lol.

You are such a blithering fool.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > But...but....but what about Samoa!
> ...


If the argument is over whether a person born here to an illegal immigrant mother and father is a US citizen, then you have been losing the argument for over 100 years.  In fact, you are gonna lose that argument about 821 times today.  That is how many children will be born to illegal immigrants today and instantly become US citizens.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Clearly I am not the fool 

Since not only can I read the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe- children born if illegal aliens are recognized as U.S. citizens everyday.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > But...but....but what about Samoa!
> ...



_So when you  libtards fail to win an argument based on facts and reason you resort to you infamous circle jerks, high fiving each other over nothing.

roflmao, liberalism is a mental disease_

I wonder- could you manage to post if you were not allowed to make personal attacks and insults?

Pretty certain you couldn't.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, he is just a delusional old man that time has passed by. If a constitutional convention is called, he is not going and I am.  He hates that.
> ...


See, your age and increasing dementia becomes more apparent as  you contine to spam and troll your own threads.  This thread needs to be in the Conspiracy Forum.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2015)

Wow, another one just popped out!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You simply ignore the Wong requirement that parents be legal residents and here with the permission of the US government. That makes you a liar.

That you think people are falling for that kind of bullshit any more is what makes you a certified fool.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


When you are being a complete liar and fool, cherry picking the laws as you chose, then denying any relevance of the authors of the documents you cite, I think hyperbole and disgust are quite appropriate.

You are a Big Lie shit-for-brains.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


There is no such requirement.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2015)

^ Cherry Picker Extreme 1st Class on the rant

You don't have a clue about Pyler or Wong.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Thanks for proving me right- your post was a particularly delicious confirmation. 

I wonder- could you manage to post if you were not allowed to make personal attacks and insults?

Pretty certain you couldn't.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 28, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Reposting since you are ignoring who I proved you wrong before:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The word permission is mentioned 5 times in Wong Kim Ark- here they are:

(1&2)
on his return to the United States on the steamship Coptic in August, 1895, from a temporary visit to China, he applied to said collector of customs for permission to land, and was by the collector refused such permission,

(3 & 4) and he did return thereto by sea in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.

(5) that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission

Nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say that citizenship is dependent upon government permission for the parents to be in the United States

Nor does Wong Kim Ark contain the words "legal residents" together.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
> The word permission is mentioned 5 times in Wong Kim Ark- here they are:
> 
> (1&2)
> ...



You state, "Nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say that citizenship is dependent upon government permission for the parents to be in the United States."

Well risking the spam Nazi's wrath, I will post the relevant information for the lurkers since you have proven yourself to be a complete liar and do not care about what the text actually says:

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, *so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here*; _and_ are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. "

So, once again, you are a proven liar. You are like that liar Angela in the movie 'Catfish' you just lie so much you don't even realize that you are lying, lol.

"118 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 parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, *but have a permanent domicile 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."

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark



Syriusly said:


> Nor does Wong Kim Ark contain the words "legal residents" together.



The word domicile means 'legal residence' you stupid ass.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2015)

Mods, JimBowie continues to spam the thread.  Please move it to the Conspiracy forum.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Mods, JimBowie continues to spam the thread.  Please move it to the Conspiracy forum.



Why bury it in the Conspiracy Forum when there is no conspiracy mentioned?

Have you lost your meds again, Jake?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2015)

Your theory is conspiracy because no one accepts your nonsense.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 30, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Mods, JimBowie continues to spam the thread.  Please move it to the Conspiracy forum.
> ...


Is there forum for the congenitally stupid?  Move it there.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 30, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
> ...



Thanks for proving my point- nowhere does Wong Kim Ark use the word "Permission' and nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say anything about 'requires government permission'. 

We have illegal aliens who are here without the permission of the United States- but we permit them to remain here as long as have not deported them.

I know what you want Wong Kim Ark to say- but it doesn't. Wong Kim Ark no more requires a 'permanent domicile' than it requires that a person be a subject of the Emperor of China- those are statements of fact about the case. 

Again the language of the 14th Amendment is clear- anyone born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is born a U.S. citizen.

Wong Kim Ark states that the term 'jurisdiction' means the same thing both times it is mentioned in the 14th Amendment.
Plyler v. Doe states that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Therefore- as it has been all along- children born to aliens- legal or illegal- in the United States- are born U.S. citizens. 

You don't like that- change the Constitution.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your theory is conspiracy because no one accepts your nonsense.



You are such a bald faced lying whore.

I have already listed multiple experts that agree with me and presidential candidates running for office as well.

Do you ever get bored just lying about everything?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Thanks for proving my point- nowhere does Wong Kim Ark use the word "Permission' and nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say anything about 'requires government permission'.



Lol, you lie like the fascist you are.

I quoted from paragraph 96 "*so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here*" but you quibble that it doesn't actually use the word "permission", lolololololol.

Do you realize how thoroughly you are losing this discussion? It isn't that you are stupid necessarily, but that you are such a lying whore.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2015)

Your 'experts' are not accepted as such.

JimBowie, please immediately email SCOTUS, Congress, and the Pres they have it wrong.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 30, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your theory is conspiracy because no one accepts your nonsense.
> ...



LOL- one sure sign that Jimmie is getting desperate is that he starts accusing people of lying more.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 30, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for proving my point- nowhere does Wong Kim Ark use the word "Permission' and nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say anything about 'requires government permission'.
> ...



Do you realize that I just thoroughly exposed how you were lying about me?

How you are a lying asshole who lies because all of your fraudulant claims have been proven wrong?

As I pointed out- contrary to your lies- nowhere in Wong Kim Ark does it say parents must be here with the permission of the U.S. government in order for their children to be born citizens.

You just lie.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 30, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for proving my point- nowhere does Wong Kim Ark use the word "Permission' and nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say anything about 'requires government permission'.
> ...



LOL- considering you started out this thread with the idiotic claim that because a person born in Samoa is not a U.S. citizen that proves- well something- and you have been shown repeatedly that the reason a person born in Samoa is not a U.S. citizen is because- once again Samoa is not part of the United States.

Meanwhile- children who are born in the United States- regardless of the status of their parents(unless daddy is a diplomat) are born U.S. citizens.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 30, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your theory is conspiracy because no one accepts your nonsense.
> ...


You have not listed many experts. You referenced right talk show hosts who agree.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 30, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for proving my point- nowhere does Wong Kim Ark use the word "Permission' and nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say anything about 'requires government permission'.
> ...


How is he losing when, as a matter of fact and law, his position is the one being followed today by all courts and government offices.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 30, 2015)

"Proof that Birthright Citizenship is NOT Given to Illegal Aliens in the 14th A"

If one is born in the United States he is a citizen of the United States, regardless his parent's status; he is not an 'alien,' 'illegal' or otherwise.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 30, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are *illegals and legal aliens* both *not eligible for birthright citizenship* if *born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island*?
> 
> Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



LOL......

Silly rabbit- 

14th Amendment= birth in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Plyler v. Doe was a ruling which recognized that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Born on Swain Island is not born in the United States- but may be within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Born in Texas is born within the United States and within the jurisdiction of the United States

Silly rabbit- citzenship is for kids born inside the United States


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Now my calling you on lying is proof you are right?


lol, you libtards are such a riot.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are *illegals and legal aliens* both *not eligible for birthright citizenship* if *born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island*?
> ...



Kids born in the US with the permission of the US government and who have domicile are citizens by Constitutional right, the rest get theirs by current understanding of law, which is flawed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2015)

JB, you know you are lying.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Proof that Birthright Citizenship is NOT Given to Illegal Aliens in the 14th A"
> 
> If one is born in the United States he is a citizen of the United States, regardless his parent's status; he is not an 'alien,' 'illegal' or otherwise.



Yes, he is a criminal illegal alien with ZERO respect for our laws and he has no Constitutional right for citizenship.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Kids born in the US with the permission of the US government and who have domicile are citizens by Constitutional right, the rest get theirs by current understanding of law, which is flawed.


Not according to SCOTUS or law.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> JB, you know you are lying.



I know you need to stop snorting Draino, Jake the Fake Delegate.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Kids born in the US with the permission of the US government and who have domicile are citizens by Constitutional right, the rest get theirs by current understanding of law, which is flawed.
> ...



Yep, US v Wong Kim Ark paragraphs 96 and 118 state they must have the permission of the US government and legal residence in the USA.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2015)

Not according to federal courts or Congress.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



That people born on American Samoa are not born with birthright citizenship though born in US jurisdiction PROVEs that jurisdiction is not he sloe criteria as yo had repeated on other threads. Wong states they also need the permission of the US government and domicile status.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not according to federal courts or Congress.



Prove it, liar, the only SCOTUS ruling is Wong Kim Ark and it states it exactly as I quote it from that decision.

Parents have to be here with US government permission and have legal residence here as well for their kid to get birthright citizenship.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2015)

Not according to American law, Congress, or SCOTUS.  Quoting from SCOTUS when it has opined opposite your conclusin defeats it.


----------

