JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,767
- Thread starter
- #61
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This thread is proof of the ignorance and hate common to most on the right.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
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, .
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.
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.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.
LOL- Jimie Foul Mouth just gets more desperate and foul mouthed every time his delusions are pointed out.
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.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.
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 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.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.
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.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 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.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.
But...but....but what about Samoa!
This is an exemplar of trolling and has been reported.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.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 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.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.
But...but....but what about Samoa!
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.
But...but....but what about Samoa!
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.
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.
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, .
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