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.
what part needs clarification? do you believe that illegal immigrants (and more specifically their children born here) are not subject to our laws?Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?What the case says, is unless the baby born on USA soil's parents were (Indians not paying taxes), children of an attacking military of a foreign country, a baby born to parents who have diplomatic immunity (ambassadors and the such) of Foreign Nations...then ANYONE else born on USA jurisdiction/soil...IS a USA citizen, a natural Born Citizen, a citizen at Birth......I was looking for every thing on search engines last night about that case...
It was always about legal imagrants giving birth to a child on US soil, Wong went back to China and came back to the USA.
It says nothing about illegal criminals according to US law coming here and having a baby...
But a 120 Years ago they didn't have that problem almost all came through Ellis island .
Maybe this Texas move, is just for political fodder in the National election run up, but maybe it will be the case that those objecting have chosen to have the supreme Court hear?
A shame if this is the case, and they chose to do so on a re-do, before an election.... at least in the Wong case, this case was CHOSEN among many cases out there, to be the court case that would be brought to the supreme court, to decide on the meaning of born within the jurisdiction of the US, or under the jurisdiction meant, and THEY CHOSE not to bring the case UNTIL AFTER the election so that "politics" would NOT interfere.
there is no one born on USA soil that was EXCLUDED from being a citizen than the exclusions MENTIONED in the amendment....there was absolutely NO REQUIREMENT for the parents of a baby born on USA soil, TO BE a parent within good standing of the law, and a legal alien....vs. an illegal alien....NONE my dear, absolutely no distinction, no mention of illegal alien parents being an exception...
Bull shit that's a liberal interpretation dear.
It was all about legal immigrants , that's why we need the Supremes to clarify it.
Just one problem, the law is on his side and you are wrong.Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.
You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.
Nope. The law was never a law.
the constitution is law
faulty reasoning and a misinterpretation of a court ruling doesn't make a case.you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.
You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?
Here's a nice write up on the amendment.
Read the whole thing.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil
(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment
Note the domicile part.
can you give a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the word 'domicile?'
Jurisdiction is the practical authority to interpret and apply the law and the law interpreted was under California's domicile law at the time.
Thanks Peach but never mind him.
He's playing word games. If he really wanted an answer to his question then he'd get off his ass and fine it.
Fuck em and the horse he rode in on.
it's so 
what part needs clarification? do you believe that illegal immigrants (and more specifically their children born here) are not subject to our laws?Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?
What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?What the case says, is unless the baby born on USA soil's parents were (Indians not paying taxes), children of an attacking military of a foreign country, a baby born to parents who have diplomatic immunity (ambassadors and the such) of Foreign Nations...then ANYONE else born on USA jurisdiction/soil...IS a USA citizen, a natural Born Citizen, a citizen at Birth......I was looking for every thing on search engines last night about that case...
It was always about legal imagrants giving birth to a child on US soil, Wong went back to China and came back to the USA.
It says nothing about illegal criminals according to US law coming here and having a baby...
But a 120 Years ago they didn't have that problem almost all came through Ellis island .
Maybe this Texas move, is just for political fodder in the National election run up, but maybe it will be the case that those objecting have chosen to have the supreme Court hear?
A shame if this is the case, and they chose to do so on a re-do, before an election.... at least in the Wong case, this case was CHOSEN among many cases out there, to be the court case that would be brought to the supreme court, to decide on the meaning of born within the jurisdiction of the US, or under the jurisdiction meant, and THEY CHOSE not to bring the case UNTIL AFTER the election so that "politics" would NOT interfere.
there is no one born on USA soil that was EXCLUDED from being a citizen than the exclusions MENTIONED in the amendment....there was absolutely NO REQUIREMENT for the parents of a baby born on USA soil, TO BE a parent within good standing of the law, and a legal alien....vs. an illegal alien....NONE my dear, absolutely no distinction, no mention of illegal alien parents being an exception...
Bull shit that's a liberal interpretation dear.
It was all about legal immigrants , that's why we need the Supremes to clarify it.
You are like a pesky fly to me on here...
Did you ever answer my question about the japanese military that were here?
I am so loving this debate on the 14th a great argument
Because the amendment was never challenged on illegals....
Its getting the left and rights minds running to look at history, figure out old case laws and come back and debate
Who couldn't ask for more?
Ok, why in anyone's mind is it acceptable to cross our border illegally, plop out a baby and then demand U.S. citizenship?
Seriously, how do you justify this?
it was a distinction between those on a vacation in the USA that may have a child born and those living in the USA and had a child born, whether legal or illegal....you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.
You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?
The "legal immigrants" in this case were still Chinese Citizens, who later returned to China, but because the baby was born here he was an American Citizen. And in the dissent they are less than happy that you could, by the majority ruling, in most cases, just wander in have a baby and that baby would be an American. You'd know that if you'd read the bloody fucking case.Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?OP - I'm jealous of your low premium.
But, that's ObamaCare for you.
That issue was also addressed in the case, and they didn't care. Read it.
Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?What the case says, is unless the baby born on USA soil's parents were (Indians not paying taxes), children of an attacking military of a foreign country, a baby born to parents who have diplomatic immunity (ambassadors and the such) of Foreign Nations...then ANYONE else born on USA jurisdiction/soil...IS a USA citizen, a natural Born Citizen, a citizen at Birth......I was looking for every thing on search engines last night about that case...
It was always about legal imagrants giving birth to a child on US soil, Wong went back to China and came back to the USA.
It says nothing about illegal criminals according to US law coming here and having a baby...
But a 120 Years ago they didn't have that problem almost all came through Ellis island .
Maybe this Texas move, is just for political fodder in the National election run up, but maybe it will be the case that those objecting have chosen to have the supreme Court hear?
A shame if this is the case, and they chose to do so on a re-do, before an election.... at least in the Wong case, this case was CHOSEN among many cases out there, to be the court case that would be brought to the supreme court, to decide on the meaning of born within the jurisdiction of the US, or under the jurisdiction meant, and THEY CHOSE not to bring the case UNTIL AFTER the election so that "politics" would NOT interfere.
there is no one born on USA soil that was EXCLUDED from being a citizen than the exclusions MENTIONED in the amendment....there was absolutely NO REQUIREMENT for the parents of a baby born on USA soil, TO BE a parent within good standing of the law, and a legal alien....vs. an illegal alien....NONE my dear, absolutely no distinction, no mention of illegal alien parents being an exception...
Bull shit that's a liberal interpretation dear.
It was all about legal immigrants , that's why we need the Supremes to clarify it.
Ok, why in anyone's mind is it acceptable to cross our border illegally, plop out a baby and then demand U.S. citizenship?
Seriously, how do you justify this?
It doesn't have to be justified any more than to point out the following:
There is a popular misconception that the child's U.S. citizenship status (acquired by jus soli) legally helps the child's parents and siblings to quickly reclassify their visa status (or lack thereof) and to place them on a fast pathway to acquire lawful permanent residence and eventually United States citizenship.[2][3] This is a myth.[4]
For something that was never a law it sure has the power of law. Try again.Just one problem, the law is on his side and you are wrong.Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.
You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.
Nope. The law was never a law.
Ok, why in anyone's mind is it acceptable to cross our border illegally, plop out a baby and then demand U.S. citizenship?
Seriously, how do you justify this?
The "legal immigrants" in this case were still Chinese Citizens, who later returned to China, but because the baby was born here he was an American Citizen. And in the dissent they are less than happy that you could, by the majority ruling, in most cases, just wander in have a baby and that baby would be an American. You'd know that if you'd read the bloody fucking case.Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?What the case says, is unless the baby born on USA soil's parents were (Indians not paying taxes), children of an attacking military of a foreign country, a baby born to parents who have diplomatic immunity (ambassadors and the such) of Foreign Nations...then ANYONE else born on USA jurisdiction/soil...IS a USA citizen, a natural Born Citizen, a citizen at Birth......I was looking for every thing on search engines last night about that case...
It was always about legal imagrants giving birth to a child on US soil, Wong went back to China and came back to the USA.
It says nothing about illegal criminals according to US law coming here and having a baby...
But a 120 Years ago they didn't have that problem almost all came through Ellis island .
Maybe this Texas move, is just for political fodder in the National election run up, but maybe it will be the case that those objecting have chosen to have the supreme Court hear?
A shame if this is the case, and they chose to do so on a re-do, before an election.... at least in the Wong case, this case was CHOSEN among many cases out there, to be the court case that would be brought to the supreme court, to decide on the meaning of born within the jurisdiction of the US, or under the jurisdiction meant, and THEY CHOSE not to bring the case UNTIL AFTER the election so that "politics" would NOT interfere.
there is no one born on USA soil that was EXCLUDED from being a citizen than the exclusions MENTIONED in the amendment....there was absolutely NO REQUIREMENT for the parents of a baby born on USA soil, TO BE a parent within good standing of the law, and a legal alien....vs. an illegal alien....NONE my dear, absolutely no distinction, no mention of illegal alien parents being an exception...
Bull shit that's a liberal interpretation dear.
It was all about legal immigrants , that's why we need the Supremes to clarify it.
The issue of illegals was dealt with, which you would know if you would read, although probably not understand, the damn case.what part needs clarification? do you believe that illegal immigrants (and more specifically their children born here) are not subject to our laws?Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?
What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?What the case says, is unless the baby born on USA soil's parents were (Indians not paying taxes), children of an attacking military of a foreign country, a baby born to parents who have diplomatic immunity (ambassadors and the such) of Foreign Nations...then ANYONE else born on USA jurisdiction/soil...IS a USA citizen, a natural Born Citizen, a citizen at Birth......I was looking for every thing on search engines last night about that case...
It was always about legal imagrants giving birth to a child on US soil, Wong went back to China and came back to the USA.
It says nothing about illegal criminals according to US law coming here and having a baby...
But a 120 Years ago they didn't have that problem almost all came through Ellis island .
Maybe this Texas move, is just for political fodder in the National election run up, but maybe it will be the case that those objecting have chosen to have the supreme Court hear?
A shame if this is the case, and they chose to do so on a re-do, before an election.... at least in the Wong case, this case was CHOSEN among many cases out there, to be the court case that would be brought to the supreme court, to decide on the meaning of born within the jurisdiction of the US, or under the jurisdiction meant, and THEY CHOSE not to bring the case UNTIL AFTER the election so that "politics" would NOT interfere.
there is no one born on USA soil that was EXCLUDED from being a citizen than the exclusions MENTIONED in the amendment....there was absolutely NO REQUIREMENT for the parents of a baby born on USA soil, TO BE a parent within good standing of the law, and a legal alien....vs. an illegal alien....NONE my dear, absolutely no distinction, no mention of illegal alien parents being an exception...
Bull shit that's a liberal interpretation dear.
It was all about legal immigrants , that's why we need the Supremes to clarify it.
You are like a pesky fly to me on here...
Did you ever answer my question about the japanese military that were here?
I am so loving this debate on the 14th a great argument
Because the amendment was never challenged on illegals....
Its getting the left and rights minds running to look at history, figure out old case laws and come back and debate
Who couldn't ask for more?
Ok, why in anyone's mind is it acceptable to cross our border illegally, plop out a baby and then demand U.S. citizenship?
Seriously, how do you justify this?
The "legal immigrants" in this case were still Chinese Citizens, who later returned to China, but because the baby was born here he was an American Citizen. And in the dissent they are less than happy that you could, by the majority ruling, in most cases, just wander in have a baby and that baby would be an American. You'd know that if you'd read the bloody fucking case.Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?
What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?What the case says, is unless the baby born on USA soil's parents were (Indians not paying taxes), children of an attacking military of a foreign country, a baby born to parents who have diplomatic immunity (ambassadors and the such) of Foreign Nations...then ANYONE else born on USA jurisdiction/soil...IS a USA citizen, a natural Born Citizen, a citizen at Birth......I was looking for every thing on search engines last night about that case...
It was always about legal imagrants giving birth to a child on US soil, Wong went back to China and came back to the USA.
It says nothing about illegal criminals according to US law coming here and having a baby...
But a 120 Years ago they didn't have that problem almost all came through Ellis island .
Maybe this Texas move, is just for political fodder in the National election run up, but maybe it will be the case that those objecting have chosen to have the supreme Court hear?
A shame if this is the case, and they chose to do so on a re-do, before an election.... at least in the Wong case, this case was CHOSEN among many cases out there, to be the court case that would be brought to the supreme court, to decide on the meaning of born within the jurisdiction of the US, or under the jurisdiction meant, and THEY CHOSE not to bring the case UNTIL AFTER the election so that "politics" would NOT interfere.
there is no one born on USA soil that was EXCLUDED from being a citizen than the exclusions MENTIONED in the amendment....there was absolutely NO REQUIREMENT for the parents of a baby born on USA soil, TO BE a parent within good standing of the law, and a legal alien....vs. an illegal alien....NONE my dear, absolutely no distinction, no mention of illegal alien parents being an exception...
Bull shit that's a liberal interpretation dear.
It was all about legal immigrants , that's why we need the Supremes to clarify it.
Sorry to disappoint paint my house
Your boy harry reid agrees
For something that was never a law it sure has the power of law. Try again.Just one problem, the law is on his side and you are wrong.Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.
You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.
Nope. The law was never a law.
I'm a firm believer in the constitution and I do live in the real world.
it's a distinction that doesn't exist in the amendment. it's a distinction that isn't made in the wong decision.it was a distinction between those on a vacation in the USA that may have a child born and those living in the USA and had a child born, whether legal or illegal....you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.
You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?
so the term is used to determine if someone is living in an area....this could be renting, or owning a home, or living with a friend or relative or even living in a homeless shelter or in a car....if they live there, this is their 'home', their domicile, they've established roots, a connection....and even if they don't live there, but have kept a connection....like a home or apt, if they have not committed to living in a new state or new area in their state, then their jurisdiction on laws, resides in that domicile.
so, basically, where you have chosen to live, and/or make a living as an immigrant, whether legal or illegal, is your 'domicile' vs immigrants that are just passing through while vacationing....
those vacationing....kids born on us soil, not natural born citizens...
those born to immigrants, illegal or legal, who have basically 'set up house' here, ARE natural born citizens.
EDIT
At least I think so????????????? lol
As I said, good luck, you'll need it.For something that was never a law it sure has the power of law. Try again.Just one problem, the law is on his side and you are wrong.Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.
You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.
Nope. The law was never a law.
Yup and that's why they need to amend the amendment.
Try again.
no, it really isn't.what part needs clarification? do you believe that illegal immigrants (and more specifically their children born here) are not subject to our laws?What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?What the case says, is unless the baby born on USA soil's parents were (Indians not paying taxes), children of an attacking military of a foreign country, a baby born to parents who have diplomatic immunity (ambassadors and the such) of Foreign Nations...then ANYONE else born on USA jurisdiction/soil...IS a USA citizen, a natural Born Citizen, a citizen at Birth......I was looking for every thing on search engines last night about that case...
It was always about legal imagrants giving birth to a child on US soil, Wong went back to China and came back to the USA.
It says nothing about illegal criminals according to US law coming here and having a baby...
But a 120 Years ago they didn't have that problem almost all came through Ellis island .
Maybe this Texas move, is just for political fodder in the National election run up, but maybe it will be the case that those objecting have chosen to have the supreme Court hear?
A shame if this is the case, and they chose to do so on a re-do, before an election.... at least in the Wong case, this case was CHOSEN among many cases out there, to be the court case that would be brought to the supreme court, to decide on the meaning of born within the jurisdiction of the US, or under the jurisdiction meant, and THEY CHOSE not to bring the case UNTIL AFTER the election so that "politics" would NOT interfere.
there is no one born on USA soil that was EXCLUDED from being a citizen than the exclusions MENTIONED in the amendment....there was absolutely NO REQUIREMENT for the parents of a baby born on USA soil, TO BE a parent within good standing of the law, and a legal alien....vs. an illegal alien....NONE my dear, absolutely no distinction, no mention of illegal alien parents being an exception...
Bull shit that's a liberal interpretation dear.
It was all about legal immigrants , that's why we need the Supremes to clarify it.
You are like a pesky fly to me on here...
Did you ever answer my question about the japanese military that were here?
I am so loving this debate on the 14th a great argument
Because the amendment was never challenged on illegals....
Its getting the left and rights minds running to look at history, figure out old case laws and come back and debate
Who couldn't ask for more?
Look at my post 163. Nice write up on the 14th right there.
