Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment

[JimBowie1958]

On the contrary- the Court VERY specifically says otherwise:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution, and their children "born in the United States" cannot be less "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

More lies, as Section 96 plainly states that to qualify for birthright citizenship the parents must have legal domicile and have permission of the USA.

Lol, it must suck to be as stupid as you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie gets walloped on this issue every time.

The immigrants are staying.

I like General Wesley Clark's idea to indefinitely incarcerate far right reactionary Americans who will not support the country during times of war.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You apparently missed the entire rest of the Wong Kim Ark.

And you keep insisting that Wong Kim Ark says what it doesn't say.

Nowhere does it say 'only availiable to the parents that are legal domicile in the USA and here with government permission.

Matter of fact- nowhere in Wong Kim Ark does it say that his parents were here with government permission- they were indeed residents- but residents who if they left the United States could not legally return.

This is the ruling in that case and it states specifically in Section 118:
"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."
169 US 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark | OpenJurist
In Section 93 it states exceptions to the 14th Amendment:
""93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every 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. ..." Note that the word "Domicile" means "primary legal primary residence"
Also on Section 96 there is not room left for doubt as the ruling specifically states:
""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. "
By definition illegal aliens are not here with the permission of the United States and they cannot have permanent legal domicile until they are here with permission. So how can an illegal alien give birth to a citizen under the requirements of either the 14th Amendment or Wong?

exactly

they cant

Sure, they can. They have, repeatedly, on this thread. So have numerous courts and legal scholars. Millions of people were and are American citizens though born here to parents here without permission. Those who are still alive are every bit the American citizen you are; they can vote, serve in the military, get government assistance and serve as President of the United States and, absent a constitutional amendment, you cannot do shit to change that. You can pontificate all you want but that does not change the fact that all of these "anchor babies" as you bigots falsely call them are American citizens, your amateur constitutional analysis notwithstanding.

nope

and yet they persist with their Big Lie tactic, simply repeating their lies without explanation

or just making things up

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie gets walloped on this issue every time.

Lol, you cant come up with one supporting fact, but *I* am getting walloped. You need to start taking your Zoloft again, liar.

The immigrants are staying.

Bullshit, the ILLEGALS are not. Either we start kicking them out and our economy then recovers, or these parasites continue to strangle our economy and they leve because the economy is so bad. Either way they start leaving, idiot.

I like General Wesley Clark's idea to indefinitely incarcerate far right reactionary Americans who will not support the country during times of war.

Come get it then, dumbass. All I know is that *you* wont be the one showing up, coward.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the far right reactionary wussies defy the world. There is one below:

 

[paddymurphy]

It is so pathetic to watch grown men, even if your libtards, just making shit up and to put on like you know what you are talking about when you have plainly not read the decisions.

Thus you lack even the most basic forms of honesty, like your heroes Hitler, Goebels, Stalin and Mao.

I think it is pathetic watching you attack anyone who disagrees with you- and refusing to argue the facts.

I have quoted Section 96 of US v Wong Kim Ark and you continue to ignore it even though it proves you wrong.

What else is there to say in response to your continued blather other than toss off?

It does not prove me wrong. First of all, dumbass, there is no "section 96". Those numbers are from the website that posted the opinion. They are not in the opinion. Second, the portion you keep referring to, or, to be correct, that the person who wrote the crap you post without attribution refers to, does not mean what you claim it means. You have to read the entire opinion. You take the courts' recitation of the fact that the parents were apparently legal residents to as somehow the basis for the opinion. It was not. The court based the citizenship of their son on the fact that he was born in this country. Did you know that in the year Won Kim Ark was born, 1873, there were no laws regarding who was and who was not legally allowed into the nation other than one banning criminals. Their status, other than that they were not diplomats, was not relevant to their son's citizenship.

 

[paddymurphy]

Your reading of Wong is plain wrong is what is being pointed out.

And as of yet you have not explained why I am misunderstanding SCOTUS stating specifically in THE ONLY DECISION THE HAVE EVER RENDERED on alien birthright citizenship that the parents MUST have legal domicile and the permission of the US government to qualify for the birthright citizenship for their kids.

You have never answered it nor read it either though I have provided links and the relevant sections.

In short you are nothing more than a loud mouthed troll who keeps babbling about something he apparently does not understand.

"that the parents MUST have legal domicile and the permission of the US government to qualify for the birthright citizenship for their kids." It states no such thing. His parents did not have legal residency because there were no legal requirements regarding admission to the United States when they came here before 1873. His birth here is what made him a citizen. There is no legal authority, from prior to Wong Kim Ark's case or since that supports your claims. Not a single case found that a person who was born here was, nevertheless, not a citizen. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark reviewed centuries of English common law that established that citizenship followed the birth of a person in a nation unless the parents were diplomats or part of an invading army. You put all of your faith in one fake internet lawyer's opinion and ignore centuries of legal precedent.

 

[paddymurphy]

Has any child ever been denied citizenship because his parents were not here in the United State for business?

Not one..

Prove that bullshit.

Has any child ever been denied citizenship because his parents did not have a permanent domicile in the United States?

Not one..

Prove that.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

And Plyler v. Doe very clearly resolved that anyone in the United States is within the jurisdiction of the United States if they were subject to the laws of the United States- i.e. anyone but diplomats.

Plyer v Doe ruled on an entirely different matter than birthright citizenship, stating that everyone here legally or illegally is still entitled to due process. US v Wong Kim Ark is still the only ruling that they have made on the subject and you cant read for fear of being shown wrong, like a moron.

And more than just diplomats are not entitled to birthright citizenship as well, ignoramus. The Children of prisoners of war, heads of state and diplomatic staff as well do not qualify.

You are such a demonstrable idiot it amazes me why you persist in humiliating yourself.

If you are too fucking stupid to understand that the current state of the law is that the children born to illegal immigrants are citizens, your other opinions are not worthy of consideration. Why do you think folks are talking about "changing" the law to eliminate birthright citizenship if the law does not currently provide for that? You ask him to prove an incidence when a child was NOT denied citizenship? There are millions of them. You assholes call them anchor babies. Are you now saying that there are no anchor babies? That that is just another right wing lie? So what is it, genius? Do we have birthright citizenship now that should be changed or not? You seem to want to have it both ways.

 

[paddymurphy]

On the contrary- the Court VERY specifically says otherwise:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution, and their children "born in the United States" cannot be less "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

More lies, as Section 96 plainly states that to qualify for birthright citizenship the parents must have legal domicile and have permission of the USA.

Lol, it must suck to be as stupid as you are.

The Court explained that anyone present in the country, other than those immune from the laws because of their status as diplomats for representatives of a foreign sovereign, are subject to the jurisdiction of that nation:
"The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption "from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found" were stated as follows:

When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were [p686] not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign counties are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant such exemption."

Accordingly, anyone here other than those expressly not subject to our jurisdiction are subject to our jurisdiction.
The Court further explained:
"In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that, upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war, and that the implied license under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants for purposes of business or pleasure can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See also Carlisle v. United States (1872), 16 Wall. 147, 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877), 95 U.S. 210; Wildenhus' Case (1887), 120 U.S. 1; Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604.

Foreign sovereigns, their armies or navies and their foreign ministers are the only ones "not subject to the jurisdiction. This is what the Court explained in those parts of the decision you wish to ignore.


"The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, 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."

How can this be any plainer to you? The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that anyone within the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Here is the penultimate holding in Wong Kim Ark:
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes."

The courts conclusions are (1) that the 14th amendment affirms the longstanding common law principle of "citizenship by birth within the territory"; and (2) subject only to the exceptions of "children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers"; those "born on foreign public ships" or born to "enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory"; and "members of Indian tribes.." That is the court's holding. Your attempt to somehow turn "domicile", which simply means where you live, into a legal term of art somehow denoting that you are "legally" allowed in the country is ridiculous.

You again ignore language in the opinion that directly contradicts you:
"It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.
Ex.Doc. H.R. No. 10, 1st sess. 32d Congress, p. 4; 6 Webster's Works, 56; United States v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a; Ellesmere on Postnati 63; 1 Hale P.C. 62; 4 Bl.Com. 92."

So, independent of any "domiciliation", a person in a nation is subject to its jurisdiction. There goes your silly reliance on the fact that the parents were "domiciled" (i.e. lived) in the US. The Court specifically rejected that precise argument.

Finally, the argument you have parroted here are the same arguments set forth in the dissenting opinion. Guess why it was a dissenting opinion?

 

[JimBowie1958]

And the far right reactionary wussies defy the world. There is one below:

Jake the Fake Delegate is just trolling now as he never had any facts or reason, and now he doesn't even have any humor.

Jake, face it, your point of view is based on a brain fart by Brenan in one of his side notes taken from a book with no authority whatsoever.

This thing is going to get fixed, like it or not, you silly little cocksucker.

 

[paddymurphy]

And the far right reactionary wussies defy the world. There is one below:

Jake the Fake Delegate is just trolling now as he never had any facts or reason, and now he doesn't even have any humor.

Jake, face it, your point of view is based on a brain fart by Brenan in one of his side notes taken from a book with no authority whatsoever.

This thing is going to get fixed, like it or not, you silly little cocksucker.

His view is based on the passages I cited above which prove that you are an idiot when it comes to understanding the constitution and the constitutional cases decided by the Supreme Court. What shitty law school did you attend to be so clueless about con law?

And it was not just Brennan or the majority. Burger, writing in dissent, agreed with that birthright citizenship:

Writing for the majority, J. Brennan rejected that argument saying it was not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Writing for the four dissenting Justices, J. Burger concurs on this point:

I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state.

So it was the UNANIMOUS opinion of the Supreme Court that Wong Kim Ark says precisely the opposite of what you have been posting here for days.

The Supreme Court dealt again with this issue and this time specifically observed that a child born in the United States to parents here illegally is a US citizen.
In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court wrote:

Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested [471 U.S. 444, 447] suspension of deportation. The Immigration Judge, ruling that respondents were ineligible for suspension because they had not satisfied the requirement of seven years' continuous physical presence, ordered their deportation. Respondents appealed the order to the BIA, asserting a variety of arguments to establish that the deportation violated their rights or the rights of their child. The BIA rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal.

- See more at: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Now, try to explain away that holding in Rios. Explain how the Supreme Court, in an unanimous opinion, observing that the child born to illegal immigrants is a US Citizen by virtue of his birth in this country, does not prove you so fucking wrong. Explain how the unanimous opinion of the Court in Plyler that a person born in the US, regardless of the immigration status of the parents does not prove you fucking wrong. We will wait patiently as your try to get your little brain around these two cases.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jim, the problem will be fixed iaw standing law, custom, and the Constitution.

They will not be mass round ups, incarceration, or deportation.

If any on the far right attempt violence, they will be treated by LEO as the criminals they so wish to imitate.

 

[ogibillm]

On the contrary- the Court VERY specifically says otherwise:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution, and their children "born in the United States" cannot be less "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

More lies, as Section 96 plainly states that to qualify for birthright citizenship the parents must have legal domicile and have permission of the USA.

Lol, it must suck to be as stupid as you are.

no, it doesn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JB's misconstrued ass backward portray of the law is laughable. Doesn't have traction, has not had traction, and never will have traction.

 

[ogibillm]

JB's misconstrued ass backward portray of the law is laughable. Doesn't have traction, has not had traction, and never will have traction.

it's just this easy - all they need to do is explain howa child born in the united states is not under the jurisdiction of the united states.
as soon as they can do that for someone other than a diplomat's family, they'll have an argument

 

[JimBowie1958]

JB's misconstrued ass backward portray of the law is laughable. Doesn't have traction, has not had traction, and never will have traction.

it's just this easy - all they need to do is explain howa child born in the united states is not under the jurisdiction of the united states.
as soon as they can do that for someone other than a diplomat's family, they'll have an argument

Being in the Jurisdiction of the United States is not the sole criteria or else the children of prisoners of war, embassy staff and heads of state would also have anchor baby rights, and everyone agrees that they do not.

Do you comprehend how that little factoid totally blows your bullshit out of the water?

In section 96 of US v Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS lays it all out, in the ONE AND ONLY DECISION ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP.

"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."

Suck it, bitches.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JB's misconstrued ass backward portray of the law is laughable. Doesn't have traction, has not had traction, and never will have traction.

More unwarranted claims by you, nothing new and nothing really said at all.

Fuck off Jake the Fake Delegate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JB is one who believes South Carolina was a sovereign nation attacked by the Union.

HB is the one who thinks he knows better than SCOTUS and everyone will listen to hin.

JB, old buddy, we are being kind to you here in listening to you. Spout away, old bean, we have our umbrellas.

 

[paddymurphy]

JB's misconstrued ass backward portray of the law is laughable. Doesn't have traction, has not had traction, and never will have traction.

More unwarranted claims by you, nothing new and nothing really said at all.

Fuck off Jake the Fake Delegate.

What's the matter, pussy, still trying to figure how to respond to my posts? You know, the ones that proved you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. No response to the fact that the supreme ct in Plyler unanimously held that being born here conveyed citizenship regardless of the parents status? Or the holding in Rios stating the same?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JB is just a freak libertarian, nothing more.

The South won't rise again, the undocumented will not be rounded up, the citizens will not be uncitizened, and the rest of us will watch Trump do his thing.

He has made this campaign so amazing.