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

[RKMBrown]

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

• Is born in the United States
  
• Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

• Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

• Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

As of 2015, the "United States" includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island. (See § Citizenship at birth on the U.S. territories and former U.S. territories.)

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States

These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.

The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in US vs Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"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

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?

"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

And SCOTUS also recognised in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.

"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. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"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. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore the children of illegal aliens born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

Learn how to read. It says subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Duh!!! Foreigners are not subject to US jurisdiction, ya moron.

 

[Toro]

Further demolishing this argument regarding domicile and jurisdiction was Plyer v Doe 1982, which struck down a law by Texas to deny education funding to the children of illegal immigrants.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it, even the dissenting opinion stated that even those who entered the country illegally were within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Birthright citizenship is one of the foundations of American Exceptionalism. I guess some "conservatives" think America is less than exceptional.

 

[RKMBrown]

Further demolishing this argument regarding domicile and jurisdiction was Plyer v Doe 1982, which struck down a law by Texas to deny education funding to the children of illegal immigrants.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it, even the dissenting opinion stated that even those who entered the country illegally were within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Birthright citizenship is one of the foundations of American Exceptionalism. I guess some "conservatives" think America is less than exceptional.

What a moron. WALKING INTO THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE YOU A US CITIZEN YOU LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE TO EVER WALK THE PLANET. WE DON'T OWE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHIT YOU ASS HOLE

 

[Toro]

Further demolishing this argument regarding domicile and jurisdiction was Plyer v Doe 1982, which struck down a law by Texas to deny education funding to the children of illegal immigrants.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it, even the dissenting opinion stated that even those who entered the country illegally were within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Birthright citizenship is one of the foundations of American Exceptionalism. I guess some "conservatives" think America is less than exceptional.

What a moron. WALKING INTO THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE YOU A US CITIZEN YOU LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE TO EVER WALK THE PLANET. WE DON'T OWE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHIT YOU ASS HOLE

Calm down, angry old man. That's not the argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thee is no argument, Brown. Infants born in the US to parents who are subect to the jurisdiction of the US are citizens. No ifs ands or buts.

 

[Syriusly]

You quoted Section 96 of U.S. Wong Kim Ark, while ignoring the rest of Wong Kim Ark- and ignore the Supreme Court clear explanation of 'jurisdiction' in Plyler v. Doe.

Lol, I love the Big Lie technique you use so clumsily.
.

Feel free to point out a single thing that I said what is a lie.

If you can't- well then of course you lied about me- which of course you have.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that you can change the status of children born here to illegal immigrants- but to do so you need to amend the language of the Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

You quoted Section 96 of U.S. Wong Kim Ark, while ignoring the rest of Wong Kim Ark- and ignore the Supreme Court clear explanation of 'jurisdiction' in Plyler v. Doe.

Remember the 14th Amendment says:

Section 1. 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 who is 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' according to the Supreme Court?
Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Jurisdiction


There’s not much wiggle room in the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, but Texas, the appellants, tried:


In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws.


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.


Opponents of birthright citizenship for children of undocumented aliens often claim that these children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and hence, should not be granted citizenship.


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.

US v Wong Kim Ark lays out an inclusive set of qualifications, and being subject to the jurisdiction of the united states is only one of them, Having legal domicile in the states is another, stated in section 96 after e lengthy set of examples of not qualified groups of people in section 93.

You are embarrassing yourself, dude.

You quoted Section 96 of U.S. Wong Kim Ark, while ignoring the rest of Wong Kim Ark- and ignore the Supreme Court clear explanation of 'jurisdiction' in Plyler v. Doe.

There is still a need for legal Domicile and permission of the USA.

Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it say any such thing.

Born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof- which the court in Plyler v. Doe very clearly recognized includes illegal aliens in the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

The 14th Amendment has two requirements:

• All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
• and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

No other requirements- nor did the court impose any other restrictions in Wong Kim Ark

Face it, you are engaging in blatant lies here. Game over, dude.

Show me a single lie on my part.

Every thing I have posted is both factual- and cited either the 14th Amendment or either Wong Kim Ark or Plyler v. Doe.

Are you really so desperate that you need to lie about me now?

 

[Syriusly]

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

• Is born in the United States
  
• Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

• Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

• Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

As of 2015, the "United States" includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island. (See § Citizenship at birth on the U.S. territories and former U.S. territories.)

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States

These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.

The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in US vs Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"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

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?

"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

And SCOTUS also recognised in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.

"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. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"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. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore the children of illegal aliens born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

Learn how to read. It says subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Duh!!! Foreigners are not subject to US jurisdiction, ya moron.

Sure they are.

A foreigner who robs a bank in Omaha is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And Plyler v. Doe made that very clear.

 

[Syriusly]

Further demolishing this argument regarding domicile and jurisdiction was Plyer v Doe 1982, which struck down a law by Texas to deny education funding to the children of illegal immigrants.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it, even the dissenting opinion stated that even those who entered the country illegally were within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Birthright citizenship is one of the foundations of American Exceptionalism. I guess some "conservatives" think America is less than exceptional.

What a moron. WALKING INTO THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE YOU A US CITIZEN YOU LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE TO EVER WALK THE PLANET. WE DON'T OWE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHIT YOU ASS HOLE

LOL......a poster who thinks if he posts in all caps his post sounds 'truthier'.....

What a moron.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie is not concerned with the law, only with what he thinks the law should do.

Which it has not, does not, and will not.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trump is wrong.

Thus the Fourteenth Amendment begins, “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.” This is the common-law doctrine of jus soli, and the meaning of the language is straightforward.

To the extent an alternative reading exists, restrictionists claim the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause creates ambiguity about the Amendment’s true meaning. Alien parents supposedly owe allegiance to a different sovereign, and therefore they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and therefore their U.S.-born kids are not entitled to citizenship.

But “jurisdiction” defines the territory where the force of law applies and to whom—and this principle is well settled to include almost everyone within U.S. borders, regardless of their home country or the circumstances of their birth. It does not include foreign diplomats, who enjoy sovereign immunity, and foreign military invaders, who are supposed to obey the laws of war. By the circular restrictionist logic, illegal immigrants could not be prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.

Members of the 39th Congress forcefully debated birthright citizenship, with opponents arguing it would benefit the ethnic targets of the day—Indian tribes, Chinese laborers building the railroads, “gypsies.” They did not prevail. In 1898 the Supreme Court confirmed the Amendment’s original meaning in Wong Kim Ark, which recognized the citizenship of a San Francisco-born man of Chinese descent, and it reaffirmed this understanding as recently as 1982 in Plyler v. Doe.​

Born in the U.S.A.

Being in the jurisdiction is only one requirement and in the ONLY birthright citizenship case the SCOTUS has ever ruled on, US v Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS stated that there are additional requirements other than being born in the US.

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"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

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?

"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

And SCOTUS also recognised in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.

"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. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"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. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

Do you know what the word 'AND' means, Toro?

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore their children born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

Again, your logic is circular.

The ruling clearly states that the American government only has jurisdiction over the resident if they are domiciled here.

If they are not domiciled here as you claim, they are not under the jurisdiction of American law. Thus, they cannot commit crimes here, and cannot be prosecuted under American law. Clearly, that's not the case.

The definition of domicile is LEGAL residency, dude, just look it up instead of spewing more ignorance.

And anyway, US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 states they also have to have permission from the US government to be here, and that is the ONE AND ONLY SCOTUS decision on birthright citizenship, and you can look that one up too, but we know you wont because you don't give a flying fart about what the Truth of the matter is. You are going to repeat the same old talking point ad nauseum. Same ole libtard same ole

 

[JimBowie1958]

Further demolishing this argument regarding domicile and jurisdiction was Plyer v Doe 1982, which struck down a law by Texas to deny education funding to the children of illegal immigrants.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it, even the dissenting opinion stated that even those who entered the country illegally were within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Birthright citizenship is one of the foundations of American Exceptionalism. I guess some "conservatives" think America is less than exceptional.

What a moron. WALKING INTO THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE YOU A US CITIZEN YOU LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE TO EVER WALK THE PLANET. WE DON'T OWE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHIT YOU ASS HOLE

But the elected candidates DO owe corporations for all the campaign donations and they extract payback in more black market and H1-B indentured labor.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie is not concerned with the law, only with what he thinks the law should do.

Which it has not, does not, and will not.

I can actually read the decision, dumbass, while you say nothing really at all other than demonstrate what an ignorant fucktard you are.

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

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

Is born in the United States

Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

As of 2015, the "United States" includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island. (See §HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "/l"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "/l"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"Citizenship at birth on the U.S. territories and former U.S. territories.)

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States

These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.

The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"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

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?

"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

And SCOTUS also recognised in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.

"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. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"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. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore their children born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

For reference:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/III

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

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/05/plyler-v-doe-1982-and-jurisdiction/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/444/case.html

http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it say any such thing.

Born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof- which the court in Plyler v. Doe very clearly recognized includes illegal aliens in the United States.

US v Wong Kim Ark does not cease to exist just because you don't like it. Lol, just another stupid libtard trick; close your eyes and pretend it isn't there and maybe it might go away? roflmao


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

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

Is born in the United States

Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

As of 2015, the "United States" includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island. (See §HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "/l"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "/l"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"Citizenship at birth on the U.S. territories and former U.S. territories.)

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States

These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.

The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"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

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?

"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

And SCOTUS also recognised in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.

"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. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"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. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore their children born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

For reference:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/III

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

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/05/plyler-v-doe-1982-and-jurisdiction/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/444/case.html

http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/

 

[JimBowie1958]

A foreigner who robs a bank in Omaha is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And Plyler v. Doe made that very clear.

And POWs are certainly under US jurisdiction, and yet they cannot give birth to anchor babies. Your bullshit does not hold up. The 14th and Wong Kim Ark do not say what you wish they said.


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

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

Is born in the United States

Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

As of 2015, the "United States" includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island. (See §HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "/l"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "/l"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"HYPERLINK "file:////l/"Citizenship at birth on the U.S. territories and former U.S. territories.)

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States

These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.

The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"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

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?

"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

And SCOTUS also recognised in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.

"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. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"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. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore their children born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

For reference:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/III

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

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/05/plyler-v-doe-1982-and-jurisdiction/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/444/case.html

http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/

 

[JimBowie1958]

LOL......a poster who thinks if he posts in all caps his post sounds 'truthier'.....

What a moron.

At least he can read and think for himself, unlike you parroting libtards who repeat things you do not know or understand.

Mod Edit - repeating the same material over and over is spamming.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are no more right on any of this, JB, than you were that SC was a sovereign state attacked wrongly by the US national government in 1861.

The fact is all you can do now is to spam and troll and violate rules on posting linked material sites.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are no more right on any of this, JB, than you were that SC was a sovereign state attacked wrongly by the US national government in 1861.

The fact is all you can do now is to spam and troll and violate rules on posting linked material sites.

It is not that I am right, it is that the SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment don't say what you lie saying it does contain.

To qualify for Birthright citizenship, according to SCOTU in US v Wong Kim Ark, the parents have to be in the country with US government permission and have legal domicile in the US.

Too bad you cant read and want to remain ignorant and full of shit, Jake.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Interesting how this issue is not nearly so settled as the libtards and RINOs try to make it sound.

America we can TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! Don't let things slip away in despair simply because Soros and Koch bro's are trying to drown our nation on pro-immigration propaganda. This country belongs to WE THE PEOPLE not the biggest money bags.