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

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie continues to insiste on a interp that SCOTUS and real America does not accept.

 

[candycorn]

JimBowie continues to insiste on a interp that SCOTUS and real America does not accept.

No part of America accepts it. It's a non-issue that will never come up and once it does come up, it will be slapped down within a minute of it's filing.

The President has zero authority to interpret the Constitution. That is why we have courts. So it's really a non issue about birthright citizenship.

He does have the authority to send jack-booted-thugs into a community and arrest everyone. Sadly, this is what the GOP has devolved into...basically a xenophobic group that is desperately trying to stay relevant. Once it used to compete in the marketplace of ideas by sponsoring market solutions to challenges, "peace through strength" to quote the Reagan slogans, and trying to represent the sensible center of the american political spectrum to quote Colin Powell. Now it's pointing to a child in the crib and saying, "You're not one of us; you have to go" or to some lady who is struggling to make it as a nanny and wanting to deport her. "Demonizing those who are different" is pretty much their lone contribution to the ideas marketplace now.

One of the truly sad things is this. If you were to go into a lot of the restaurants, shops, garages, bakeries, nail salons, and even accounting offices I have been in; you'd see a mixture of Hispanics working along side whites and blacks. There is no division there; they are all Americans. The self-proprietors I know of who may be first or second generation Americans are proud to be here; happy to be here. There isn't this angst about who is here legal and who isn't. You show up, you work, and you contribute.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interesting how this issue is so settled as the liberals and the mainstream Republicans make it sound.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie continues to insiste on a interp that SCOTUS and real America does not accept.

No part of America accepts it. .

It is interesting how you and Jake the Fake have formed this little circle jerk, ignoring all the rulings text I have posted and just you two continue to back slap each other like you have proven something, when you have not proven anything at all. The vast majority of Americans want the Anchor Baby practices banned by law and the laws changed where needed, and yet you two think no part of America accepts or supports this goal? roflmao

Again US v Wong Kim Ark, which is the ONLY SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship paragraph 96 states that to qualify for birthright citizenship the parents have to be in the US with the governments permission, and in paragraph 96 they give a rather long list of those that are not covered by the 14th, and you idiots continue to blather with you stupid high fives and bullshit lies.

The facts are plain enough; one must have legal domicile and the permission of the US government to give birth to an Anchor Baby.

Case closed, cry all you want.

And it WILL get changed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Interesting how this issue is so settled as the liberals and the mainstream Republicans make it sound.

No it isn't, but the RINOs and libtards like you want to keep on sucking corporate dick, and so you cheer lead for them, and that is all, Jakey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You are fun to toy with. Yeah, they are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

The caps mean you are silly. No one said they were ,only that they are subject to US jurisdiction.

 

[candycorn]

JimBowie continues to insiste on a interp that SCOTUS and real America does not accept.

No part of America accepts it. .

It is interesting how you and Jake the Fake have formed this little circle jerk, ignoring all the rulings text I have posted and just you two continue to back slap each other like you have proven something, when you have not proven anything at all. The vast majority of Americans want the Anchor Baby practices banned by law and the laws changed where needed, and yet you two think no part of America accepts or supports this goal? roflmao

Again US v Wong Kim Ark, which is the ONLY SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship paragraph 96 states that to qualify for birthright citizenship the parents have to be in the US with the governments permission, and in paragraph 96 they give a rather long list of those that are not covered by the 14th, and you idiots continue to blather with you stupid high fives and bullshit lies.

The facts are plain enough; one must have legal domicile and the permission of the US government to give birth to an Anchor Baby.

Case closed, cry all you want.

And it WILL get changed.

Wow, certainly a lot of anger there. Take a midol or something and get over yourself.

 

[ogibillm]

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

do you find the word 'domicile' in the 14th amendment? there is nothing in wong that requires a home to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states and
FOR FUCKS SAKE THERE IS NO 'SECTION 96' OF THE DECISION.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie continues to insiste on a interp that SCOTUS and real America does not accept.

No part of America accepts it. .

It is interesting how you and Jake the Fake have formed this little circle jerk, ignoring all the rulings text I have posted and just you two continue to back slap each other like you have proven something, when you have not proven anything at all. The vast majority of Americans want the Anchor Baby practices banned by law and the laws changed where needed, and yet you two think no part of America accepts or supports this goal? roflmao

Again US v Wong Kim Ark, which is the ONLY SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship paragraph 96 states that to qualify for birthright citizenship the parents have to be in the US with the governments permission, and in paragraph 96 they give a rather long list of those that are not covered by the 14th, and you idiots continue to blather with you stupid high fives and bullshit lies.

The facts are plain enough; one must have legal domicile and the permission of the US government to give birth to an Anchor Baby.

Case closed, cry all you want.

And it WILL get changed.

No it won't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interesting how this issue is so settled as the liberals and the mainstream Republicans make it sound.

No it isn't, but the RINOs and libtards like you want to keep on sucking corporate dick, and so you cheer lead for them, and that is all, Jakey.

Yeah, it is. And your personal attack reveals how unsure you are of your arguments.

 

[ogibillm]

JimBowie continues to insiste on a interp that SCOTUS and real America does not accept.

No part of America accepts it. .

It is interesting how you and Jake the Fake have formed this little circle jerk, ignoring all the rulings text I have posted and just you two continue to back slap each other like you have proven something, when you have not proven anything at all. The vast majority of Americans want the Anchor Baby practices banned by law and the laws changed where needed, and yet you two think no part of America accepts or supports this goal? roflmao

Again US v Wong Kim Ark, which is the ONLY SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship paragraph 96 states that to qualify for birthright citizenship the parents have to be in the US with the governments permission, and in paragraph 96 they give a rather long list of those that are not covered by the 14th, and you idiots continue to blather with you stupid high fives and bullshit lies.

The facts are plain enough; one must have legal domicile and the permission of the US government to give birth to an Anchor Baby.

Case closed, cry all you want.

And it WILL get changed.

nowhere is a legal residence stated as a requirement to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states.
are we not able to arrest the homeless? can an alien rob a bank with impunity?

 

[candycorn]

Interesting how this issue is so settled as the liberals and the mainstream Republicans make it sound.

No it isn't, but the RINOs and libtards like you want to keep on sucking corporate dick, and so you cheer lead for them, and that is all, Jakey.

Yeah, it is. And your personal attack reveals how unsure you are of your arguments.

No, it reveals his suspect upbringing and lack of education.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie continues to insiste on a interp that SCOTUS and real America does not accept.

No part of America accepts it. .

It is interesting how you and Jake the Fake have formed this little circle jerk, ignoring all the rulings text I have posted and just you two continue to back slap each other like you have proven something, when you have not proven anything at all. The vast majority of Americans want the Anchor Baby practices banned by law and the laws changed where needed, and yet you two think no part of America accepts or supports this goal? roflmao

Again US v Wong Kim Ark, which is the ONLY SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship paragraph 96 states that to qualify for birthright citizenship the parents have to be in the US with the governments permission, and in paragraph 96 they give a rather long list of those that are not covered by the 14th, and you idiots continue to blather with you stupid high fives and bullshit lies.

The facts are plain enough; one must have legal domicile and the permission of the US government to give birth to an Anchor Baby.

Case closed, cry all you want.

And it WILL get changed.

nowhere is a legal residence stated as a requirement to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states.
are we not able to arrest the homeless? can an alien rob a bank with impunity?

I didn't say that. I simply referenced US v Wong Kim Ark which states in the conclusion that legal domicile is required for birthright citizenship, and in paragraph 96 it also states that they need to be here with the permission of the US government.

It's simply amazing that you libtards think you are so smart, but you cant follow that little bit of reading.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, it reveals his suspect upbringing and lack of education.

That I go to primary sources to get my facts without libtard slant makes me of 'suspect upbringing' and shows a lack of education?

roflmao, you really are a total fool.

 

[ogibillm]

JimBowie continues to insiste on a interp that SCOTUS and real America does not accept.

No part of America accepts it. .

It is interesting how you and Jake the Fake have formed this little circle jerk, ignoring all the rulings text I have posted and just you two continue to back slap each other like you have proven something, when you have not proven anything at all. The vast majority of Americans want the Anchor Baby practices banned by law and the laws changed where needed, and yet you two think no part of America accepts or supports this goal? roflmao

Again US v Wong Kim Ark, which is the ONLY SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship paragraph 96 states that to qualify for birthright citizenship the parents have to be in the US with the governments permission, and in paragraph 96 they give a rather long list of those that are not covered by the 14th, and you idiots continue to blather with you stupid high fives and bullshit lies.

The facts are plain enough; one must have legal domicile and the permission of the US government to give birth to an Anchor Baby.

Case closed, cry all you want.

And it WILL get changed.

nowhere is a legal residence stated as a requirement to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states.
are we not able to arrest the homeless? can an alien rob a bank with impunity?

I didn't say that. I simply referenced US v Wong Kim Ark which states in the conclusion that legal domicile is required for birthright citizenship, and in paragraph 96 it also states that they need to be here with the permission of the US government.

It's simply amazing that you libtards think you are so smart, but you cant follow that little bit of reading.

quote please the part that requires a legal domicile for birthright citizenship.
how about you quote the part of the 14th amendment that requires anything other than jurisdiction?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It does not say this: "paragraph 96 it also states that they need to be here with the permission of the US government." That is a silly interp. Anybody can go read it for themselves.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It does not say this: "paragraph 96 it also states that they need to be here with the permission of the US government." That is a silly interp. Anybody can go read it for themselves.

Yes, they can, which is why you are a certified moron.


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

"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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie continues to insiste on a interp that SCOTUS and real America does not accept.

No part of America accepts it. .

It is interesting how you and Jake the Fake have formed this little circle jerk, ignoring all the rulings text I have posted and just you two continue to back slap each other like you have proven something, when you have not proven anything at all. The vast majority of Americans want the Anchor Baby practices banned by law and the laws changed where needed, and yet you two think no part of America accepts or supports this goal? roflmao

Again US v Wong Kim Ark, which is the ONLY SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship paragraph 96 states that to qualify for birthright citizenship the parents have to be in the US with the governments permission, and in paragraph 96 they give a rather long list of those that are not covered by the 14th, and you idiots continue to blather with you stupid high fives and bullshit lies.

The facts are plain enough; one must have legal domicile and the permission of the US government to give birth to an Anchor Baby.

Case closed, cry all you want.

And it WILL get changed.

No it won't.

Yes, it will, idiot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow, certainly a lot of anger there. Take a midol or something and get over yourself.

No anger, just amazement that anyone can be as stupid as you , Jake the Fake and Ogiliboobium are.