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

[JimBowie1958]

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?

How about you fucking read what I post to you in response, shit-for-brains?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, JB, you have been corrected. You are now simply being imorally stubborn.

 

[ogibillm]

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 ...

Yes there is and I quote it below.

FOR FUCKS SAKE THERE IS NO 'SECTION 96' OF THE DECISION.

Yes, there is a paragraph 96, and also a 93 and a 118 which is the conclusion.

I know you have seen this before....but here goes anyway, maybe you can actually comprehend it this time? No, you know there is a paragraph 96 and you are just trolling now.

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/

none of that requires a 'domicile.' it merely states that wong's parents had one.

further it states that chinese aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the united states "in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States"

and i'm really curious how you can be in the united states and remain outside of the jurisdiction of the united states unless you are a diplomat or member of an invading army

 

[ogibillm]

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?

How about you fucking read what I post to you in response, shit-for-brains?

i've read what you post. what you quote and what you say it means do not agree - please try again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, JB, you have been corrected. You are now simply being imorally stubborn.

Then what supporting facts have corrected me? Is there another decision on birthright citizenship other than US v Wong Kim Ark? Does the legal status of Domicile no longer require legal residence?

The answer to these is 'no' and until someone can show me where those questions can be answered 'yes' I have not been corrected.

And if I am wrong, I would prefer to be corrected than to continue in the ignorance and stubbornness that you are so comfortable in, like a coward sloganeer all you do is throw out unsupported assertions, lies and nonsense.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

How about you fucking read what I post to you in response, shit-for-brains?

i've read what you post. what you quote and what you say it means do not agree - please try again.

You still haven't spotted paragraph 96 of US v Wong yet? I didn't think so, you fucking liar.

 

[ogibillm]

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?

How about you fucking read what I post to you in response, shit-for-brains?

i've read what you post. what you quote and what you say it means do not agree - please try again.

You still haven't spotted paragraph 96 of US v Wong yet? I didn't think so, you fucking liar.

no, i've read it. it just doesn't mean what you claim.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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 ...

Yes there is and I quote it below.

FOR FUCKS SAKE THERE IS NO 'SECTION 96' OF THE DECISION.

Yes, there is a paragraph 96, and also a 93 and a 118 which is the conclusion.

I know you have seen this before....but here goes anyway, maybe you can actually comprehend it this time? No, you know there is a paragraph 96 and you are just trolling now.

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/

none of that requires a 'domicile.' it merely states that wong's parents had one.

further it states that chinese aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the united states "in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States"

and i'm really curious how you can be in the united states and remain outside of the jurisdiction of the united states unless you are a diplomat or member of an invading army

Wow you have doubled your number of exceptions to the 14th already in less than a week of discussing the topic, as much as it passes for with libtards like you. Maybe there is actuall hope for you after all? nah....

"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."

"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.

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

But you still cant read it yet, can you? Maybe you need a remedial reading comprehension class or two or five?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

How about you fucking read what I post to you in response, shit-for-brains?

i've read what you post. what you quote and what you say it means do not agree - please try again.

You still haven't spotted paragraph 96 of US v Wong yet? I didn't think so, you fucking liar.

no, i've read it. it just doesn't mean what you claim.

US v Wong Kim Ark says EXACTLY what I claim and I post for the umpteenth time for your chance to read it.

"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."

"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.

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

But of course we all know that you are aware of it, you are just a bald faced liar and a fraud.

 

[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 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."

You don't understand what 'domiciled' means or you are being a fraud and a liar too. 'Domiciled' means to have you primary legal residence in a place. I can have residences in New York, Virginia, and Texas, but I can only have domicile in ONE place legally and this is importance for inheritance law purposes for example and other things in order to determine what states laws are applicable.

In this case the SCOTUS ruled that because Wong's parents had domicile in the USA their child had legal status and was here with the permission of the US government. otherwise he would not qualify for Birthright citizenship.

 

[ogibillm]

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?

How about you fucking read what I post to you in response, shit-for-brains?

i've read what you post. what you quote and what you say it means do not agree - please try again.

You still haven't spotted paragraph 96 of US v Wong yet? I didn't think so, you fucking liar.

no, i've read it. it just doesn't mean what you claim.

US v Wong Kim Ark says EXACTLY what I claim and I post for the umpteenth time for your chance to read it.

"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."

"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.

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

But of course we all know that you are aware of it, you are just a bald faced liar and a fraud.

if you're going to say that a person must have a domicile you also must say that they must be subjects of the emperor of china, since that is as relevant in the statement of facts.
further, they are entitled to the protections of and owe allegiance to the united states so long as they are permitted by the united states to reside here, but the word "and" meaning additionally, they are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just as all other resident aliens are.

your misinterpretation of the decision does not make me a liar.

and how do you square the idea that an illegal alien can be arrested and prosecuted in the united states for entering the country illegally with the idea that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states?

 

[Syriusly]

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
/

Well you left out one other part of that same section- that the parents are subjects of the Emperor of China.

You keep insisting that these are all requirements that the Supreme Court has established in order to meet the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment- but of course the Supreme Court never said that these are all requirements- those were all statements of fact.

If they were all requirements- then only the children whose parents were subjects of a foreign power would be U.S. citizens- more specifically if those were all requirements- then only children whose parents were subjects of the Emperor of China would be U.S.citizens.

There is a reason why the courts- and the Executive branch for the last 100 years have been interpreting Wong Kim Ark the way I do- and not the way you do.

Because the 14th Amendment is very clear

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."

So any child born in the United States- who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- is born a U.S. citizen

And in Plyler v. Doe- the court recognized exactly what Wong Kim Ark says- that anyone within the United States- other than diplomats- is within the jurisdiction of the United States.

If you don't like the U.S. Constitution as it is currently written, then work to change the Constitution to what you think it should be- because right now the clear language of the 14th Amendment says that a child born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen- unless he or she is the child of diplomats.

 

[Syriusly]

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 ...

Yes there is and I quote it below.

FOR FUCKS SAKE THERE IS NO 'SECTION 96' OF THE DECISION.

Yes, there is a paragraph 96, and also a 93 and a 118 which is the conclusion.

I know you have seen this before....but here goes anyway, maybe you can actually comprehend it this time? No, you know there is a paragraph 96 and you are just trolling now.

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/

If the paragraph you keep quoting was all inclusive- and a statement of the requirements to be a citizen- which it isn't- then all of the statements would have to be met


"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."

Then of course- only children of parents of Chinese descent would be citizens. And only those who are subjects of the emperor of China. And only those here carrying on business.

But of course the Court was not saying that those are the requirements to be born a U.S. citizen- those were statements of fact.

Anyone who has read all of Wong Kim Ark- and not cherry picked quotes from Wong Kim would know that that.

The 14th Amendment has only 2 requirements- birth in the U.S.- and being born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And Plyler v. Doe states- as your own citation of Jonathan Turley notes- that a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And that settles the issue.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

How about you fucking read what I post to you in response, shit-for-brains?

i've read what you post. what you quote and what you say it means do not agree - please try again.

You still haven't spotted paragraph 96 of US v Wong yet? I didn't think so, you fucking liar.

You resort to calling people liars whenever your arguments are being exposed for the fallacies that they are.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
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/

Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Jurisdiction

Well lets see what your own citations say?

Plyler v. Doe was a case in which the Supreme Court decided that, under the Equal Protection Clause, Texas could not deny the children of undocumented aliens access to public schools.

The vote was 5-4. More interestingly, by a vote of 9-0, the court addressed the meaning of “jurisdiction” as found in the Fourteenth Amendment.


Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment uses the word “jurisdiction” twice, once in the Citizenship Clause as “subject to the jurisdiction”, and once in the Equal Protection Clause as “within its jurisdiction.” “Within its jurisdiction” has a geographical sense to it, while “subject to the jurisdiction” has an authoritative sense to it.


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.


The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous.


If undocumented aliens cannot be excepted from the protection of the laws of the State, then they cannot be excepted from subjection to the laws of the State.


In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:


By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Has anyone addressed the fact that two presidential candidates are so-called "anchor babies"?

Rubio and Jindal.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How about you fucking read what I post to you in response, shit-for-brains?

i've read what you post. what you quote and what you say it means do not agree - please try again.

You still haven't spotted paragraph 96 of US v Wong yet? I didn't think so, you fucking liar.

no, i've read it. it just doesn't mean what you claim.

US v Wong Kim Ark says EXACTLY what I claim and I post for the umpteenth time for your chance to read it.

"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."

"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.

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

But of course we all know that you are aware of it, you are just a bald faced liar and a fraud.

if you're going to say that a person must have a domicile you also must say that they must be subjects of the emperor of china, since that is as relevant in the statement of facts.
further, they are entitled to the protections of and owe allegiance to the united states so long as they are permitted by the united states to reside here, but the word "and" meaning additionally, they are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just as all other resident aliens are.

your misinterpretation of the decision does not make me a liar.

and how do you square the idea that an illegal alien can be arrested and prosecuted in the united states for entering the country illegally with the idea that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states?

At risk of offending you an others with *spam* in responding to your repeated dull witted comments, I post the following:

"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."

The us of the word 'but' conjunction means that it is in contrast to, not part of the reasoning of why the court made their decision.

Take a few reading comprehension courses, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

How about you fucking read what I post to you in response, shit-for-brains?

i've read what you post. what you quote and what you say it means do not agree - please try again.

You still haven't spotted paragraph 96 of US v Wong yet? I didn't think so, you fucking liar.

You resort to calling people liars whenever your arguments are being exposed for the fallacies that they are.

No one has exposed anything. SCOTUS made it very clear in Wong that legal residence/domicile and the permission of the US government is necessary for birthright citizenship in paragraphs 96 and 118.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If the paragraph you keep quoting was all inclusive- and a statement of the requirements to be a citizen- which it isn't- then all of the statements would have to be met

"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."

Then of course- only children of parents of Chinese descent would be citizens. And only those who are subjects of the emperor of China. And only those here carrying on business.

But of course the Court was not saying that those are the requirements to be born a U.S. citizen- those were statements of fact.

Anyone who has read all of Wong Kim Ark- and not cherry picked quotes from Wong Kim would know that that.

"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."

Kind of speaks for itself.

The 14th Amendment has only 2 requirements- birth in the U.S.- and being born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And Plyler v. Doe states- as your own citation of Jonathan Turley notes- that a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And that settles the issue.

No it does not as Plyler was not addressing birthright citizenship but only whether illegals have a right to due process, and they do. No one disputes that. I want them to have due process as well, and good and hard as they get their asses kicked out of the country.

But as to your snarling up the SCOTUS summary, let me help you out.

"...were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely,

• 1) whether a child born in the United States,
• 2) of parents of Chinese descent,
• 3) who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China,
• 4) but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and
• 5) are there carrying on business, and
• 6) 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."

Qualifiers 2) and 3) are contrasted with 4), 5) and 6) with the use of the word 'BUT', so they are not additive reasons supporting the final decision, but are in spite of it. As in one might think these things are hindrances but they are not in the final analysis.

 

[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

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

That law was written for slaves dumb ass.