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

[paddymurphy]

Right. The entire family is living off the $151.44 per month that the is paid for the child.

LocationAverage Monthly Food Stamp Benefits per Participant
California $151.44

Average Monthly Food Stamp Benefits Per Person

You're so fucking Clueless. That's more money than they ever made in Mexico.

Yes, and he is a liar. He will say anything whether he knows it to be relevant or not, true or not or bullshit or not.

He just wants to throw out rhetoric just to see if it sticks.

Why waste your time on his dumbass?

Identify one lie, asshole. I gave you the words of Wong Kim Ark that prove you to be clueless about what it holds; and you have yet to have the balls to try to respond. You offer bullshit right wing blather and I offer the words of the Supreme Court; words you have yet to address. You and that ignorant POS Claudette deserve one another.

Bowie boy is a quick to call anyone he disagrees with a liar- but when called on it- when asked to quote a lie- has consistently run away from the challenge.

And of course quick to call anyone he disagrees with names.

He is an idiot.

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it. but you dumbass liars wouldn't read it apparently and you still have the Liars Nerve to say I never answered you?

roflmao

You quoted an article some right wing faux con law scholar wrote. You have yet to respond to the fact that the rest of the opinion makes clear your view is completely wrong. No court has agreed with you. The Supreme Court twice confirmed that birth within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. Confers citizenship. Other courts have agreed. The Ninth Circuit wrote, in Rabang v. INS:

"The dissent relies on dicta in two Supreme Court cases to conclude that birth in a United States territory constitutes birth “in the United States” under the FourteenthAmendment. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), the Supreme Court held that a person born in San Francisco, California, of Chinese parents, could not be excluded from the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Acts after a temporary visit to China. The Supreme Court held that the Citizenship Clause confers citizenship “by birth within the territory.” Id. at 693, 18 S.Ct. at 473. In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbour, 28 U.S. 99, 155, 3 Pet. 99, 155, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830), Mr. Justice Story in his concurring and dissenting opinion to the majority opinion explained that citizenship by birth arises by “birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and ... birth within the protection and obedience ... of the sovereign.

The DC Circuit agreed also in Perkins v Elb:
"The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a naturalborn citizen of the State and of the United States. And this was undoubtedly the view of Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393, 581, 15 L.Ed. 691, in which he said:
‘ * * * we find that the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.‘
This doctrine of citizenship by reason of place of birth is spoken of by the writers on the subject as the jus soli or common law doctrine. The Roman rule is different and is in effect in many of the continental European countries. This is called the jus sanguinis and depends upon the nationality of the parents and not upon the place of birth...
As a result of the adoption of the amendment, whatever differences existed between statesmen and jurists on the general subject prior to the War Between the States was put to rest, and it may now be stated as an established rule that every person born within the United States (except in the case of children of ambassadors, etc.), whether born of parents who are themselves citizens of the United States or of foreign parents, is a citizen of the United States. In the Wong Kim Ark Case, supra, the whole question of citizenship is traced from its source and the subject is so elaborately considered as to make unnecessary any further reference to this phase of the question. But see generally on the subject: McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, 6 L.Ed. 109; In re Look Tin Sing, C.C., 21 F. 905; Ex parte Chin King, C.C., 35 F. 354; Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., 9 Cir., 49 F. 146; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., N.Y., 583; Opinion of Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Op.Attys.Gen. 373; Opinion of Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Op.Attys.Gen. 394."

Perkins v. Elg, 69 App.D.C. 175, 178, 99 F.2d 408, 411 (C.A.D.C. 1938)

 

[paddymurphy]

You do not speak for a "vast majority" of Americans. The vast majority favor letting those among the 11 million who have not engaged in crime, which would be most of them, stay and either become citizens or earn the right to be permanent residents. I played the bigot card because you are the one who claimed that all you had to do was go the the welfare office or an emergency room to see the illegals getting benefits but have yet to explain how you can tell, by looking, that a person is illegal. Go ahead, Give it a try.

You do not speak for a "vast majority" of Americans. The vast majority favor letting those among the 11 million who have not engaged in crime, which would be most of them, stay and either become citizens or earn the right to be permanent residents. I played the bigot card because you are the one who claimed that all you had to do was go the the welfare office or an emergency room to see the illegals getting benefits but have yet to explain how you can tell, by looking, that a person is illegal. Go ahead, Give it a try.

Oh yes I do. 77% in one article and 62% in another want illegals deported.

That looks like a vast majority to me.

Take you're bigot bullshit and shove it up your smarmy ass.

Trust me, paddymurphy is a real nut job troll.

He sounds much better on ignore.

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

I posted the three relevant paragraphs from Wong, and there is no evidence that any of the other paragraphs would have changed any of its meaning in a significant way.

And BTW, I have paddymurphy on ignore as he is a stupid ass troll, and I wont waste my time on him, and methinks I am going to have to put you on that list too Syriously as you are consistently trolling on this thread repeating question that have been answered multiple times, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

As a result of the adoption of the amendment, whatever differences existed between statesmen and jurists on the general subject prior to the War Between the States was put to rest, and it may now be stated as an established rule that every person born within the United States (except in the case of children of ambassadors, etc.), whether born of parents who are themselves citizens of the United States or of foreign parents, is a citizen of the United States. In the Wong Kim Ark Case, supra, the whole question of citizenship is traced from its source and the subject is so elaborately considered as to make unnecessary any further reference to this phase of the question. But see generally on the subject: McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, 6 L.Ed. 109; In re Look Tin Sing, C.C., 21 F. 905; Ex parte Chin King, C.C., 35 F. 354; Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., 9 Cir., 49 F. 146; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., N.Y., 583; Opinion of Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Op.Attys.Gen. 373; Opinion of Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Op.Attys.Gen. 394.

Perkins v. Elg, 69 App.D.C. 175, 178, 99 F.2d 408, 411 (C.A.D.C. 1938)

You do not speak for a "vast majority" of Americans. The vast majority favor letting those among the 11 million who have not engaged in crime, which would be most of them, stay and either become citizens or earn the right to be permanent residents. I played the bigot card because you are the one who claimed that all you had to do was go the the welfare office or an emergency room to see the illegals getting benefits but have yet to explain how you can tell, by looking, that a person is illegal. Go ahead, Give it a try.

You do not speak for a "vast majority" of Americans. The vast majority favor letting those among the 11 million who have not engaged in crime, which would be most of them, stay and either become citizens or earn the right to be permanent residents. I played the bigot card because you are the one who claimed that all you had to do was go the the welfare office or an emergency room to see the illegals getting benefits but have yet to explain how you can tell, by looking, that a person is illegal. Go ahead, Give it a try.

Oh yes I do. 77% in one article and 62% in another want illegals deported.

That looks like a vast majority to me.

Take you're bigot bullshit and shove it up your smarmy ass.

Trust me, paddymurphy is a real nut job troll.

He sounds much better on ignore.

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

I posted the three relevant paragraphs from Wong, and there is no evidence that any of the other paragraphs would have changed any of its meaning in a significant way.

And BTW, I have paddymurphy on ignore as he is a stupid ass troll, and I wont waste my time on him, and methinks I am going to have to put you on that list too Syriously as you are consistently trolling on this thread repeating question that have been answered multiple times, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

he has me on ignore because he is tired of seeing me make him look like an uneducated, ignorant, lying right winger. He put me on ignore when he realized he could not offer an intelligent rebuttal.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, and he is a liar. He will say anything whether he knows it to be relevant or not, true or not or bullshit or not.

He just wants to throw out rhetoric just to see if it sticks.

Why waste your time on his dumbass?

Identify one lie, asshole. I gave you the words of Wong Kim Ark that prove you to be clueless about what it holds; and you have yet to have the balls to try to respond. You offer bullshit right wing blather and I offer the words of the Supreme Court; words you have yet to address. You and that ignorant POS Claudette deserve one another.

Bowie boy is a quick to call anyone he disagrees with a liar- but when called on it- when asked to quote a lie- has consistently run away from the challenge.

And of course quick to call anyone he disagrees with names.

He is an idiot.

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it. but you dumbass liars wouldn't read it apparently and you still have the Liars Nerve to say I never answered you?

roflmao

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it

Because you weren't saying anything. You hadn't made a point. Even the mods saw it. Why didn't you?

lol, I stated that Wong Kim Ark decision adds legal domicile and the permission of the US government to the jurisdiction phrase of the 14th amendment for the children of aliens in this country, thus no illegal alien can have a Constitutional right to have birth right citizenship, even though most are given citizenship anyway.

Now, did you understand that ass hole?

The Supreme Court cannot 'add' provisions to the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment says birth and subject to the jurisdiction of

As has been pointed out- the Supreme Court has recognized that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and that the child born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents is a U.S. citizen by birth.

We can lead a horse to water- but we can't make you drink.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh yes I do. 77% in one article and 62% in another want illegals deported.

That looks like a vast majority to me.

Take you're bigot bullshit and shove it up your smarmy ass.

Trust me, paddymurphy is a real nut job troll.

He sounds much better on ignore.

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

I posted the three relevant paragraphs from Wong, and there is no evidence that any of the other paragraphs would have changed any of its meaning in a significant way.

And BTW, I have paddymurphy on ignore as he is a stupid ass troll, and I wont waste my time on him, and methinks I am going to have to put you on that list too Syriously as you are consistently trolling on this thread repeating question that have been answered multiple times, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

As a result of the adoption of the amendment, whatever differences existed between statesmen and jurists on the general subject prior to the War Between the States was put to rest, and it may now be stated as an established rule that every person born within the United States (except in the case of children of ambassadors, etc.), whether born of parents who are themselves citizens of the United States or of foreign parents, is a citizen of the United States. In the Wong Kim Ark Case, supra, the whole question of citizenship is traced from its source and the subject is so elaborately considered as to make unnecessary any further reference to this phase of the question. But see generally on the subject: McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, 6 L.Ed. 109; In re Look Tin Sing, C.C., 21 F. 905; Ex parte Chin King, C.C., 35 F. 354; Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., 9 Cir., 49 F. 146; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., N.Y., 583; Opinion of Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Op.Attys.Gen. 373; Opinion of Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Op.Attys.Gen. 394.

Perkins v. Elg, 69 App.D.C. 175, 178, 99 F.2d 408, 411 (C.A.D.C. 1938)

Oh yes I do. 77% in one article and 62% in another want illegals deported.

That looks like a vast majority to me.

Take you're bigot bullshit and shove it up your smarmy ass.

Trust me, paddymurphy is a real nut job troll.

He sounds much better on ignore.

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

I posted the three relevant paragraphs from Wong, and there is no evidence that any of the other paragraphs would have changed any of its meaning in a significant way.

And BTW, I have paddymurphy on ignore as he is a stupid ass troll, and I wont waste my time on him, and methinks I am going to have to put you on that list too Syriously as you are consistently trolling on this thread repeating question that have been answered multiple times, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

he has me on ignore because he is tired of seeing me make him look like an uneducated, ignorant, lying right winger. He put me on ignore when he realized he could not offer an intelligent rebuttal.

He has you on ignore- you mean so he won't see when you post things like

he has me on ignore because he is tired of seeing me make him look like an uneducated, ignorant, lying right winger. He put me on ignore when he realized he could not offer an intelligent rebuttal

Well he does get agitated by being confronted with the truth.

Notice when he gets upset he calls everyone else a liar?

LOL- what an idiot.

 

[Syriusly]

Back then there were no 'illegals' because our borders were wide open.

There was no 'illegal immigration' from Mexico- they just rode across the border. And if they had kids here, their kids were American citizens.

You're right on that one.

All of our borders were wide open and no one cared who came and went in and out of America. Those that passed that amendment had no way of knowing we would be overrun with illegals and try to monitor who came and went at our borders.

They would have no way of knowing the cost of these illegals or the anchor baby allowing them to suck off social services that didn't exist back then.

If they had known I think they would have written the 14th vastly differently.

This country depended on unlimited immigration. They would not have changed a thing because to do so would have stunted our growth as a nation. You are correct, however, that the only to change birthright citizenship is to amend the constitution. That, however, will not happen.

Of course they did. They welcomed legal immigrants into America for decades. Those immigrants aren't needed so much anymore.

The illegals and their anchor babies are nothing but freeloaders sucking off our social services. The illegals get medical care from out hospitals and never pay for anything.

Go to Mexico and see how you are treated if you are there illegally. No one will roll out the red carpet for you.

The reason why there is so much illegal immigration is because employers keep hiring them.

And have been for decades.

I think it is a real problem.

And I see little effort by either the Right or the Left to do more than pander to their Constituents regarding the issue.

I mostly agree. There was a window to tackle comprehensive reform but unfortunately it was slammed closed. All of these issues are able to be addressed but only as a nation will we do it. There must be resolve by all parties to find a solution. Where I don't agree is that both parties are equally at fault. They're not. One party advances initiatives while the other rejects it. The day's rhetoric shows clearly why.

I don't really mind blaming the Right on this issue- but when I look at Congress- I see plenty of folks posturing on both sides- pandering to their bases- and not enough people who have the cojones to work with each other- and potentially outrage their base- to fix the problems.

 

[Syriusly]

You do not speak for a "vast majority" of Americans. The vast majority favor letting those among the 11 million who have not engaged in crime, which would be most of them, stay and either become citizens or earn the right to be permanent residents. I played the bigot card because you are the one who claimed that all you had to do was go the the welfare office or an emergency room to see the illegals getting benefits but have yet to explain how you can tell, by looking, that a person is illegal. Go ahead, Give it a try.

You do not speak for a "vast majority" of Americans. The vast majority favor letting those among the 11 million who have not engaged in crime, which would be most of them, stay and either become citizens or earn the right to be permanent residents. I played the bigot card because you are the one who claimed that all you had to do was go the the welfare office or an emergency room to see the illegals getting benefits but have yet to explain how you can tell, by looking, that a person is illegal. Go ahead, Give it a try.

Oh yes I do. 77% in one article and 62% in another want illegals deported.

That looks like a vast majority to me.

Take you're bigot bullshit and shove it up your smarmy ass.

Trust me, paddymurphy is a real nut job troll.

He sounds much better on ignore.

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

In other words- you are both a coward- and a liar.

Besides being just a general idiot.

In the prophetic words of King Arthur

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're right on that one.

All of our borders were wide open and no one cared who came and went in and out of America. Those that passed that amendment had no way of knowing we would be overrun with illegals and try to monitor who came and went at our borders.

They would have no way of knowing the cost of these illegals or the anchor baby allowing them to suck off social services that didn't exist back then.

If they had known I think they would have written the 14th vastly differently.

This country depended on unlimited immigration. They would not have changed a thing because to do so would have stunted our growth as a nation. You are correct, however, that the only to change birthright citizenship is to amend the constitution. That, however, will not happen.

Of course they did. They welcomed legal immigrants into America for decades. Those immigrants aren't needed so much anymore.

The illegals and their anchor babies are nothing but freeloaders sucking off our social services. The illegals get medical care from out hospitals and never pay for anything.

Go to Mexico and see how you are treated if you are there illegally. No one will roll out the red carpet for you.

The reason why there is so much illegal immigration is because employers keep hiring them.

And have been for decades.

I think it is a real problem.

And I see little effort by either the Right or the Left to do more than pander to their Constituents regarding the issue.

I mostly agree. There was a window to tackle comprehensive reform but unfortunately it was slammed closed. All of these issues are able to be addressed but only as a nation will we do it. There must be resolve by all parties to find a solution. Where I don't agree is that both parties are equally at fault. They're not. One party advances initiatives while the other rejects it. The day's rhetoric shows clearly why.

I don't really mind blaming the Right on this issue- but when I look at Congress- I see plenty of folks posturing on both sides- pandering to their bases- and not enough people who have the cojones to work with each other- and potentially outrage their base- to fix the problems.

Congress is broken, I agree. I think it really went to hell with Citizens United. Either tow the line or the money is leveraged against you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Identify one lie, asshole. I gave you the words of Wong Kim Ark that prove you to be clueless about what it holds; and you have yet to have the balls to try to respond. You offer bullshit right wing blather and I offer the words of the Supreme Court; words you have yet to address. You and that ignorant POS Claudette deserve one another.

Bowie boy is a quick to call anyone he disagrees with a liar- but when called on it- when asked to quote a lie- has consistently run away from the challenge.

And of course quick to call anyone he disagrees with names.

He is an idiot.

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it. but you dumbass liars wouldn't read it apparently and you still have the Liars Nerve to say I never answered you?

roflmao

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it

Because you weren't saying anything. You hadn't made a point. Even the mods saw it. Why didn't you?

lol, I stated that Wong Kim Ark decision adds legal domicile and the permission of the US government to the jurisdiction phrase of the 14th amendment for the children of aliens in this country, thus no illegal alien can have a Constitutional right to have birth right citizenship, even though most are given citizenship anyway.

Now, did you understand that ass hole?

The Supreme Court cannot 'add' provisions to the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment says birth and subject to the jurisdiction of

As has been pointed out- the Supreme Court has recognized that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and that the child born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents is a U.S. citizen by birth.

We can lead a horse to water- but we can't make you drink.

The SCOTUS creates case law that adds conditions and further clarification to the Constitution and how it si interpreted.

Damn, you are a stupid fuck. Are you trying to be a moron? I don't think you have to try at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh yes I do. 77% in one article and 62% in another want illegals deported.

That looks like a vast majority to me.

Take you're bigot bullshit and shove it up your smarmy ass.

Trust me, paddymurphy is a real nut job troll.

He sounds much better on ignore.

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

In other words- you are both a coward- and a liar.

Besides being just a general idiot.

I have given facts and reason to back them up. All you do is say its wrong without warrant, cause or evidence.

I have full confidence that any open minded lurkers can read through this thread and see what an ass you have been and completely devoid of anything of substance to say.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trust me, paddymurphy is a real nut job troll.

He sounds much better on ignore.

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

I posted the three relevant paragraphs from Wong, and there is no evidence that any of the other paragraphs would have changed any of its meaning in a significant way.

And BTW, I have paddymurphy on ignore as he is a stupid ass troll, and I wont waste my time on him, and methinks I am going to have to put you on that list too Syriously as you are consistently trolling on this thread repeating question that have been answered multiple times, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

As a result of the adoption of the amendment, whatever differences existed between statesmen and jurists on the general subject prior to the War Between the States was put to rest, and it may now be stated as an established rule that every person born within the United States (except in the case of children of ambassadors, etc.), whether born of parents who are themselves citizens of the United States or of foreign parents, is a citizen of the United States. In the Wong Kim Ark Case, supra, the whole question of citizenship is traced from its source and the subject is so elaborately considered as to make unnecessary any further reference to this phase of the question. But see generally on the subject: McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, 6 L.Ed. 109; In re Look Tin Sing, C.C., 21 F. 905; Ex parte Chin King, C.C., 35 F. 354; Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., 9 Cir., 49 F. 146; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., N.Y., 583; Opinion of Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Op.Attys.Gen. 373; Opinion of Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Op.Attys.Gen. 394.

Perkins v. Elg, 69 App.D.C. 175, 178, 99 F.2d 408, 411 (C.A.D.C. 1938)

Trust me, paddymurphy is a real nut job troll.

He sounds much better on ignore.

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

I posted the three relevant paragraphs from Wong, and there is no evidence that any of the other paragraphs would have changed any of its meaning in a significant way.

And BTW, I have paddymurphy on ignore as he is a stupid ass troll, and I wont waste my time on him, and methinks I am going to have to put you on that list too Syriously as you are consistently trolling on this thread repeating question that have been answered multiple times, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

he has me on ignore because he is tired of seeing me make him look like an uneducated, ignorant, lying right winger. He put me on ignore when he realized he could not offer an intelligent rebuttal.

He has you on ignore- you mean so he won't see when you post things like

he has me on ignore because he is tired of seeing me make him look like an uneducated, ignorant, lying right winger. He put me on ignore when he realized he could not offer an intelligent rebuttal

Well he does get agitated by being confronted with the truth.

Notice when he gets upset he calls everyone else a liar?

LOL- what an idiot.

You wouldn't know Truth if it bit you in the ass.

Wong Kim Ark clearly states that parents must have legal domicile and be here with the permission of the Us government in order to qualify for mandatory birthright status. What we have been giving out goes beyond Constitutional minimums/requirements, and it can be easily ended by Congressional legislation.

And if such a law is passed and SCOTUS strikes it down, great, then its an Article V convention and lets throw the dice. This alien birthright bullshit has to come to an end or our nation simply dissolves.

 

[JimBowie1958]

" domicile" isn't in the game. I believe jurisdiction is the word you are looking for.
It's been asked and answered more times than necessary.

Us v Wong Kim Ark put domicile status 'in the game' dude, that is why I have been quoting it and paragraph 96 so many times.

It is also why the libtards have stopped addressing that issue.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One thing to remember about Donald Trump, he does not live in the political world where the name of the game is "cover your ass." In the private sector you deliver to your shareholders, or you are "out on your ass." Donald Trump is moving in the right direction. As a businessperson he knows that excuses don't count. It is all about getting the job done the best you can everyday.​

Trump is an achiever and not a career politician that sits on his ass hand has lobbyists and pollsters telling his what his range of options are. When Trump considered birthright citizenship he likely hired top Constitutional lawyers to guide him, he studied the matter himself and then came to his own decision like he would in business, and totally unlike political whores do.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Bowie boy is a quick to call anyone he disagrees with a liar- but when called on it- when asked to quote a lie- has consistently run away from the challenge.

And of course quick to call anyone he disagrees with names.

He is an idiot.

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it. but you dumbass liars wouldn't read it apparently and you still have the Liars Nerve to say I never answered you?

roflmao

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it

Because you weren't saying anything. You hadn't made a point. Even the mods saw it. Why didn't you?

lol, I stated that Wong Kim Ark decision adds legal domicile and the permission of the US government to the jurisdiction phrase of the 14th amendment for the children of aliens in this country, thus no illegal alien can have a Constitutional right to have birth right citizenship, even though most are given citizenship anyway.

Now, did you understand that ass hole?

" domicile" isn't in the game. I believe jurisdiction is the word you are looking for.
It's been asked and answered more times than necessary.

More details from that survey: "In a Pew Research Center survey conducted in May, a solid majority (72%) of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 76% of independents and 56% of Republicans – say undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay in this country legally if they meet certain requirements."

What the hell are the requirements? That they go home and get a legal entry visa first? Where does it spell out what the requirements are? The original survey has these requirements as either stay if they get legal permanent residency or stay if they are applying for citizenship.

Broad Public Support for Legal Status for Undocumented Immigrants

So your 'facts' from the survey are bullshit, taken from last May prior to Trump raising the issue and people actually giving the subject much thought and this rash of media coverage on criminal aliens committing murder, etc.

What percentage do you believe the guy who has 30% support of republican voters has moved that number?
If anything it shows Trump is barking up the wrong tree.

I think a lot of people would have given a different response on what the requirements would be for letting criminal alien shit-stains stay in the country. How much I don't know, but I would guess its a majority now that would say they have to leave and apply at a US embassy or consulate in their home country now.

You give Trump too much credit. He has changed nothing. His supporters fit comfortably within the percentage that was for deportation already.

Whatever solution there is , we will not know as Trump calls for deportation. Your boys rejected any talk of comprehensive reform.

Denying the obvious doesn't make it any less true, it just means that you are being an idiot for whatever reason.

Citing your secret voices doesn't make it real either.
By all means give us the breakdown on Trump's rise.
I've given my numbers, give us yours. Show us why it is as you say it is.

I wont waste my time answering any of your 'tar baby' questions. Hell I could bring down stone tablets carved by the hand of God himself and you would still argue about it, because you are a fucking liar and a jack ass.

Again, US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 specifically states the parent need the permission of the US government in order to get Birthright citizenship. In paragraph 118 it states they need legal domicile as well as jurisdiction which you and your fellow morons interpret so broadly that it is reduced to meaninglessness.

 

[paperview]

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.

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it. but you dumbass liars wouldn't read it apparently and you still have the Liars Nerve to say I never answered you?

roflmao

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it

Because you weren't saying anything. You hadn't made a point. Even the mods saw it. Why didn't you?

lol, I stated that Wong Kim Ark decision adds legal domicile and the permission of the US government to the jurisdiction phrase of the 14th amendment for the children of aliens in this country, thus no illegal alien can have a Constitutional right to have birth right citizenship, even though most are given citizenship anyway.

Now, did you understand that ass hole?

" domicile" isn't in the game. I believe jurisdiction is the word you are looking for.
It's been asked and answered more times than necessary.

What percentage do you believe the guy who has 30% support of republican voters has moved that number?
If anything it shows Trump is barking up the wrong tree.

I think a lot of people would have given a different response on what the requirements would be for letting criminal alien shit-stains stay in the country. How much I don't know, but I would guess its a majority now that would say they have to leave and apply at a US embassy or consulate in their home country now.

You give Trump too much credit. He has changed nothing. His supporters fit comfortably within the percentage that was for deportation already.

Whatever solution there is , we will not know as Trump calls for deportation. Your boys rejected any talk of comprehensive reform.

Denying the obvious doesn't make it any less true, it just means that you are being an idiot for whatever reason.

Citing your secret voices doesn't make it real either.
By all means give us the breakdown on Trump's rise.
I've given my numbers, give us yours. Show us why it is as you say it is.

I wont waste my time answering any of your 'tar baby' questions. Hell I could bring down stone tablets carved by the hand of God himself and you would still argue about it, because you are a fucking liar and a jack ass.

Again, US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 specifically states the parent need the permission of the US government in order to get Birthright citizenship. In paragraph 118 it states they need legal domicile as well as jurisdiction which you and your fellow morons interpret so broadly that it is reduced to meaninglessness.

Sorry, bub.

Gonna go with the people who do this shit for a living, not some knuckledragging internet squawker.

Congressional Research Service:


"The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, defined birthright citizenship, extending it to African Americans and also to most persons born in the United States.

In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark , the United States Supreme Court made clear that, under these laws, U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens regardless of the alienage and national origin of their parents, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and hostile invasion and occupation forces of a foreign nation. However, in the 1884 decision Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court held that Native Americans were not U.S. citizens under the terms of the Citizenship Clause. Native Americans were U.S. citizens by treaties or statutes granting U.S. citizenship to members of specific tribes. Immigration and nationality statutes enacted in 1924, 1940, and 1952 granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Bowie boy is a quick to call anyone he disagrees with a liar- but when called on it- when asked to quote a lie- has consistently run away from the challenge.

And of course quick to call anyone he disagrees with names.

He is an idiot.

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it. but you dumbass liars wouldn't read it apparently and you still have the Liars Nerve to say I never answered you?

roflmao

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it

Because you weren't saying anything. You hadn't made a point. Even the mods saw it. Why didn't you?

lol, I stated that Wong Kim Ark decision adds legal domicile and the permission of the US government to the jurisdiction phrase of the 14th amendment for the children of aliens in this country, thus no illegal alien can have a Constitutional right to have birth right citizenship, even though most are given citizenship anyway.

Now, did you understand that ass hole?

The Supreme Court cannot 'add' provisions to the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment says birth and subject to the jurisdiction of

As has been pointed out- the Supreme Court has recognized that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and that the child born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents is a U.S. citizen by birth.

We can lead a horse to water- but we can't make you drink.

The SCOTUS creates case law that adds conditions and further clarification to the Constitution and how it si interpreted.

Damn, you are a stupid fuck. Are you trying to be a moron? I don't think you have to try at all.

LOL- there is a pattern here- when confronted with the facts you start in with the name calling.

 

[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.

That law was written for slaves dumb ass.

You have no idea how the law works, do you?

 

[Toro]

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.

Because you weren't saying anything. You hadn't made a point. Even the mods saw it. Why didn't you?

lol, I stated that Wong Kim Ark decision adds legal domicile and the permission of the US government to the jurisdiction phrase of the 14th amendment for the children of aliens in this country, thus no illegal alien can have a Constitutional right to have birth right citizenship, even though most are given citizenship anyway.

Now, did you understand that ass hole?

" domicile" isn't in the game. I believe jurisdiction is the word you are looking for.
It's been asked and answered more times than necessary.

I think a lot of people would have given a different response on what the requirements would be for letting criminal alien shit-stains stay in the country. How much I don't know, but I would guess its a majority now that would say they have to leave and apply at a US embassy or consulate in their home country now.

You give Trump too much credit. He has changed nothing. His supporters fit comfortably within the percentage that was for deportation already.

Whatever solution there is , we will not know as Trump calls for deportation. Your boys rejected any talk of comprehensive reform.

Denying the obvious doesn't make it any less true, it just means that you are being an idiot for whatever reason.

Citing your secret voices doesn't make it real either.
By all means give us the breakdown on Trump's rise.
I've given my numbers, give us yours. Show us why it is as you say it is.

I wont waste my time answering any of your 'tar baby' questions. Hell I could bring down stone tablets carved by the hand of God himself and you would still argue about it, because you are a fucking liar and a jack ass.

Again, US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 specifically states the parent need the permission of the US government in order to get Birthright citizenship. In paragraph 118 it states they need legal domicile as well as jurisdiction which you and your fellow morons interpret so broadly that it is reduced to meaninglessness.

Sorry, bub.

Gonna go with the people who do this shit for a living, not some knuckledragging internet squawker.

Congressional Research Service:


"The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, defined birthright citizenship, extending it to African Americans and also to most persons born in the United States.

In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark , the United States Supreme Court made clear that, under these laws, U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens regardless of the alienage and national origin of their parents, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and hostile invasion and occupation forces of a foreign nation. However, in the 1884 decision Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court held that Native Americans were not U.S. citizens under the terms of the Citizenship Clause. Native Americans were U.S. citizens by treaties or statutes granting U.S. citizenship to members of specific tribes. Immigration and nationality statutes enacted in 1924, 1940, and 1952 granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

They don't care about the law and The Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Trust me, paddymurphy is a real nut job troll.

He sounds much better on ignore.

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

In other words- you are both a coward- and a liar.

Besides being just a general idiot.

I have given facts and reason to back them up. All you do is say its wrong without warrant, cause or evidence..

I have presented both quotes and links from the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda- those are the facts. I have presented the opinion of Constitutional attorney's such as James Ho. And I have rationally

You just can't stand the facts.

 

[Syriusly]

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

I posted the three relevant paragraphs from Wong, and there is no evidence that any of the other paragraphs would have changed any of its meaning in a significant way.

And BTW, I have paddymurphy on ignore as he is a stupid ass troll, and I wont waste my time on him, and methinks I am going to have to put you on that list too Syriously as you are consistently trolling on this thread repeating question that have been answered multiple times, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

As a result of the adoption of the amendment, whatever differences existed between statesmen and jurists on the general subject prior to the War Between the States was put to rest, and it may now be stated as an established rule that every person born within the United States (except in the case of children of ambassadors, etc.), whether born of parents who are themselves citizens of the United States or of foreign parents, is a citizen of the United States. In the Wong Kim Ark Case, supra, the whole question of citizenship is traced from its source and the subject is so elaborately considered as to make unnecessary any further reference to this phase of the question. But see generally on the subject: McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, 6 L.Ed. 109; In re Look Tin Sing, C.C., 21 F. 905; Ex parte Chin King, C.C., 35 F. 354; Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., 9 Cir., 49 F. 146; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., N.Y., 583; Opinion of Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Op.Attys.Gen. 373; Opinion of Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Op.Attys.Gen. 394.

Perkins v. Elg, 69 App.D.C. 175, 178, 99 F.2d 408, 411 (C.A.D.C. 1938)

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

I posted the three relevant paragraphs from Wong, and there is no evidence that any of the other paragraphs would have changed any of its meaning in a significant way.

And BTW, I have paddymurphy on ignore as he is a stupid ass troll, and I wont waste my time on him, and methinks I am going to have to put you on that list too Syriously as you are consistently trolling on this thread repeating question that have been answered multiple times, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

he has me on ignore because he is tired of seeing me make him look like an uneducated, ignorant, lying right winger. He put me on ignore when he realized he could not offer an intelligent rebuttal.

He has you on ignore- you mean so he won't see when you post things like

he has me on ignore because he is tired of seeing me make him look like an uneducated, ignorant, lying right winger. He put me on ignore when he realized he could not offer an intelligent rebuttal

Well he does get agitated by being confronted with the truth.

Notice when he gets upset he calls everyone else a liar?

LOL- what an idiot.

You wouldn't know Truth if it bit you in the ass.

Wong Kim Ark clearly states that parents must have legal domicile and be here with the permission of the Us government in order to qualify for mandatory birthright status. ........

And if such a law is passed and SCOTUS strikes it down, great, then its an Article V convention and lets throw the dice. This alien birthright bullshit has to come to an end or our nation simply dissolves.

Wong Kim Ark makes no such requirement on citizenship.

But I do agree- if Congress decided to pass such a law- and it would go before the Supreme Court.

Since Congress can't manage to pass any immigration legislation- I suggest you don't hold your breath waiting.

 

[Syriusly]

" domicile" isn't in the game. I believe jurisdiction is the word you are looking for.
It's been asked and answered more times than necessary.

Us v Wong Kim Ark put domicile status 'in the game' dude, that is why I have been quoting it and paragraph 96 so many times.

It is also why the libtards have stopped addressing that issue.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It is why idiots like you stop addressing 'jurisdiction' and want to plug 'domicile' into the 14th Amendment.