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

[paddymurphy]

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

 

[skookerasbil]

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

progressives excel at fuckery when citing the US Constitution. Children of illegals DO NOT get citizenship........period, end of story.

Who's interpretation has more validity? Boob McNut or Mark Levin?

 

[skookerasbil]

Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga

 

[skookerasbil]

sorry s0ns.......its that time again >>>

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber.jpg.html][/URL]


the knobby............

 

[Camp]

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

Mark Levin is not qualified as an expert or scholar of constitutional law. He is just putting out agenda driven drivel.
Ken Klukowski is qualified. His article needs to be read carefully, the same way he wrote it however. He carefully contends that there are reasons for a court challenge without making a hard fast decision on the topic other than to state that Trump's proposals face legal challenges but are not inconsistent with the 14th Amendment. That of course is something only SCOTUS could decide. He is merely saying he could get it in front of the courts if given the opportunity.

 

[Camp]

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

progressives excel at fuckery when citing the US Constitution. Children of illegals DO NOT get citizenship........period, end of story.

Who's interpretation has more validity? Boob McNut or Mark Levin?

All children who are born in America automatically become American citizens. It has been that way for a long time. Well over a century. It was that way before we had a constitution. It has been that way ever since there was an American government that began on July 4, 1776. Before that anyone born in one of the 13 colonies automatically became a citizen of that colony.
Good luck trying to change hundreds of years of law and tradition.

 

[aris2chat]

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

progressives excel at fuckery when citing the US Constitution. Children of illegals DO NOT get citizenship........period, end of story.

Who's interpretation has more validity? Boob McNut or Mark Levin?

All children who are born in America automatically become American citizens. It has been that way for a long time. Well over a century. It was that way before we had a constitution. It has been that way ever since there was an American government that began on July 4, 1776. Before that anyone born in one of the 13 colonies automatically became a citizen of that colony.
Good luck trying to change hundreds of years of law and tradition.

Not constitutionally

children of aliens are children of their parents' country.

 

[Katzndogz]

In 1776 there was no such thing as birth certificates.

 

[Darkwind]

No need for all of that.

Just have the next President sign an executive Action deeming anchor babies as not US Citizens.

Who is going to stop him or her?

 

[aris2chat]

In 1776 there was no such thing as birth certificates.

till 1900 there were church ledgers, town records and private bibles to record births

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

There is no 'anchor baby law,' there is only the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment acknowledging the fact that persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

The only way that can change is to indeed 'amend' the Constitution to 'repeal' the 14th Amendment.

The ignorance of those who seek to propagate the 'anchor baby' lie is exceeded only by their unwarranted hate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?

My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim

Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.
The answer to my question seems to be no, no constitutional experts or scholars have given validity to the claims being made about the 14th Amendment. So far it is just irrelevant rhetoric being promoted by bloggers, political agenda commentators and message board posters.

Mark Levin has a doctorate in Constitutional law and says that the 14th Amendment does not say that the children of illegals born here get automatic citizenship according tot he Constitution.


Mark Levin on 14th Amendment debate, Hillary's server saga


Ken Klukowski, Breitbart constitutional law columnist
Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart


There's more but I gots to go eat me dinner.

He has a law degree. A juris doctorate from temple. No "doctorate" in con law. And he never practiced con law.

progressives excel at fuckery when citing the US Constitution. Children of illegals DO NOT get citizenship........period, end of story.

Who's interpretation has more validity? Boob McNut or Mark Levin?

No, 'progressives' have a correct and accurate understanding of the Constitution and its case law, in this case that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, regardless their parent's condition or status; and that all persons in the United States are entitled to due process of law, including those undocumented. (Plyler v. Doe)

You and others on the right may not like these facts, you may not understand these facts, you may not agree with these facts – but they are nonetheless the law of the land.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The statute on this is very clear........only ambulance chaser/limpwrister attorney's argue otherwise. Good for Trump making this an educational moment for Americans.

And by the way.......only 2 countries in the entire world allow anchor babies.......the US and Canada. All of Europe? "YOURE OUT!!!

.only 2 countries in the entire world allow anchor babies

No countries allow 'anchor babies' but the United States, Canada, and a dozen other countries are 'jus soli' citizenship- all of the countries in dark blue.

Got a link for that swill bro?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

There is no 'anchor baby law,' there is only the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment acknowledging the fact that persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

The only way that can change is to indeed 'amend' the Constitution to 'repeal' the 14th Amendment.

The ignorance of those who seek to propagate the 'anchor baby' lie is exceeded only by their unwarranted hate.

Bullshit, plenty of exceptions already exist to the birthright clause of the 14th Amendment, as detailed in US v Wong Kim Ark.
Section "93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. ..." Note that the word "Domicile" means "primary legal primary residence"

Also on Section 96 there is not room left for doubt as the ruling specifically states:
""96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. "

By definition illegal aliens are not here with the permission of the United States and they cannot have permanent legal domicile until they are here with permission. So how can an illegal alien give birth to a citizen under the requirements of either the 14th Amendment or Wong?

.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

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

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

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

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

• Has parents that are in the United States for business

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

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

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

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

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

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

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

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

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

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

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

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

"93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

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

That is addressed in Section 96:

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

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

You copied that in whole from some other source. You should identify the source.

14th amendment
...........and links are there

Hmmm no- not the 14th Amendment.

Here is the text of the 14th Amendment that deals with citizenship

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.

You dolt...you left out half of the statute which continues where you stopped...........


"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Really? You call me a dolt- when you clearly do not have a clue as to what the 14th Amendment actually says?

You are both ignorant- and an idiot. What you posted appears nowhere in the 14th Amendment- which if you had ever read the Constitution- you would know.

Read the Full Text of the 14th Amendment

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I don't think you are a dolt, I think you are a dishonest liar.
This is the ruling in that case and it states specifically in Section 118 of US v Wong Kim Ark:
"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
169 US 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark | OpenJurist
In Section 93 it states exceptions to the 14th Amendment:
""93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. ..." Note that the word "Domicile" means "primary legal primary residence"
Also on Section 96 there is not room left for doubt as the ruling specifically states:
""96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. "
By definition illegal aliens are not here with the permission of the United States and they cannot have permanent legal domicile until they are here with permission. So how can an illegal alien give birth to a citizen under the requirements of either the 14th Amendment or Wong?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jim, you don't understand Wong Kim.

So what do I not understand about Wong Kim ARk, dude?

It specifically states in section 96 that this is only available to the parents that are LEGAL domicile in the USA and here with government permission.

So what did I miss, dude?

SCOTUS does not read it your way is the point. Another point is that you think the Union forces fired on a sovereign state at Ft Sumter. 97% of America if not more would think you are a loon. Go for an amendment.

Don't need to as US v Wong Kim Ark is quite plain and simple.
This is the ruling in that case and it states specifically in Section 118:
"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
169 US 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark | OpenJurist
In Section 93 it states exceptions to the 14th Amendment:
""93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. ..." Note that the word "Domicile" means "primary legal primary residence"
Also on Section 96 there is not room left for doubt as the ruling specifically states:
""96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. "
By definition illegal aliens are not here with the permission of the United States and they cannot have permanent legal domicile until they are here with permission. So how can an illegal alien give birth to a citizen under the requirements of either the 14th Amendment or Wong?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

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

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

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

This is the ruling in that case and it states specifically in Section 118:
"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
169 US 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark | OpenJurist
In Section 93 it states exceptions to the 14th Amendment:
""93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. ..." Note that the word "Domicile" means "primary legal primary residence"
Also on Section 96 there is not room left for doubt as the ruling specifically states:
""96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. "
By definition illegal aliens are not here with the permission of the United States and they cannot have permanent legal domicile until they are here with permission. So how can an illegal alien give birth to a citizen under the requirements of either the 14th Amendment or Wong?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

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

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

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

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

• Has parents that are in the United States for business

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

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

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

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

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

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

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

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

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

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

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

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

"93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

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

That is addressed in Section 96:

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

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

you left out an important direct quote in the wong kim ark opinion

"14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . including all children here born of resident aliens."


how many of these folks are resident aliens having babies here

What is meant by resident alien is cleared up in section 96 of US v Wong Kim Ark.

169 US 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark | OpenJurist
Section 96 there is not room left for doubt as the ruling specifically states:
"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. "
By definition illegal aliens are not here with the permission of the United States and they cannot have permanent legal domicile until they are here with permission. So how can an illegal alien give birth to a citizen under the requirements of either the 14th Amendment or Wong?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

There's another ridiculous aspect of this ignorance and idiocy, where many on the right maintain the moronic notion that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment acts as an 'incentive' to those undocumented coming to the United States absent authorization.

Needless to say this notion is completely unfounded and devoid of merit, the product of the right's delusional xenophobia and racism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your interp, Jim, is not the one followed.