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

[jon_berzerk]

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?

exactly

they cant

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

exactly

they cant

Sure, they can. They have, repeatedly, on this thread. So have numerous courts and legal scholars. Millions of people were and are American citizens though born here to parents here without permission. Those who are still alive are every bit the American citizen you are; they can vote, serve in the military, get government assistance and serve as President of the United States and, absent a constitutional amendment, you cannot do shit to change that. You can pontificate all you want but that does not change the fact that all of these "anchor babies" as you bigots falsely call them are American citizens, your amateur constitutional analysis notwithstanding.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

exactly

they cant

Sure, they can. They have, repeatedly, on this thread. So have numerous courts and legal scholars. Millions of people were and are American citizens though born here to parents here without permission. Those who are still alive are every bit the American citizen you are; they can vote, serve in the military, get government assistance and serve as President of the United States and, absent a constitutional amendment, you cannot do shit to change that. You can pontificate all you want but that does not change the fact that all of these "anchor babies" as you bigots falsely call them are American citizens, your amateur constitutional analysis notwithstanding.

nope

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bowie and Bezerk, you better email SCOTUS with your findings then.

I think they will tell you your proposals and basis for removing citizenship from citizen babies to young adults simply won't happen.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

exactly

they cant

Sure, they can. They have, repeatedly, on this thread. So have numerous courts and legal scholars. Millions of people were and are American citizens though born here to parents here without permission. Those who are still alive are every bit the American citizen you are; they can vote, serve in the military, get government assistance and serve as President of the United States and, absent a constitutional amendment, you cannot do shit to change that. You can pontificate all you want but that does not change the fact that all of these "anchor babies" as you bigots falsely call them are American citizens, your amateur constitutional analysis notwithstanding.

nope

Smart. Do not actually try to support your opposition and reveal you have no intelligent, rational basis for your opposition. Just write "nope". You follow the adage that it is better to remain silent and be thought the fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. Good for you.

 

[paddymurphy]

The 'anchor baby' myth is nothing but a partisan contrivance, a hateful manifestation of the unwarranted fear common to many on the right:

“[T]he ['anchor baby'], while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea.
[...]
For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.
[...]
In 2011, there were at least 5,000 children in state custody or foster care because an undocumented parent or parents has been deported, according to a study released by the Applied Research Center, a New York-based think tank that focuses on racial and social justice issues. Some estimates put that figure even higher today. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent mandatory reports to the Senate that among other things revealed that during 2013, the agency deported 72,410 people who told federal authorities they have one or more U.S. citizen children.'

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

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

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

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

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

Is born in the United States

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

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

Has parents that are in the United States for business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is addressed in Section 96:

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

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

And yet, you ignore these passages from Wong;
"15.It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

"In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151."

"That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the court of chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583."

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.


V. In the forefront, both of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, and of the civil rights act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explcit and comprehensive terms.

The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 18b; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent, Comm. 39, 42.

The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption 'from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found' were stated as follows: 'When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently, there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter, can never be construed to grant such exemption.' 7 Cranch, 144.

The argument you make is the same as is set forth in the dissenting opinion. I do, however, understand how easy it is for a layperson like you, someone not educated in the law and in constitutional law in particular to be confused about the legal terms and conclusions set forth in this decision.

 

[Syriusly]

It is so pathetic to watch grown men, even if your libtards, just making shit up and to put on like you know what you are talking about when you have plainly not read the decisions.

Thus you lack even the most basic forms of honesty, like your heroes Hitler, Goebels, Stalin and Mao.

I think it is pathetic watching you attack anyone who disagrees with you- and refusing to argue the facts.

You know- like your heroes Hitler, Goebels, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

 

[Syriusly]

The 'anchor baby' myth is nothing but a partisan contrivance, a hateful manifestation of the unwarranted fear common to many on the right:

“[T]he ['anchor baby'], while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea.
[...]
For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.
[...]
In 2011, there were at least 5,000 children in state custody or foster care because an undocumented parent or parents has been deported, according to a study released by the Applied Research Center, a New York-based think tank that focuses on racial and social justice issues. Some estimates put that figure even higher today. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent mandatory reports to the Senate that among other things revealed that during 2013, the agency deported 72,410 people who told federal authorities they have one or more U.S. citizen children.'

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

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

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

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

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

Is born in the United States

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

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

Has parents that are in the United States for business

Has any child ever been denied citizenship because his parents were not here in the United State for business?

Not one.

Has any child ever been denied citizenship because his parents did not have a permanent domicile in the United States?

Not one.

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."

And Plyler v. Doe very clearly resolved that anyone in the United States is within the jurisdiction of the United States if they were subject to the laws of the United States- i.e. anyone but diplomats.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You guys keep saying you're going to get this constitutional convention together....what is the hold up? Trying to find a place that accepts Confederate Script as payment or are your meth labs no longer transportable? Walter White and Pinkman showed you the way around that.

Bigotry is such an ugly thing, but it is purely stupidity when libtards think it is excusable when they do it

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is so pathetic to watch grown men, even if your libtards, just making shit up and to put on like you know what you are talking about when you have plainly not read the decisions.

Thus you lack even the most basic forms of honesty, like your heroes Hitler, Goebels, Stalin and Mao.

I think it is pathetic watching you attack anyone who disagrees with you- and refusing to argue the facts.

I have quoted Section 96 of US v Wong Kim Ark and you continue to ignore it even though it proves you wrong.

What else is there to say in response to your continued blather other than toss off?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your reading of Wong is plain wrong is what is being pointed out.

And as of yet you have not explained why I am misunderstanding SCOTUS stating specifically in THE ONLY DECISION THE HAVE EVER RENDERED on alien birthright citizenship that the parents MUST have legal domicile and the permission of the US government to qualify for the birthright citizenship for their kids.

You have never answered it nor read it either though I have provided links and the relevant sections.

In short you are nothing more than a loud mouthed troll who keeps babbling about something he apparently does not understand.

 

[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?

exactly

they cant

Sure, they can. They have, repeatedly, on this thread. So have numerous courts and legal scholars. Millions of people were and are American citizens though born here to parents here without permission. Those who are still alive are every bit the American citizen you are; they can vote, serve in the military, get government assistance and serve as President of the United States and, absent a constitutional amendment, you cannot do shit to change that. You can pontificate all you want but that does not change the fact that all of these "anchor babies" as you bigots falsely call them are American citizens, your amateur constitutional analysis notwithstanding.

nope

and yet they persist with their Big Lie tactic, simply repeating their lies without explanation

 

[Syriusly]

It is so pathetic to watch grown men, even if your libtards, just making shit up and to put on like you know what you are talking about when you have plainly not read the decisions.

Thus you lack even the most basic forms of honesty, like your heroes Hitler, Goebels, Stalin and Mao.

I think it is pathetic watching you attack anyone who disagrees with you- and refusing to argue the facts.

I have quoted Section 96 of US v Wong Kim Ark and you continue to ignore it even though it proves you wrong.

What else is there to say in response to your continued blather other than toss off?

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

Remember the 14th Amendment says:

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

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


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


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


Writing for the majority, J. Brennan rejected that argument saying it was not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Writing for the four dissenting Justices, J. Burger concurs on this point:


I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state.


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


In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:


impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”


Justice Gray concluded that:


[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Has any child ever been denied citizenship because his parents were not here in the United State for business?

Not one..

Prove that bullshit.

Has any child ever been denied citizenship because his parents did not have a permanent domicile in the United States?

Not one..

Prove that.

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."

And Plyler v. Doe very clearly resolved that anyone in the United States is within the jurisdiction of the United States if they were subject to the laws of the United States- i.e. anyone but diplomats.

Plyer v Doe ruled on an entirely different matter than birthright citizenship, stating that everyone here legally or illegally is still entitled to due process. US v Wong Kim Ark is still the only ruling that they have made on the subject and you cant read for fear of being shown wrong, like a moron.

And more than just diplomats are not entitled to birthright citizenship as well, ignoramus. The Children of prisoners of war, heads of state and diplomatic staff as well do not qualify.

You are such a demonstrable idiot it amazes me why you persist in humiliating yourself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is so pathetic to watch grown men, even if your libtards, just making shit up and to put on like you know what you are talking about when you have plainly not read the decisions.

Thus you lack even the most basic forms of honesty, like your heroes Hitler, Goebels, Stalin and Mao.

I think it is pathetic watching you attack anyone who disagrees with you- and refusing to argue the facts.

I have quoted Section 96 of US v Wong Kim Ark and you continue to ignore it even though it proves you wrong.

What else is there to say in response to your continued blather other than toss off?

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

Remember the 14th Amendment says:

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

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


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


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


Writing for the majority, J. Brennan rejected that argument saying it was not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Writing for the four dissenting Justices, J. Burger concurs on this point:


I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state.


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


In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:


impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”


Justice Gray concluded that:


[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

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

You are embarrassing yourself, dude.

 

[Syriusly]

Your reading of Wong is plain wrong is what is being pointed out.

And as of yet you have not explained why I am misunderstanding SCOTUS stating specifically in THE ONLY DECISION THE HAVE EVER RENDERED on alien birthright citizenship that the parents MUST have legal domicile and the permission of the US government to qualify for the birthright citizenship for their kids..

The court never said that the parents must have legal domicile and permission of the U.S. Government to qualify for birthright citizenship.

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 parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil 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 court notes that the parents of Wong Kim are were

• subjects of the Emperor of China
• had permanent domicil and residence in the United States
• are carrying on business in the United States and
• Are not employed in any diplomatic capacity under the Emperor of China.

The court does not say that all of those conditions are required. Indeed- if they did- only children born to parents who were subjects of the Emperor of China would be U.S. citizens.

On the contrary- the Court VERY specifically says otherwise:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution, and their children "born in the United States" cannot be less "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

 

[Syriusly]

Has any child ever been denied citizenship because his parents were not here in the United State for business?

Not one..

Prove that bullshit.

Has any child ever been denied citizenship because his parents did not have a permanent domicile in the United States?

Not one..

Prove that.
f.

I looked- I can't find a single case.

Prove me wrong.

Go for it.

 

[Syriusly]

It is so pathetic to watch grown men, even if your libtards, just making shit up and to put on like you know what you are talking about when you have plainly not read the decisions.

Thus you lack even the most basic forms of honesty, like your heroes Hitler, Goebels, Stalin and Mao.

I think it is pathetic watching you attack anyone who disagrees with you- and refusing to argue the facts.

I have quoted Section 96 of US v Wong Kim Ark and you continue to ignore it even though it proves you wrong.

What else is there to say in response to your continued blather other than toss off?

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

Remember the 14th Amendment says:

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

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


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


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


Writing for the majority, J. Brennan rejected that argument saying it was not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Writing for the four dissenting Justices, J. Burger concurs on this point:


I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state.


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


In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:


impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”


Justice Gray concluded that:


[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

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

You are embarrassing yourself, dude.

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.

Wow- so you think that in Wong Kim Ark- they added to the language of the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment has two requirements:

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

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

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

You act like you don t even understand what a logical AND list is.

Section 96 is not ignored or irrelevant simply because other conditions like being subject to the US is also applied.

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

The 14th Amendment has two requirements:

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

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

It doesn't matter because the question is what is the criteria for being qualified for birthright citizenship in US v Wong Kim Ark which is the ONLY case that has ruled on the subject and legal domicile an d the permission of the USA is required.

That you think the rest of us are so stupid that we would believe this horseshit you keep spewing is hilarious.

The authors of the 14th Amendment never intended for illegals to get birthright citizenship, nor did SCOTUS when it ruled on aliens birthright citizenship in Wong.

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