"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP

[archives]

simply wrong. And saying it does not make it so.

That is a fact the Red Hat Cub can not process, they are so used to talking heads telling them what they want to hear they do believe just saying something makes it true. Trump knows it, preys on it, reason he has no fear of rattling off one lie on top of another

 

[tigerred59]

That's about the only thing, I'm in on with Trump...I'm tired of tax payers paying good money to birth babies and then having to take care of em.....that's all these young illegals want from this country anyways.....I hope he starts a campaign of ENGLISH is a must for all immigrants!!

 

[FastLane]

Perhaps you need to actually read Wong Kim Ark before you try to argue that someone living in the US for a short period of time doesn't have a permanent domicile in the US. Ark's parents went back to China. It was when he was denied entry after returning from visiting them that resulted in the ruling that all persons born in the US are granted US citizenship at birth.

The court rejected the argument that he couldn't be a citizen because his parents never gave up their allegiance to China.

This was the government's argument that the court rejected in deciding that birth in the US gave him citizenship. -
"Because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city andcounty of San Francisco, State of California, United States ofAmerica, is not, under the laws of the State of California and ofthe United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of thesaid Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperorof China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person anda subject of the Emperor of China."

YOU are the one that needs to read the Wong Kim Ark decision. The SCOTUS said his parents were domiciled (legal term) in the US and were permanent residents and as such were under the protection of the US and therefore Wong was a citizen by birth. Illegal Aliens are not permeant resident and aren't permanently domiciled in the US and don't receive the permeant protections of the US and the are subject to deportation. Illegal Aliens do not live legally in the US and their children do not have birthright citizenship.

The question presented by the record is 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 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “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.” . .


The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: 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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: United States v. Wong Kim Ark

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

YOU are the one that needs to read the Wong Kim Ark decision. The SCOTUS said his parents were domiciled (legal term) in the US and were permanent residents and as such were under the protection of the US and therefore Wong was a citizen by birth. Illegal Aliens are not permeant resident and aren't permanently domiciled in the US and don't receive the permeant protections of the US and the are subject to deportation. Illegal Aliens do not live legally in the US and their children do not have birthright citizenship.

Yes. His parents lived in the US for a few years but did not stay in the US as permanent residents since they returned to China as was their intent to do at some point.
The act of having a place to live in the US makes you domiciled in the US.

Let's look up the legal definition of domiciled since you want to point out it is a legal term.

In re Garneau, 127 Fed. G77, 02 C. C. A. 403.In its ordinary acceptation, a person’s domicile is the place where he lives or has his home
Anderson v. Anderson, 42 Vt. 350, 1Am. Rep. 334. 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
Salem v. Lyme, 29 Conn. 74.Domicile is the place where a person has fixed his habitation and has a permanent residence, without any present intention of removing therefrom.

In other words, without evidence of intent to leave where they are living and move to another place within a short time frame, where they are living is their domicile.
A domicile is where a person is living and intends to live for the near future.

 

[FastLane]

Yes. His parents lived in the US for a few years but did not stay in the US as permanent residents since they returned to China as was their intent to do at some point.
The act of having a place to live in the US makes you domiciled in the US.

Let's look up the legal definition of domiciled since you want to point out it is a legal term.

In re Garneau, 127 Fed. G77, 02 C. C. A. 403.In its ordinary acceptation, a person’s domicile is the place where he lives or has his home
Anderson v. Anderson, 42 Vt. 350, 1Am. Rep. 334. 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
Salem v. Lyme, 29 Conn. 74.Domicile is the place where a person has fixed his habitation and has a permanent residence, without any present intention of removing therefrom.

In other words, without evidence of intent to leave where they are living and move to another place within a short time frame, where they are living is their domicile.
A domicile is where a person is living and intends to live for the near future.

At the time of the case the SCOTUS said they were domiciled in the US. Illegal Aliens can be residents but they can't be domiciled in the US. They are subject to deportation at any time. Green card holders are domiciled here, Illegals are residents but they are never legally domiciled in the US. The SCOTUS drew a distinction between resident and being domiciled
"but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States"

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

YOU are the one that needs to read the Wong Kim Ark decision. The SCOTUS said his parents were domiciled (legal term) in the US and were permanent residents and as such were under the protection of the US and therefore Wong was a citizen by birth. Illegal Aliens are not permeant resident and aren't permanently domiciled in the US and don't receive the permeant protections of the US and the are subject to deportation. Illegal Aliens do not live legally in the US and their children do not have birthright citizenship.

Whether they live here legally isn't a consideration.

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: 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, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin'sCase, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;"

...

To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States,of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish,German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

At the time of the case the SCOTUS said they were domiciled in the US. Illegal Aliens can be residents but they can't be domiciled in the US. They are subject to deportation at any time. Green card holders are domiciled here, Illegals are residents but they are never legally domiciled in the US. The SCOTUS drew a distinction between resident and being domiciled
"but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States"

Now you are just making up what you want the term "domicile" to mean rather than using any legal definition. Domicile has nothing to do with how someone entered the country. It only refers to where someone is currently living with the intention of living there for the near future.

Then Kim clearly states that even a temporary time in the US makes a child a natural subject (citizen.)

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, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin'sCase, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;"

 

[FastLane]

Now you are just making up what you want the term "domicile" to mean rather than using any legal definition. Domicile has nothing to do with how someone entered the country. It only refers to where someone is currently living with the intention of living there for the near future.

Then Kim clearly states that even a temporary time in the US makes a child a natural subject (citizen.)

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, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin'sCase, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;"

Domicile is permanent residency. Illegal Aliens are not permanent residents of the United States. Therefore illegal cannot domicile in the US they are at best merely temporary residents.

 

[FastLane]

Illegal Aliens cannot have their domicile in the US because they can't LEGALLY live here.

Domicile is a person's permanent or legal home, the place they consider their principal residence and intend to return to, even if they are currently living elsewhere. Residence, on the other hand, refers to where a person is currently living or spending most of their time, which may be temporary. While you can have multiple residences, you can only have one domicile, legally speaking.

Google Search

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Illegal Aliens cannot have their domicile in the US because they can't LEGALLY live here.

Domicile is a person's permanent or legal home, the place they consider their principal residence and intend to return to, even if they are currently living elsewhere. Residence, on the other hand, refers to where a person is currently living or spending most of their time, which may be temporary. While you can have multiple residences, you can only have one domicile, legally speaking.

Google Search

Congratulations. You just figured it out. You need to prove they actually have a domicile outside the US if you want to claim their residence in the US isn't their domicile. Simply being a citizen of another country doesn't mean they have a home in that country which would be required to claim that is their domicile and not their current residence in the US.

You will also notice that domicile says nothing about whether someone is in the country legally or not.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Domicile is permanent residency. Illegal Aliens are not permanent residents of the United States. Therefore illegal cannot domicile in the US they are at best merely temporary residents.

Domicile has nothing to do with country. It is simply the specific residence where the person is currently residing and intends to reside at. This is the person's intent and has nothing to do with what the government thinks.

 

[FastLane]

Domicile has nothing to do with country. It is simply the specific residence where the person is currently residing and intends to reside at. This is the person's intent and has nothing to do with what the government thinks.

If you are domiciled in the US you LEGALLY live here and the US extends privileges to you. ILLEGAL ALIENS CANNOT LEGALLY LIVE IN THE US. So they cannot have domicile in the US they can reside temporarily and illegally but they cannot have a domicile in the US. They are legally residents of their country.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If you are domiciled in the US you LEGALLY live here and the US extends privileges to you. ILLEGAL ALIENS CANNOT LEGALLY LIVE IN THE US. So they cannot have domicile in the US they can reside temporarily and illegally but they cannot have a domicile in the US. They are legally residents of their country.

You are completely ignoring the meaning of the word domicile. It seems that is all you can do since you can't make a valid legal argument.


When it comes to the 14th amendment, it doesn't even require there be a domicile. It only requires that they be subject to US jurisdiction. Wong makes clear that simply being in the country and not being a diplomat or a foreign soldier makes them subject to the jurisdiction. You are attempting to take the specifics of Wong and apply them incorrectly. The ruling says this.

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legalsense, either by the common law or under the common naturalizationacts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. "

 

[Into the Night]

feel free to rage against the Supreme Court

I do. The Supreme Court is not the Constitution and they have NO authority over the Constitution or any constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Perhaps you need to actually read Wong Kim Ark before you try to argue that someone living in the US for a short period of time doesn't have a permanent domicile in the US. Ark's parents went back to China. It was when he was denied entry after returning from visiting them that resulted in the ruling that all persons born in the US are granted US citizenship at birth.

The court rejected the argument that he couldn't be a citizen because his parents never gave up their allegiance to China.

So the court exceeded their authority...again.

 

[Into the Night]

No. They did no such thing. Elk only applies to Indians born to a tribe.

So. They weren't citizens of the United States until the Snyder Act.

 

[Into the Night]

You don't have common sense, anchovies.

They are in the Constitution, anchovies. See the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments and Articles I and III.

SCOTUS has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution, anchovies. You are ignoring Article III again.

The only one bringing up Elvis or the Sasquatch is YOU, anchovies.

It was, anchovies.

Irrelevant. Pivot fallacy. Dictatorships still exist, anchovies.

You are not Google.

Wrong

QED

Right to privacy is not in the Constitution

See the 4th and 5th amendments.

Wrong again

Denying your own posts never works.

Metaphors for your idiocy

Random phrases are not metaphores, anchovies.

Wrong again

Denying your own posts never works.

Never said I was

Denying your own posts never works.

 

[Into the Night]

You are completely ignoring the meaning of the word domicile. It seems that is all you can do since you can't make a valid legal argument.


When it comes to the 14th amendment, it doesn't even require there be a domicile.

Irrelevant. Congress does.

It only requires that they be subject to US jurisdiction.

They are not subjects of U.S. jurisdiction. They are illegal aliens. They are subjects of jurisdiction of their originating nation.

Wong makes clear that simply being in the country and not being a diplomat or a foreign soldier makes them subject to the jurisdiction. You are attempting to take the specifics of Wong and apply them incorrectly. The ruling says this.

Irrelevant. SCOTUS isn't the Constitution.

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legalsense, either by the common law or under the common naturalizationacts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. "

The child of an illegal alien is not a citizen of the U.S.

 

[Into the Night]

That is a fact the Red Hat Cub can not process, they are so used to talking heads telling them what they want to hear they do believe just saying something makes it true. Trump knows it, preys on it, reason he has no fear of rattling off one lie on top of another

What lie, anchovies?? Void argument fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Congratulations. You just figured it out. You need to prove they actually have a domicile outside the US if you want to claim their residence in the US isn't their domicile. Simply being a citizen of another country doesn't mean they have a home in that country which would be required to claim that is their domicile and not their current residence in the US.

You will also notice that domicile says nothing about whether someone is in the country legally or not.

There is no domicile for an illegal alien, Poorboy. They are immediately subject to deportation.