Proof that Birthright Citizenship is NOT Given to Illegal Aliens in the 14th A

[JimBowie1958]

If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible for birthright citizenship if born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island?

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly the US government has jurisdiction on its own territory, but aliens do not get citizenship if born in those territories.

Why if Plyler ruled on jurisdiction = birthright citizenship?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.

Things are not going to change to the way you want.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.

Things are not going to change to the way you want.

Starkey either answer the question or shut the hell up and blow away like the wind blown trash you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.

Things are not going to change to the way you want.

Starkey either answer the question or shut the hell up and blow away like the wind blown trash you are.

Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.

Things are not going to change to the way you want.

Starkey either answer the question or shut the hell up and blow away like the wind blown trash you are.

Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along.

"Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along."

roflmao, you truly are a stupid ass.

They are STILL UNDER US JURISDICTION, are they not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jimbo, you have already failed.

 

[paddymurphy]

No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.

Things are not going to change to the way you want.

Starkey either answer the question or shut the hell up and blow away like the wind blown trash you are.

Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along.

"Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along."

roflmao, you truly are a stupid ass.

They are STILL UNDER US JURISDICTION, are they not?

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

 

[Syriusly]

No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.

Things are not going to change to the way you want.

Starkey either answer the question or shut the hell up and blow away like the wind blown trash you are.

Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along.

"Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along."

roflmao, you truly are a stupid ass.

They are STILL UNDER US JURISDICTION, are they not?

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

Paddy is the one with the facts:

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

 

[Syriusly]

If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible for birthright citizenship if born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island?

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly the US government has jurisdiction on its own territory, but aliens do not get citizenship if born in those territories.

Why if Plyler ruled on jurisdiction = birthright citizenship?

I wonder at times why you bother to post citations- and then do not read them


U.S. territories
The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.[5]

There are special provisions governing children born in some current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth".[6]

Outlying possessions
According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. (which is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions explains the complexities of this topic.[7]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

The answers to your question is within your own citation.

American Samoa and Swains Island are not 'incorporated territories' and not considered part of the United States.

Remember the language of the 14th Amendment?

All persons born ...... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

They may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but they were not born in the United States.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jimbo, you have already failed.

Jake, you have failed to make me concerned about whether you think I have failed, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.

Things are not going to change to the way you want.

Starkey either answer the question or shut the hell up and blow away like the wind blown trash you are.

Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along.

"Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along."

roflmao, you truly are a stupid ass.

They are STILL UNDER US JURISDICTION, are they not?

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

Paddy is the one with the facts:

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

But territories are under the jurisdiction of the US, are they not? They are under our laws, so they are under our jurisdiction according to you stupid ass reading of Plyler.

The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States."

And Wong Kim Ark states that not only jurisdiction is called for but also the legal residence or domicile and permission of the US government.

You cant say there are no exceptions then claim that there are exceptions when it suits your stupid ass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible for birthright citizenship if born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island?

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly the US government has jurisdiction on its own territory, but aliens do not get citizenship if born in those territories.

Why if Plyler ruled on jurisdiction = birthright citizenship?

I wonder at times why you bother to post citations- and then do not read them


U.S. territories
The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.[5]

There are special provisions governing children born in some current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth".[6]

Outlying possessions
According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. (which is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions explains the complexities of this topic.[7]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

The answers to your question is within your own citation.

American Samoa and Swains Island are not 'incorporated territories' and not considered part of the United States.

Remember the language of the 14th Amendment?

All persons born ...... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

They may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but they were not born in the United States.

But according to your reading of the Plyler decision, all that is required is the jurisdiction of the US.

Make you mind up punk.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

if the Baby was "Created In South America" then the baby is a citizen of South America,,,what if some chick got pregnant on earth, then 8 months later she is on vacation on Mars, has the baby,,,then what?

 

[Toro]

If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible for birthright citizenship if born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island?

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly the US government has jurisdiction on its own territory, but aliens do not get citizenship if born in those territories.

Why if Plyler ruled on jurisdiction = birthright citizenship?

Plyler v Doe wasn't about giving birthright citizenship to anyone. It was a case about taxpayer funding of public education for illegal aliens.

It is relevant to Wong Kim Ark in that it reaffirms US jurisdiction over illegal aliens.

 

[Toro]

Starkey either answer the question or shut the hell up and blow away like the wind blown trash you are.

Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along.

"Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along."

roflmao, you truly are a stupid ass.

They are STILL UNDER US JURISDICTION, are they not?

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

Paddy is the one with the facts:

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

But territories are under the jurisdiction of the US, are they not? They are under our laws, so they are under our jurisdiction according to you stupid ass reading of Plyler.

The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States."

And Wong Kim Ark states that not only jurisdiction is called for but also the legal residence or domicile and permission of the US government.

You cant say there are no exceptions then claim that there are exceptions when it suits your stupid ass.

Wong Kim Ark doesn't say anything about "legal residence" as defined in immigration law. It says "domicile." Those are two different concepts.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible for birthright citizenship if born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island?

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly the US government has jurisdiction on its own territory, but aliens do not get citizenship if born in those territories.

Why if Plyler ruled on jurisdiction = birthright citizenship?

I wonder at times why you bother to post citations- and then do not read them


U.S. territories
The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.[5]

There are special provisions governing children born in some current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth".[6]

Outlying possessions
According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. (which is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions explains the complexities of this topic.[7]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

The answers to your question is within your own citation.

American Samoa and Swains Island are not 'incorporated territories' and not considered part of the United States.

Remember the language of the 14th Amendment?

All persons born ...... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

They may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but they were not born in the United States.

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

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

"Justice Gray concluded that:

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

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

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


Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Jurisdiction

So in Plyler the critical factoid was not that the illegals were in the US but within the jurisdiction of the US, in fact people in Samoa have constitutional rights just like anywhere else in the jurisdiction of the US, but THEY DONT HAVE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

 

[JimBowie1958]

Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along.

"Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along."

roflmao, you truly are a stupid ass.

They are STILL UNDER US JURISDICTION, are they not?

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

Paddy is the one with the facts:

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

But territories are under the jurisdiction of the US, are they not? They are under our laws, so they are under our jurisdiction according to you stupid ass reading of Plyler.

The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States."

And Wong Kim Ark states that not only jurisdiction is called for but also the legal residence or domicile and permission of the US government.

You cant say there are no exceptions then claim that there are exceptions when it suits your stupid ass.

Wong Kim Ark doesn't say anything about "legal residence" as defined in immigration law. It says "domicile." Those are two different concepts.

I know that they are different concepts Toro as domiciles are subset of legal residences.

lol, it is amazing what I have to essplain to libtards.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Plyler v Doe wasn't about giving birthright citizenship to anyone. It was a case about taxpayer funding of public education for illegal aliens.

It is relevant to Wong Kim Ark in that it reaffirms US jurisdiction over illegal aliens.

I agree, and with the jurisdiction it also gives due process rights, but does not imply anything about birthright citizenship.

In US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 and 118 state specifically the parents have to have domicile in the US (which is a type of legal residence) and they have to be here with the permission of the US government.

Spin it all day if you want, but the meaning is clear, Toro, or should I say 'Bull'.


roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, you keep trying this theme, and you keep failing.

Things are not going to change to the way you want.

So you say, but I don't give a rats ass about your blatherings, dumbass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is why you are so obssessive with an issue that is a failure to overthrowing the 14th. Mental masturbation is fun, yes, but it is in your case as in all that it is sterile.