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

[Rexx Taylor]

but what if a dog has sex in Mexico, then crosses the border, has her puppies,,,are the puppies illegal?

 

[Toro]

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

Wrong.

A "legal residence" does NOT mean that they are in compliance with immigration law.

What it means is that this is where you live and have a legal claim to it.

For example, if an illegal immigrant buys a house and lives there most of the time, that is their legal residence. It's irrelevant if they are here illegally. Under the law, that is their "legal residence," because under the law, that is where they live and have a claim to it. Without the claim for legal residence, someone could usurp the illegal's property, abrogating their property rights, which American law disallows. Even if the illegal alien is deported, American law protects the illegal's property. A "domicile" under American law means that is where they live most of the time, nothing more.

There is nothing - zero, zip, nada - in the current law stipulates that "legal residence" means that they are here legally under immigration law as you think it does.

 

[Toro]

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

Wrong.

Once again, you do not understand the concept of "legal residence." Legal residence merely means that they live at a place most of the time. It does not mean they are here legally under the immigration code.

If someone buys a house and lives there, that is their "legal residence." They have property rights and are considered "domiciled" there irrespective of immigration law.

Sorry, angry old man. You lose. American law says so, no matter what you make up to satisfy your ideological worldview.

 

[JimBowie1958]

but what if a dog has sex in Mexico, then crosses the border, has her puppies,,,are the puppies illegal?

Yes, and the mom is a real bitch too.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Wrong.

A "legal residence" does NOT mean that they are in compliance with immigration law.

What it means is that this is where you live and have a legal claim to it.

For example, if an illegal immigrant buys a house and lives there most of the time, that is their legal residence. It's irrelevant if they are here illegally. Under the law, that is their "legal residence," because under the law, that is where they live and have a claim to it. Without the claim for legal residence, someone could usurp the illegal's property, abrogating their property rights, which American law disallows. Even if the illegal alien is deported, American law protects the illegal's property. A "domicile" under American law means that is where they live most of the time, nothing more.

There is nothing - zero, zip, nada - in the current law stipulates that "legal residence" means that they are here legally under immigration law as you think it does.

"There is nothing - zero, zip, nada - in the current law stipulates that "legal residence" means that they are here legally under immigration law..."

Lol, do you ever just listen to yourself?

roflmao

How does one get legal residence that requires legal paperwork, legal ID, etc, when one does not have such? Obvously there is some level of fraud that prevents it from being a legal residence.

 

[Toro]

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

Wrong.

A "legal residence" does NOT mean that they are in compliance with immigration law.

What it means is that this is where you live and have a legal claim to it.

For example, if an illegal immigrant buys a house and lives there most of the time, that is their legal residence. It's irrelevant if they are here illegally. Under the law, that is their "legal residence," because under the law, that is where they live and have a claim to it. Without the claim for legal residence, someone could usurp the illegal's property, abrogating their property rights, which American law disallows. Even if the illegal alien is deported, American law protects the illegal's property. A "domicile" under American law means that is where they live most of the time, nothing more.

There is nothing - zero, zip, nada - in the current law stipulates that "legal residence" means that they are here legally under immigration law as you think it does.

"There is nothing - zero, zip, nada - in the current law stipulates that "legal residence" means that they are here legally under immigration law..."

Lol, do you ever just listen to yourself?

roflmao

How does one get legal residence that requires legal paperwork, legal ID, etc, when one does not have such? Obvously there is some level of fraud that prevents it from being a legal residence.

Sorry, angry old man. That you think it means something does not mean what you think it means.

You do not have to be a legal resident to own property in this country, or even live here.

You should learn more about property and immigration laws.

Feel free to link to anything that "domicile" means someone is here legally under immigration law. I'll wait.

 

[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

Wrong.

Once again, you do not understand the concept of "legal residence." Legal residence merely means that they live at a place most of the time. It does not mean they are here legally under the immigration code.

If someone buys a house and lives there, that is their "legal residence." They have property rights and are considered "domiciled" there irrespective of immigration law.

Sorry, angry old man. You lose. American law says so, no matter what you make up to satisfy your ideological worldview.

Legal Residence Law & Legal Definition

"Legal residence means the permanent home of a person. It is the principal residence for legal purposes."

No, YOU lose, sheister.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

but what if a dog has sex in Mexico, then crosses the border, has her puppies,,,are the puppies illegal?

Yes, and the mom is a real bitch too.

and what about those locust swarms? its not fair! no one ever stops them from crossing the borders and then eating all our plants!!!!

 

[JimBowie1958]

but what if a dog has sex in Mexico, then crosses the border, has her puppies,,,are the puppies illegal?

Yes, and the mom is a real bitch too.

and what about those locust swarms? its not fair! no one ever stops them from crossing the borders and then eating all our plants!!!!

Sorry mofos

 

[Rexx Taylor]

and dont forget "The Killer Bees"!!! they come from Mexico and no one ever stops them from crossing the border.

 

[JimBowie1958]

and dont forget "The Killer Bees"!!! they come from Mexico and no one ever stops them from crossing the border.

But they are descendants of slave bees brought over by force from Africa, so they can do whatever the fuck they want anyway.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

and dont forget "The Killer Bees"!!! they come from Mexico and no one ever stops them from crossing the border.

But they are descendants of slave bees brought over by force from Africa, so they can do whatever the fuck they want anyway.

i really feel sorry for all of those stray dogs in California who inadvertanly ran into those killer bees nests.

 

[JimBowie1958]

and dont forget "The Killer Bees"!!! they come from Mexico and no one ever stops them from crossing the border.

But they are descendants of slave bees brought over by force from Africa, so they can do whatever the fuck they want anyway.

i really feel sorry for all of those stray dogs in California who inadvertanly ran into those killer bees nests.

Yeah, me too, those poor sons of bitches.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

i wonder if Killer bees were created when a regular white racist bee had sex with a tryannasorux rex in the 1800's, then the dinasour gave birth to 3 trillion killer bees over a period of 5 years.

 

[JimBowie1958]

i wonder if Killer bees were created when a regular white racist bee had sex with a tryannasorux rex in the 1800's, then the dinasour gave birth to 3 trillion killer bees over a period of 5 years.

It's plausible, logical and if you find the right libtard academic, a revolutionary new finding that will qualify him for more government grants and research money to explore the issue.

It's all about the pesos, man.

 

[Toro]

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

Wrong.

Once again, you do not understand the concept of "legal residence." Legal residence merely means that they live at a place most of the time. It does not mean they are here legally under the immigration code.

If someone buys a house and lives there, that is their "legal residence." They have property rights and are considered "domiciled" there irrespective of immigration law.

Sorry, angry old man. You lose. American law says so, no matter what you make up to satisfy your ideological worldview.

Legal Residence Law & Legal Definition

"Legal residence means the permanent home of a person. It is the principal residence for legal purposes."

No, YOU lose, sheister.

Nope.

You don't understand what you are reading, angry old man.

"Principal residence" is irrespective of immigration status. For example, if an illegal immigrant has lived in his home in the U.S. for a decade, that is his "principal residence" under the law.

 

[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

Wrong.

Once again, you do not understand the concept of "legal residence." Legal residence merely means that they live at a place most of the time. It does not mean they are here legally under the immigration code.

If someone buys a house and lives there, that is their "legal residence." They have property rights and are considered "domiciled" there irrespective of immigration law.

Sorry, angry old man. You lose. American law says so, no matter what you make up to satisfy your ideological worldview.

Legal Residence Law & Legal Definition

"Legal residence means the permanent home of a person. It is the principal residence for legal purposes."

No, YOU lose, sheister.

Nope.

You don't understand what you are reading, angry old man.

"Principal residence" is irrespective of immigration status. For example, if an illegal immigrant has lived in his home in the U.S. for a decade, that is his "principal residence" under the law.

No, it is not irrespective of immigration status at all, in fact the documentation required to buy or rent a residence is designed specifically to keep illegals from obtaining legal residence. Thus they have to use some form of fraud (such s using fake IDs or stolen personal information) to conduct such agreements.

Face it there is a reason they call it 'LEGAL residence'.

And it is all moot anyway, since there is still the requirement from US v Wong Kim Ark that they be in the country with the permission of the US government, fool.

So yes required LEGAL residence and permission of the US government makes the intent and meaning very clear except to lying shyster fools like you.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

Wrong.

Once again, you do not understand the concept of "legal residence." Legal residence merely means that they live at a place most of the time. It does not mean they are here legally under the immigration code.

If someone buys a house and lives there, that is their "legal residence." They have property rights and are considered "domiciled" there irrespective of immigration law.

Sorry, angry old man. You lose. American law says so, no matter what you make up to satisfy your ideological worldview.

Legal Residence Law & Legal Definition

"Legal residence means the permanent home of a person. It is the principal residence for legal purposes."

No, YOU lose, sheister.

Nope.

You don't understand what you are reading, angry old man.

"Principal residence" is irrespective of immigration status. For example, if an illegal immigrant has lived in his home in the U.S. for a decade, that is his "principal residence" under the law.

No, it is not irrespective of immigration status at all, in fact the documentation required to buy or rent a residence is designed specifically to keep illegals from obtaining legal residence. Thus they have to use some form of fraud (such s using fake IDs or stolen personal information) to conduct such agreements.

Face it there is a reason they call it 'LEGAL residence'.

And it is all moot anyway, since there is still the requirement that they be in the country with the permission of the US government, fool.

A requirement that does not exist.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Text of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship once again

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

Birth and jurisdiction are what are relevant.

Domicile is not even mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

Plyler v. Doe specifically states that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- their children born here are born citizens- as per the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Wrong.

Once again, you do not understand the concept of "legal residence." Legal residence merely means that they live at a place most of the time. It does not mean they are here legally under the immigration code.

If someone buys a house and lives there, that is their "legal residence." They have property rights and are considered "domiciled" there irrespective of immigration law.

Sorry, angry old man. You lose. American law says so, no matter what you make up to satisfy your ideological worldview.

Legal Residence Law & Legal Definition

"Legal residence means the permanent home of a person. It is the principal residence for legal purposes."

No, YOU lose, sheister.

Nope.

You don't understand what you are reading, angry old man.

"Principal residence" is irrespective of immigration status. For example, if an illegal immigrant has lived in his home in the U.S. for a decade, that is his "principal residence" under the law.

No, it is not irrespective of immigration status at all, in fact the documentation required to buy or rent a residence is designed specifically to keep illegals from obtaining legal residence. Thus they have to use some form of fraud (such s using fake IDs or stolen personal information) to conduct such agreements.

Face it there is a reason they call it 'LEGAL residence'.

And it is all moot anyway, since there is still the requirement from US v Wong Kim Ark that they be in the country with the permission of the US government, fool.

So yes required LEGAL residence and permission of the US government makes the intent and meaning very clear except to lying shyster fools like you.

Nowhere in Wong Kim Ark does it say that birthright citizenship requires that the parents be in the country with the permission of the parents.