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

[JimBowie1958]

This thread is proof of the ignorance and hate common to most on the right.

STFU, you stupid ignorant fool. You probably haven't even read the decisions in Plyler, or Wong.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong.

Property can be bought and sold in the U.S. by people who've never been to the U.S. Property can be transferred, willed, etc. One can legally buy property in the U.S. from outside the country then enter the country, live there, and the law will recognize that as one's permanent residence, even if that person is eventually deported. One can have property legally willed to them even if they are an illegal alien and are eventually deported.

Besides, "legal residence" does not imply ownership. "Legal residence" merely means where one permanently resides. One can rent a permanent residence.

I was once a legal immigrant. I've been through the system, angry old man!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now JB is merely spamming and trolling his own thread.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no requirement established in Wong Kim Ark for 'permission of the U.S. government' and

Yes there is in paragraphs 96 and 118 of the US v Wong Kim Ark decision.

Wong Kim Ark has no relevancy to the citizenship of a child born in Samoa because that child is not born within the United States.

Two requirements: born in the U.S.- and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Wong is relevant as it is the ONLY RULING BY SCOTUS ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, idiot.

A child born in the United States is within the jurisdiction of the United States unless his parents are acredited diplomats.
A child born outside the United States is not born in the U.S. and is not a citizen under the 14th Amendment(though may be a citizen under other laws)

But you say all that has to happen is that they be born under the jurisdiction of the US, so that should include American Samoa. Oh, but there y9ou want to include the restriction that it cant be a territory, but that's OK if it Puerto Rico or Guam, etc, etc, etc as you spin a web of bullshit rhetoric to defend the dissolution of the USA.

Your days are done, sheister bitch.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Property can be bought and sold in the U.S. by people who've never been to the U.S. Property can be transferred, willed, etc. One can legally buy property in the U.S. from outside the country then enter the country, live there, and the law will recognize that as one's permanent residence, even if that person is eventually deported. One can have property legally willed to them even if they are an illegal alien and are eventually deported.

And they all require legal documents and IDs. Where are illegals here in the US supposed to show those without fraud?

They cannot, hence the difference between them and a Saudi prince buying a penthouse in Manhatten, dumbass.

Besides, "legal residence" does not imply ownership. "Legal residence" merely means where one permanently resides. One can rent a permanent residence.

Back to that old lie, that 'legal residence' does not mean legal documentation.

roflmao, you libtard fools just kill me.

Your time is coming to an end, and this system you feed off of is going to be tilled into the soil of this country like the horse shit it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.

Birth in the US and subject to US jurisdiction are the only requirements per the Constitution. Pyler and Wong do not alter any of the above.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.

Birth in the US and subject to US jurisdiction are the only requirements per the Constitution. Pyler and Wong do not alter any of the above.

You don't even grasp how stupid your comment is, and you don't care because you are just a senile old troll.

Fuck off Jake the Fake Delegate.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no requirement established in Wong Kim Ark for 'permission of the U.S. government' and

Yes there is in paragraphs 96 and 118 of the US v Wong Kim Ark decision.

The word permission is mentioned 5 times in Wong Kim Ark- here they are:

(1&2)
on his return to the United States on the steamship Coptic in August, 1895, from a temporary visit to China, he applied to said collector of customs for permission to land, and was by the collector refused such permission,

(3 & 4) and he did return thereto by sea in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.

(5) that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission

Nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say that citizenship is dependent upon government permission for the parents to be in the United States.

 

[Toro]

Property can be bought and sold in the U.S. by people who've never been to the U.S. Property can be transferred, willed, etc. One can legally buy property in the U.S. from outside the country then enter the country, live there, and the law will recognize that as one's permanent residence, even if that person is eventually deported. One can have property legally willed to them even if they are an illegal alien and are eventually deported.

And they all require legal documents and IDs. Where are illegals here in the US supposed to show those without fraud?

They cannot, hence the difference between them and a Saudi prince buying a penthouse in Manhatten, dumbass.

Besides, "legal residence" does not imply ownership. "Legal residence" merely means where one permanently resides. One can rent a permanent residence.

Back to that old lie, that 'legal residence' does not mean legal documentation.

roflmao, you libtard fools just kill me.

Your time is coming to an end, and this system you feed off of is going to be tilled into the soil of this country like the horse shit it is.

I make more money than most people. I support you, 47-percenter!

Domicile under the law doesn't mean what you think it means, angry old man.

Too bad for you Trump is just a flash in the pan. And when he's not President, you all will still be angry old men, screaming at people to get off your lawn!

 

[Syriusly]

There is no requirement established in Wong Kim Ark for 'permission of the U.S. government' and

Yes there is in paragraphs 96 and 118 of the US v Wong Kim Ark decision.

Wong Kim Ark has no relevancy to the citizenship of a child born in Samoa because that child is not born within the United States.

Two requirements: born in the U.S.- and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Wong is relevant as it is the ONLY RULING BY SCOTUS ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, idiot.
.

Wong is very relevant- as it establishes that a citizen born to alien parents in the United States is a citizen under the 14th Amendment- because he was born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

There are only two requirements under the 14th Amendment- birth in the United States- and within the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Being born in Samoa is not being born in the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no requirement established in Wong Kim Ark for 'permission of the U.S. government' and

Yes there is in paragraphs 96 and 118 of the US v Wong Kim Ark decision.

Wong Kim Ark has no relevancy to the citizenship of a child born in Samoa because that child is not born within the United States.

Two requirements: born in the U.S.- and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Wong is relevant as it is the ONLY RULING BY SCOTUS ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, idiot.

A child born in the United States is within the jurisdiction of the United States unless his parents are acredited diplomats.
A child born outside the United States is not born in the U.S. and is not a citizen under the 14th Amendment(though may be a citizen under other laws)

But you say all that has to happen is that they be born under the jurisdiction of the US, .

No- you keep saying that- but you just keep lying.

As I keep saying is what the 14th Amendment says:

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

 

[Syriusly]

JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.

Birth in the US and subject to US jurisdiction are the only requirements per the Constitution. Pyler and Wong do not alter any of the above.

You don't even grasp how stupid your comment is, and you don't care because you are just a senile old troll.

Fuck off Jake the Fake Delegate.

LOL- Jimie Foul Mouth just gets more desperate and foul mouthed every time his delusions are pointed out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.

Birth in the US and subject to US jurisdiction are the only requirements per the Constitution. Pyler and Wong do not alter any of the above.

You don't even grasp how stupid your comment is, and you don't care because you are just a senile old troll.

Fuck off Jake the Fake Delegate.

LOL- Jimie Foul Mouth just gets more desperate and foul mouthed every time his delusions are pointed out.

Oh, he is just a delusional old man that time has passed by. If a constitutional convention is called, he is not going and I am. He hates that.

 

[paddymurphy]

JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.

Birth in the US and subject to US jurisdiction are the only requirements per the Constitution. Pyler and Wong do not alter any of the above.

You don't even grasp how stupid your comment is, and you don't care because you are just a senile old troll.

Fuck off Jake the Fake Delegate.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone as determined as Jimmy in proffering such a clearly erroneous opinion. It is almost like he has invested so much into his moronic construction of Wong that if he admits what everyone knows, that he is wrong, he is somehow lesser as a person. I have this image of this disheveled man, looking older than he really is, typing furiously at his keyboard, spittle flying from his mouth all over the screen and keyboard. Attacking anyone who dares to point out where he is wrong, except, of course those, like me, who he is afraid to engage with because I actually use the words of the decisions to prove him wrong. Does he not understand that today, in this country, there is no dispute that the children of illegal aliens born here are US citizens? You can certainly argue that that should not be but it is the current state of the law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. No Court has ever construed Wong as he claims it should be construed with an additional requirements regarding the legal status of the parents. No scholars seriously disputed the long settled principle that being born here made you a citizen until the Donald made his ridiculous claims and right wing talk show lawyers joined.

 

[Syriusly]

JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.

Birth in the US and subject to US jurisdiction are the only requirements per the Constitution. Pyler and Wong do not alter any of the above.

You don't even grasp how stupid your comment is, and you don't care because you are just a senile old troll.

Fuck off Jake the Fake Delegate.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone as determined as Jimmy in proffering such a clearly erroneous opinion. It is almost like he has invested so much into his moronic construction of Wong that he admits what everyone knows, that he is wrong, he is somehow lesser as a person. I have this image of this disheveled man, looking older than he really is, typing furiously at his keyboard, spittle flying from his mouth all over the screen and keyboard. Attacking anyone who dares to point out where he is wrong, except, of course those, like me, who he is afraid to engage with because I actually use the words of the decisions to prove him wrong. Does he not understand that today, in this country, there is no dispute that the children of illegal aliens born here are US citizens? You can certainly argue that that should not be but it is the current state of the law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. No Court has ever construed Wong as he claims it should be construed with an additional requirements regarding the legal status of the parents. No scholars seriously disputed the long settled principle that being born here made you a citizen until the Donald made his ridiculous claims and right wing talk show lawyers joined.

But...but....but what about Samoa!

 

[paddymurphy]

JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.

Birth in the US and subject to US jurisdiction are the only requirements per the Constitution. Pyler and Wong do not alter any of the above.

You don't even grasp how stupid your comment is, and you don't care because you are just a senile old troll.

Fuck off Jake the Fake Delegate.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone as determined as Jimmy in proffering such a clearly erroneous opinion. It is almost like he has invested so much into his moronic construction of Wong that he admits what everyone knows, that he is wrong, he is somehow lesser as a person. I have this image of this disheveled man, looking older than he really is, typing furiously at his keyboard, spittle flying from his mouth all over the screen and keyboard. Attacking anyone who dares to point out where he is wrong, except, of course those, like me, who he is afraid to engage with because I actually use the words of the decisions to prove him wrong. Does he not understand that today, in this country, there is no dispute that the children of illegal aliens born here are US citizens? You can certainly argue that that should not be but it is the current state of the law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. No Court has ever construed Wong as he claims it should be construed with an additional requirements regarding the legal status of the parents. No scholars seriously disputed the long settled principle that being born here made you a citizen until the Donald made his ridiculous claims and right wing talk show lawyers joined.

But...but....but what about Samoa!

He has asked about Samoa repeatedly, often in response to posts where it was explained that the Courts have held that territories are not in the United States and, therefore, birth there does not confer citizenship via the 14th.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie shows his relentless stupidity on birthright citizenship.

Birth in the US and subject to US jurisdiction are the only requirements per the Constitution. Pyler and Wong do not alter any of the above.

You don't even grasp how stupid your comment is, and you don't care because you are just a senile old troll.

Fuck off Jake the Fake Delegate.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone as determined as Jimmy in proffering such a clearly erroneous opinion. It is almost like he has invested so much into his moronic construction of Wong that he admits what everyone knows, that he is wrong, he is somehow lesser as a person. I have this image of this disheveled man, looking older than he really is, typing furiously at his keyboard, spittle flying from his mouth all over the screen and keyboard. Attacking anyone who dares to point out where he is wrong, except, of course those, like me, who he is afraid to engage with because I actually use the words of the decisions to prove him wrong. Does he not understand that today, in this country, there is no dispute that the children of illegal aliens born here are US citizens? You can certainly argue that that should not be but it is the current state of the law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. No Court has ever construed Wong as he claims it should be construed with an additional requirements regarding the legal status of the parents. No scholars seriously disputed the long settled principle that being born here made you a citizen until the Donald made his ridiculous claims and right wing talk show lawyers joined.

But...but....but what about Samoa!

He has asked about Samoa repeatedly, often in response to posts where it was explained that the Courts have held that territories are not in the United States and, therefore, birth there does not confer citizenship via the 14th.

This is an exemplar of trolling and has been reported.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh, he is just a delusional old man that time has passed by. If a constitutional convention is called, he is not going and I am. He hates that.

1. I don't want to go to any kind of convention as it is likely to be populated with too many ass holes like you.

2. You aren't going to any fucking convention, idiot. Which makes you comment about me being delusional somewhat ironic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But...but....but what about Samoa!

So when you libtards fail to win an argument based on facts and reason you resort to you infamous circle jerks, high fiving each other over nothing.

roflmao, liberalism is a mental disease.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no requirement established in Wong Kim Ark for 'permission of the U.S. government' and

Yes there is in paragraphs 96 and 118 of the US v Wong Kim Ark decision.

Wong Kim Ark has no relevancy to the citizenship of a child born in Samoa because that child is not born within the United States.

Two requirements: born in the U.S.- and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Wong is relevant as it is the ONLY RULING BY SCOTUS ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, idiot.

A child born in the United States is within the jurisdiction of the United States unless his parents are acredited diplomats.
A child born outside the United States is not born in the U.S. and is not a citizen under the 14th Amendment(though may be a citizen under other laws)

But you say all that has to happen is that they be born under the jurisdiction of the US, .

No- you keep saying that- but you just keep lying.

As I keep saying is what the 14th Amendment says:

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

As if Wong Kim Ark doesn't exist, lol.

You are such a blithering fool.