Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If the argument is over whether a person born here to an illegal immigrant mother and father is a US citizen, then you have been losing the argument for over 100 years. In fact, you are gonna lose that argument about 821 times today. That is how many children will be born to illegal immigrants today and instantly become US citizens.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.
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.
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.
See, your age and increasing dementia becomes more apparent as you contine to spam and troll your own threads. This thread needs to be in the Conspiracy Forum.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.
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.
Clearly I am not the fool
Since not only can I read the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe- children born if illegal aliens are recognized as U.S. citizens everyday.
When you are being a complete liar and fool, cherry picking the laws as you chose, then denying any relevance of the authors of the documents you cite, I think hyperbole and disgust are quite appropriate.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.
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
I wonder- could you manage to post if you were not allowed to make personal attacks and insults?
Pretty certain you couldn't.
There is no such requirement.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.
Clearly I am not the fool
Since not only can I read the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe- children born if illegal aliens are recognized as U.S. citizens everyday.
You simply ignore the Wong requirement that parents be legal residents and here with the permission of the US government. That makes you a liar.
That you think people are falling for that kind of bullshit any more is what makes you a certified fool.
When you are being a complete liar and fool, cherry picking the laws as you chose, then denying any relevance of the authors of the documents you cite, I think hyperbole and disgust are quite appropriate.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.
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
I wonder- could you manage to post if you were not allowed to make personal attacks and insults?
Pretty certain you couldn't.
You are a Big Lie shit-for-brains.
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.
Clearly I am not the fool
Since not only can I read the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe- children born if illegal aliens are recognized as U.S. citizens everyday.
You simply ignore the Wong requirement that parents be legal residents and here with the permission of the US government. That makes you a liar.
That you think people are falling for that kind of bullshit any more is what makes you a certified fool.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
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
Nor does Wong Kim Ark contain the words "legal residents" together.
Mods, JimBowie continues to spam the thread. Please move it to the Conspiracy forum.
Is there forum for the congenitally stupid? Move it there.Mods, JimBowie continues to spam the thread. Please move it to the Conspiracy forum.
Why bury it in the Conspiracy Forum when there is no conspiracy mentioned?
Have you lost your meds again, Jake?
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
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
You state, "Nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say that citizenship is dependent upon government permission for the parents to be in the United States."
Well risking the spam Nazi's wrath, I will post the relevant information for the lurkers since you have proven yourself to be a complete liar and do not care about what the text actually says:
"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. "
So, once again, you are a proven liar. You are like that liar Angela in the movie 'Catfish' you just lie so much you don't even realize that you are lying, lol.
"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark
.
Your theory is conspiracy because no one accepts your nonsense.
Thanks for proving my point- nowhere does Wong Kim Ark use the word "Permission' and nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say anything about 'requires government permission'.
