Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment

[JimBowie1958]

Wong Kim Ark makes no such requirement on citizenship.

You need to reread paragraphs 96 and 118 which state that permission of the US government and legal domicile are also requirements.

Where does it say "legal" domicile. I've searched the law and cannot find it. The law refers to "permanent domicil."

The definition of 'domicile' is that it is the 'primary legal residence' of a person.

I have not yet found a single libtard that can answer this question. If Plyler was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the legal jurisdiction of US law, the why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible to 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?

 

[paddymurphy]

Wong Kim Ark makes no such requirement on citizenship.

You need to reread paragraphs 96 and 118 which state that permission of the US government and legal domicile are also requirements.

Where does it say "legal" domicile. I've searched the law and cannot find it. The law refers to "permanent domicil."

It does not say legal domicle. He likes to add things that are not there. Actually, though, his entire argument is taken verbatim from Ann Coulter's article on this. That is why he is unable to react to any reference to any part of the opinion that Coulter did not discuss.

 

[Toro]

One thing to remember about Donald Trump, he does not live in the political world where the name of the game is "cover your ass." In the private sector you deliver to your shareholders, or you are "out on your ass." Donald Trump is moving in the right direction. As a businessperson he knows that excuses don't count. It is all about getting the job done the best you can everyday.​

. When Trump considered birthright citizenship he likely hired top Constitutional lawyers to guide him, he studied the matter himself and then came to his own decision like he would in business, and totally unlike political whores do.

LOL- that is quite the fantasy you have created in your mind.

Trump said he got his military advice "watching TV." He probably got his legal advice the same way.

Trump graduated from the New York Military Academy, you ignorant shithead.


New York Military Academy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trump said he got his military advice watching TV shows on Meet the Press. Google it.

 

[paddymurphy]

Wong Kim Ark makes no such requirement on citizenship.

You need to reread paragraphs 96 and 118 which state that permission of the US government and legal domicile are also requirements.

Where does it say "legal" domicile. I've searched the law and cannot find it. The law refers to "permanent domicil."

The definition of 'domicile' is that it is the 'primary legal residence' of a person.

I have not yet found a single libtard that can answer this question. If Plyler was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the legal jurisdiction of US law, the why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible to 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?

"The definition of 'domicile' is that it is the 'primary legal residence' of a person." Not in Wong Kim Ark is that definition offered. And a person's domicile is simply where they live. Their legal residence. And the use of the word legal has no reference to their immigration status. Illegal immigrants have legal residences.

And you never asked about Samoan's etc. Had you done so, you would have been referred to the numerous cases that have held that territories of the United States are not "in the United States." There are numerous cases on this. Here is part of one:

"The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[a]ll 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." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, section 1. Both parties seem to agree that American Samoa is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and other courts have concluded as much. See Pls.' Opp'n at 2; Defs.' Mem. at 14 (citing Rabang as noting that the territories are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States). But to be covered by the Citizenship Clause, a person must be born or naturalized "in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Thus, the key question becomes whether American Samoa qualifies as a part of the "United States" as that is used within the Citizenship Clause.8

The Supreme Court famously addressed the extent to which the Constitution applies in territories in a series of cases known as the Insular Cases.9 In these cases, the Supreme Court contrasted "incorporated" territories — those lands expressly made part of the United States by an act of Congress — with "unincorporated territories" that had not yet become part of the United States and were not on a path toward statehood. See, e.g., Downes, 182 U.S. at 312, 21 S.Ct. 770; Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 143, 24 S.Ct. 808, 49 L.Ed. 128 (1904); see also United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 268, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990); Eche v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.2012) (citing Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 757-58, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008)).10 In an unincorporated territory, the Insular Cases held that only certain "fundamental" constitutional
rights are extended to its inhabitants. Dorr, 195 U.S. at 148-49, 24 S.Ct. 808; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312, 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627 (1922); see also Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 268, 110 S.Ct. 1056. While none of the Insular Cases directly addressed the Citizenship Clause, they suggested that citizenship was not a "fundamental" right that applied to unincorporated territories."

So, once again, you completely fail to understand the basic legal principles being discussed. Samoans are not citizens, not because they are not subject to US jurisdiction. Clearly, they are. They are not citizens because they fail to meet the other one of the TWO requirement. They were not born in the United States. Did you really think that Samoa was in the United States? So, in addition to flunking US Government, you flunked geography?

 

[Syriusly]

" domicile" isn't in the game. I believe jurisdiction is the word you are looking for.
It's been asked and answered more times than necessary.

Us v Wong Kim Ark put domicile status 'in the game' dude, that is why I have been quoting it and paragraph 96 so many times.

It is also why the libtards have stopped addressing that issue.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It is why idiots like you stop addressing 'jurisdiction' and want to plug 'domicile' into the 14th Amendment.

Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

Jimmy: Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

And what did the 14th Amendment say in regards to Citizenship and jurisdiction?

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

According to your own post- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and according to the 14th Amendment- therefore a citizen.

 

[Syriusly]

One thing to remember about Donald Trump, he does not live in the political world where the name of the game is "cover your ass." In the private sector you deliver to your shareholders, or you are "out on your ass." Donald Trump is moving in the right direction. As a businessperson he knows that excuses don't count. It is all about getting the job done the best you can everyday.​

. When Trump considered birthright citizenship he likely hired top Constitutional lawyers to guide him, he studied the matter himself and then came to his own decision like he would in business, and totally unlike political whores do.

LOL- that is quite the fantasy you have created in your mind.

You really don't understand how Trump does business, how he makes his deals; here's a hint, idiot, he doesn't do it like a libtard and ask some professor what reality is, Trump digs in himself and learns the nuts and bolts. I realize that sort of behavior is just unimaginable to a shithead like you, but there it is and that is why Trump is a billionair and leading the Republican polls while you are just an anonymous shit stain.

Like I said- that is quite the fantasy you have created in your foul mouthed teeny tiny little brain.

 

[Toro]

Wong Kim Ark makes no such requirement on citizenship.

You need to reread paragraphs 96 and 118 which state that permission of the US government and legal domicile are also requirements.

Where does it say "legal" domicile. I've searched the law and cannot find it. The law refers to "permanent domicil."

The definition of 'domicile' is that it is the 'primary legal residence' of a person.

I have not yet found a single libtard that can answer this question. If Plyler was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the legal jurisdiction of US law, the why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible to 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?

Please show a link where domicile means "primary legal resident" in the law. I keep seeing "permanent home to which the person intends to return." This definition comes from "Burton's Legal Thesaurus."

 

[JimBowie1958]

" domicile" isn't in the game. I believe jurisdiction is the word you are looking for.
It's been asked and answered more times than necessary.

Us v Wong Kim Ark put domicile status 'in the game' dude, that is why I have been quoting it and paragraph 96 so many times.

It is also why the libtards have stopped addressing that issue.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It is why idiots like you stop addressing 'jurisdiction' and want to plug 'domicile' into the 14th Amendment.

Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

Jimmy: Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

And what did the 14th Amendment say in regards to Citizenship and jurisdiction?

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

According to your own post- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and according to the 14th Amendment- therefore a citizen.

And Wong gave further restrictions that a plain reading using the meaing and intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment would support.

If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under 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?

 

[Syriusly]

" domicile" isn't in the game. I believe jurisdiction is the word you are looking for.
It's been asked and answered more times than necessary.

Us v Wong Kim Ark put domicile status 'in the game' dude, that is why I have been quoting it and paragraph 96 so many times.

It is also why the libtards have stopped addressing that issue.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It is why idiots like you stop addressing 'jurisdiction' and want to plug 'domicile' into the 14th Amendment.

Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

US v Wong Kim Ark is the ONLY decision that the SCOTUS has ruled on Birthright citizenship and clearly states the requirement of legal domicile and the permission of the US government.

That you cant read and understand it doesn't prove an amendment is needed, but only that you are a stupid ass.

Why doesn't the Supreme Court agree with you?

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One thing to remember about Donald Trump, he does not live in the political world where the name of the game is "cover your ass." In the private sector you deliver to your shareholders, or you are "out on your ass." Donald Trump is moving in the right direction. As a businessperson he knows that excuses don't count. It is all about getting the job done the best you can everyday.​

. When Trump considered birthright citizenship he likely hired top Constitutional lawyers to guide him, he studied the matter himself and then came to his own decision like he would in business, and totally unlike political whores do.

LOL- that is quite the fantasy you have created in your mind.

You really don't understand how Trump does business, how he makes his deals; here's a hint, idiot, he doesn't do it like a libtard and ask some professor what reality is, Trump digs in himself and learns the nuts and bolts. I realize that sort of behavior is just unimaginable to a shithead like you, but there it is and that is why Trump is a billionair and leading the Republican polls while you are just an anonymous shit stain.

Like I said- that is quite the fantasy you have created in your foul mouthed teeny tiny little brain.

You demonstrate once again that you are an ignorant fool, and nothing more.

 

[Syriusly]

" domicile" isn't in the game. I believe jurisdiction is the word you are looking for.
It's been asked and answered more times than necessary.

Us v Wong Kim Ark put domicile status 'in the game' dude, that is why I have been quoting it and paragraph 96 so many times.

It is also why the libtards have stopped addressing that issue.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It is why idiots like you stop addressing 'jurisdiction' and want to plug 'domicile' into the 14th Amendment.

Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

Jimmy: Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

And what did the 14th Amendment say in regards to Citizenship and jurisdiction?

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

According to your own post- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and according to the 14th Amendment- therefore a citizen.

And Wong gave further restrictions that a plain reading using the meaing and intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment would support.

The Supreme Court cannot 'give further restrictions' to the Constitution.

As you pointed out- Plyler v. Doe ruled on

Jimmy: Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

And what did the 14th Amendment say in regards to Citizenship and jurisdiction?

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

According to your own post- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and according to the 14th Amendment- therefore a citizen.

 

[JimBowie1958]

" domicile" isn't in the game. I believe jurisdiction is the word you are looking for.
It's been asked and answered more times than necessary.

Us v Wong Kim Ark put domicile status 'in the game' dude, that is why I have been quoting it and paragraph 96 so many times.

It is also why the libtards have stopped addressing that issue.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It is why idiots like you stop addressing 'jurisdiction' and want to plug 'domicile' into the 14th Amendment.

Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

US v Wong Kim Ark is the ONLY decision that the SCOTUS has ruled on Birthright citizenship and clearly states the requirement of legal domicile and the permission of the US government.

That you cant read and understand it doesn't prove an amendment is needed, but only that you are a stupid ass.

Why doesn't the Supreme Court agree with you?

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

All you can do is dodge my question?

If your interpretation of Plyler is correct, and you are not, then the aliens born on American Samoa should be getting citizenship, but they are not. They wouldn't on any US territory unless a law specifically giving them that right is passed by Congress. So Puerto Ricans, the people of Guam and a few other have birthright citizenship but some do not.

This could not be true if your reading of Plyler is correct, and that is why you wont answer my question.

You are a coward and a liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Us v Wong Kim Ark put domicile status 'in the game' dude, that is why I have been quoting it and paragraph 96 so many times.

It is also why the libtards have stopped addressing that issue.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It is why idiots like you stop addressing 'jurisdiction' and want to plug 'domicile' into the 14th Amendment.

Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

Jimmy: Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

And what did the 14th Amendment say in regards to Citizenship and jurisdiction?

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

According to your own post- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and according to the 14th Amendment- therefore a citizen.

And Wong gave further restrictions that a plain reading using the meaing and intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment would support.

The Supreme Court cannot 'give further restrictions' to the Constitution.

As you pointed out- Plyler v. Doe ruled on

Jimmy: Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

And what did the 14th Amendment say in regards to Citizenship and jurisdiction?

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

According to your own post- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and according to the 14th Amendment- therefore a citizen.

Yes, the SCOTUS so can give restrictions to how the Constitution is applied and interpreted. It is otherwise known as case law, idiot.

 

[Syriusly]

One thing to remember about Donald Trump, he does not live in the political world where the name of the game is "cover your ass." In the private sector you deliver to your shareholders, or you are "out on your ass." Donald Trump is moving in the right direction. As a businessperson he knows that excuses don't count. It is all about getting the job done the best you can everyday.​

. When Trump considered birthright citizenship he likely hired top Constitutional lawyers to guide him, he studied the matter himself and then came to his own decision like he would in business, and totally unlike political whores do.

LOL- that is quite the fantasy you have created in your mind.

You really don't understand how Trump does business, how he makes his deals; here's a hint, idiot, he doesn't do it like a libtard and ask some professor what reality is, Trump digs in himself and learns the nuts and bolts. I realize that sort of behavior is just unimaginable to a shithead like you, but there it is and that is why Trump is a billionair and leading the Republican polls while you are just an anonymous shit stain.

Like I said- that is quite the fantasy you have created in your foul mouthed teeny tiny little brain.

You demonstrate once again that you are an ignorant fool, and nothing more.

LOL......coming from you- that is a compliment. Hell I would be worried if you actually agreed with me- I would have to see what I had read wrong.

 

[JimBowie1958]

. When Trump considered birthright citizenship he likely hired top Constitutional lawyers to guide him, he studied the matter himself and then came to his own decision like he would in business, and totally unlike political whores do.

LOL- that is quite the fantasy you have created in your mind.

You really don't understand how Trump does business, how he makes his deals; here's a hint, idiot, he doesn't do it like a libtard and ask some professor what reality is, Trump digs in himself and learns the nuts and bolts. I realize that sort of behavior is just unimaginable to a shithead like you, but there it is and that is why Trump is a billionair and leading the Republican polls while you are just an anonymous shit stain.

Like I said- that is quite the fantasy you have created in your foul mouthed teeny tiny little brain.

You demonstrate once again that you are an ignorant fool, and nothing more.

LOL......coming from you- that is a compliment. Hell I would be worried if you actually agreed with me- I would have to see what I had read wrong.

If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under 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?

Why if Plyler ruled on jurisdiction = birthright citizenship?
Answer the question you lying shit or shut the hell up.

 

[Syriusly]

" domicile" isn't in the game. I believe jurisdiction is the word you are looking for.
It's been asked and answered more times than necessary.

Us v Wong Kim Ark put domicile status 'in the game' dude, that is why I have been quoting it and paragraph 96 so many times.

It is also why the libtards have stopped addressing that issue.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It is why idiots like you stop addressing 'jurisdiction' and want to plug 'domicile' into the 14th Amendment.

Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

US v Wong Kim Ark is the ONLY decision that the SCOTUS has ruled on Birthright citizenship and clearly states the requirement of legal domicile and the permission of the US government.

That you cant read and understand it doesn't prove an amendment is needed, but only that you are a stupid ass.

Why doesn't the Supreme Court agree with you?

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

All you can do is dodge my question?

If your interpretation of Plyler is correct, and you are not, then the aliens born on American Samoa should be getting citizenship, but they are not. They wouldn't on any US territory unless a law specifically giving them that right is passed by Congress. So Puerto Ricans, the people of Guam and a few other have birthright citizenship but some do not.

This could not be true if your reading of Plyler is correct, and that is why you wont answer my question.

You are a coward and a liar.

Frankly I don't care what your strawman is.

I don't know the technicalities of why Puerto Ricans are born U.S. citizens and American Samoans are not.

I do know that the Supreme Court has concluded that a child born in the United States to illegal aliens is a U.S. citizen.

When are you going to comment on

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wong Kim Ark makes no such requirement on citizenship.

You need to reread paragraphs 96 and 118 which state that permission of the US government and legal domicile are also requirements.

Where does it say "legal" domicile. I've searched the law and cannot find it. The law refers to "permanent domicil."

The definition of 'domicile' is that it is the 'primary legal residence' of a person.

I have not yet found a single libtard that can answer this question. If Plyler was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the legal jurisdiction of US law, the why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible to 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?

Please show a link where domicile means "primary legal resident" in the law. I keep seeing "permanent home to which the person intends to return." This definition comes from "Burton's Legal Thesaurus."

"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. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

[paddymurphy]

Wong Kim Ark makes no such requirement on citizenship.

You need to reread paragraphs 96 and 118 which state that permission of the US government and legal domicile are also requirements.

Where does it say "legal" domicile. I've searched the law and cannot find it. The law refers to "permanent domicil."

The definition of 'domicile' is that it is the 'primary legal residence' of a person.

I have not yet found a single libtard that can answer this question. If Plyler was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under the legal jurisdiction of US law, the why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible to 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?

Please show a link where domicile means "primary legal resident" in the law. I keep seeing "permanent home to which the person intends to return." This definition comes from "Burton's Legal Thesaurus."

"
It is well settled that aliens, even those whose presence in this country is unlawful, are “persons” entitled to equal protection and due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plyler, 457 U.S. at 202. The Plyler Court ruled that a Texas law restricting enrollment in public school to children of U.S. citizenship violated the equal protection rights of Plyler, 457 U.S. at 213 (quoting Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 242, 16 S.Ct. 977, 41 L.Ed. 140 (1896) (Field, J., concurring)). The term “person,” used in the Fifth Amendment, is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic. A resident, alienborn, is entitled to the same protection under the laws that a citizen is entitled to. He owes obedience to the laws of the country in which he is domiciled, and, as a consequence, he is entitled to the equal protection of those laws.

So, an alien, even one here unlawfully can be domiciled here.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Us v Wong Kim Ark put domicile status 'in the game' dude, that is why I have been quoting it and paragraph 96 so many times.

It is also why the libtards have stopped addressing that issue.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It is why idiots like you stop addressing 'jurisdiction' and want to plug 'domicile' into the 14th Amendment.

Plyler did not give a ruling on birthright citizenship, but only on whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction.

US v Wong Kim Ark is the ONLY decision that the SCOTUS has ruled on Birthright citizenship and clearly states the requirement of legal domicile and the permission of the US government.

That you cant read and understand it doesn't prove an amendment is needed, but only that you are a stupid ass.

Why doesn't the Supreme Court agree with you?

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

All you can do is dodge my question?

If your interpretation of Plyler is correct, and you are not, then the aliens born on American Samoa should be getting citizenship, but they are not. They wouldn't on any US territory unless a law specifically giving them that right is passed by Congress. So Puerto Ricans, the people of Guam and a few other have birthright citizenship but some do not.

This could not be true if your reading of Plyler is correct, and that is why you wont answer my question.

You are a coward and a liar.

Frankly I don't care what your strawman is.

I don't know the technicalities of why Puerto Ricans are born U.S. citizens and American Samoans are not.

I do know that the Supreme Court has concluded that a child born in the United States to illegal aliens is a U.S. citizen.

When are you going to comment on

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

"Frankly I don't care what your strawman is."

Lol, it isn't a 'Straw Man' argument, idiot, it is a fucking question, so answer or shut up and admit you are talking out of your ass.

Plyler does not give birthright citizenship to aliens or else Samoans on American Samoa would have birthright citizenship and they do not..

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- that is quite the fantasy you have created in your mind.

You really don't understand how Trump does business, how he makes his deals; here's a hint, idiot, he doesn't do it like a libtard and ask some professor what reality is, Trump digs in himself and learns the nuts and bolts. I realize that sort of behavior is just unimaginable to a shithead like you, but there it is and that is why Trump is a billionair and leading the Republican polls while you are just an anonymous shit stain.

Like I said- that is quite the fantasy you have created in your foul mouthed teeny tiny little brain.

You demonstrate once again that you are an ignorant fool, and nothing more.

LOL......coming from you- that is a compliment. Hell I would be worried if you actually agreed with me- I would have to see what I had read wrong.

Why if Plyler ruled on jurisdiction = birthright citizenship?
Answer the question you lying shit or shut the hell up.

You really are a fouled mouthed idiot with a total lack of honesty.

You keep claiming I am a liar- but you have yet to show that I have lied once.

When I have challenged you to- you just ignore it and circle around and a day later call me a liar again.

So my challenge again- is show us the quote where I lied- and prove that it is a lie.