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

[JimBowie1958]

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.

You lie when you say Wong does not restrict Birthright citizenship to legal parents in paragraphs 96 and 118.

So, still waiting on your answer why it is THE LEGAL FACT that aliens born on American Samoa do not get Birthright citizenship.

Come, you fucking liar, answer the god damned question..

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

The issue of whether Samoans should be considered natural born citizens is being litigated. Previously, based on the holdings in the Insular cases, it was determined that since Samoa is not "in the United States" the 14th Amendment did not confer citizenship. Nor does the 14th confer it on those born in Puerto Rico. They are considered citizens because a statute provides that they are citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

It is a Strawman- because a native of Samoa- if born in California- is born a U.S. citizen also. But not if born in Samoa- just as if he was born in Mexico, he would not be considered a U.S. citizen.

Why a Samoan born in Samoa is not considered born in the United States- I don't know-and it is not relevant to the topic- i.e. a strawman.

 

[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."

"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)

So, his entire argument rests on the definition of the word domicile contained in an online legal dictionary, that carries no precedental authority, that exists in 2015, 117 years after the Supreme Court wrote Wong Kim Ark? He seems to think that the placement of the word "legal" before residence somehow means that the person living there has to be present in accordance with out immigration laws. What a moronic view.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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..

It is a Strawman- because a native of Samoa- if born in California- is born a U.S. citizen also. But not if born in Samoa- just as if he was born in Mexico, he would not be considered a U.S. citizen.

Why a Samoan born in Samoa is not considered born in the United States- I don't know-and it is not relevant to the topic- i.e. a strawman.

A question cannot be a 'Straw Man argument' by definition, idiot.

The point is, as you mangled it up, an alien born in AMERICAN SAMOA, which is under US jurisdiction, is NOT entitled to Birthright citizenship. That is unconstitutional in your reading of Plyler, but it is the law.

So why is it the law, given your misreading of Plyler, shit-for-brains?

 

[paddymurphy]

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..

It is a Strawman- because a native of Samoa- if born in California- is born a U.S. citizen also. But not if born in Samoa- just as if he was born in Mexico, he would not be considered a U.S. citizen.

Why a Samoan born in Samoa is not considered born in the United States- I don't know-and it is not relevant to the topic- i.e. a strawman.

A question cannot be a 'Straw Man argument' by definition, idiot.

The point is, as you mangled it up, an alien born in AMERICAN SAMOA, which is under US jurisdiction, is NOT entitled to Birthright citizenship. That is unconstitutional in your reading of Plyler, but it is the law.

So why is it the law, given your misreading of Plyler, shit-for-brains?

Samoa is not in the United States. Read the Insular cases and the dozen or so Court of Appeals cases that specifically hold that Samoans and Filipinos were not entitled to birth right citizenship because neither Samoa now nor the Phillipines before 1946 were " in the United States."

Syriusly, since he is ignoring me, copy and paste this so he gets an answer to his idiotic question.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You lie when you say Wong does not restrict Birthright citizenship to legal parents in paragraphs 96 and 118...

Still not able to quote me and prove me wrong eh?

I don't know what reference to Wong Kim Ark you are using which numbers the paragraphs- but none I use do.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Not one mention of 'legal parents'

There is this discussion:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

In the early case of The Charming Betsy (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying: 'Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can devest himself absolutely of [169 U.S. 649, 659] that character, otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law, is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.' 2 Cranch, 64, 119.

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional [169 U.S. 649, 675] amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

V. In the forefront, both of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, and of the civil rights act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explcit and comprehensive terms.

As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States, who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption

The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,

And finally:

It is impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence, 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.'

Which of course brings us right back to Plyler v. Doe.

According to the language of Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction means the same thing in 14th Amendment- and Plyler v. Doe states clearly that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

 

[Syriusly]

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..

It is a Strawman- because a native of Samoa- if born in California- is born a U.S. citizen also. But not if born in Samoa- just as if he was born in Mexico, he would not be considered a U.S. citizen.

Why a Samoan born in Samoa is not considered born in the United States- I don't know-and it is not relevant to the topic- i.e. a strawman.

A question cannot be a 'Straw Man argument' by definition, idiot.

The point is, as you mangled it up, an alien born in AMERICAN SAMOA, which is under US jurisdiction, is NOT entitled to Birthright citizenship. That is unconstitutional in your reading of Plyler, but it is the law.

So why is it the law, given your misreading of Plyler, shit-for-brains?

Yes- it is a strawman- and you seem determined to drag it around.

I don't know what the jurisdiction of Samoa is.

I do know that within the United States- which Samoa is not- is within the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The issue of whether Samoans should be considered natural born citizens is being litigated. Previously, based on the holdings in the Insular cases, it was determined that since Samoa is not "in the United States" the 14th Amendment did not confer citizenship. Nor does the 14th confer it on those born in Puerto Rico. They are considered citizens because a statute provides that they are citizens.

Thanks- I had heard some of that, but not all of it.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You lie when you say Wong does not restrict Birthright citizenship to legal parents in paragraphs 96 and 118.

So, still waiting on your answer why it is THE LEGAL FACT that aliens born on American Samoa do not get Birthright citizenship.

Come, you fucking liar, answer the god damned question..

You are foul mouthed little, little man.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

It is a Strawman- because a native of Samoa- if born in California- is born a U.S. citizen also. But not if born in Samoa- just as if he was born in Mexico, he would not be considered a U.S. citizen.

Why a Samoan born in Samoa is not considered born in the United States- I don't know-and it is not relevant to the topic- i.e. a strawman.

A question cannot be a 'Straw Man argument' by definition, idiot.

The point is, as you mangled it up, an alien born in AMERICAN SAMOA, which is under US jurisdiction, is NOT entitled to Birthright citizenship. That is unconstitutional in your reading of Plyler, but it is the law.

So why is it the law, given your misreading of Plyler, shit-for-brains?

Samoa is not in the United States. Read the Insular cases and the dozen or so Court of Appeals cases that specifically hold that Samoans and Filipinos were not entitled to birth right citizenship because neither Samoa now nor the Phillipines before 1946 were " in the United States."

Syriusly, since he is ignoring me, copy and paste this so he gets an answer to his idiotic question.

Samoa is not in the United States. Read the Insular cases and the dozen or so Court of Appeals cases that specifically hold that Samoans and Filipinos were not entitled to birth right citizenship because neither Samoa now nor the Phillipines before 1946 were " in the United States."

Syriusly, since he is ignoring me, copy and paste this so he gets an answer to his idiotic question.

Jimmy- see above answer to your Strawman.

 

[KissMy]

Mexico's population is 120 million & we now have about 57 million Hispanics living in the United States. We have been invaded !!! In 40 years there will be more Hispanics living here than in Mexico.

Belize ............ 340,844
Costa Rica . 4,755,234
El Salvador. 6,125,512
Guatemala 14,647,083
Honduras .. 8,598,561
Mexico ... 120,286,655
Nicaragua .. 5,848,641
Panama ..... 3,608,431​

TOTAL Central America Pop 164,210,961

We could take them over, send them to Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland & Chicago, retire on their beaches & save big only having to guard a 48 mile border with a big ass canal they would have to cross.

 

[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."

"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)

"Legal" resident does not reference legal status in your link. It says permanent home.

What is LEGAL RESIDENCE?
the term applied to the place a person spends most of his time and is the home that is recognised by law.


Law Dictionary: What is LEGAL RESIDENCE? definition of LEGAL RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)​

 

[paddymurphy]

Mexico's population is 120 million & we now have about 57 million Hispanics living in the United States. We have been invaded !!!

Belize ............ 340,844
Costa Rica . 4,755,234
El Salvador. 6,125,512
Guatemala 14,647,083
Honduras .. 8,598,561
Mexico ... 120,286,655
Nicaragua .. 5,848,641
Panama ..... 3,608,431​

TOTAL Central America Pop 164,210,961

We could take them over, send them to Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland & Chicago, retire on their beaches & save big only having to guard a 48 mile border with a big ass canal they would have to cross.

46 million of the 57 million are American citizens. Most born here. Many have been in the Southwest United States a helluva lot longer than most non-Hispanics. You do know, don't you, that Hispanics are native to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, right? And you might want to read a little about the Mexican American war before deciding who invaded who.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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)

"Legal" resident does not reference legal status in your link. It says permanent home.

What is LEGAL RESIDENCE?
the term applied to the place a person spends most of his time and is the home that is recognised by law.


Law Dictionary: What is LEGAL RESIDENCE? definition of LEGAL RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)​

You stopped reading too soon, dude. Under related topics is included :
Related Legal Terms
PERMANENT RESIDENCE, RESIDENCE, OWNER LEGAL, NON-RESIDENCE, PERSONAL RESIDENCE, PRIMARY RESIDENCE, RESIDENCE PREMISES, RESIDENCE PRINCIPLE, ENFORCEABLE LEGAL RIGHT, TITLE LEGAL

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


But aside from the obvious reference to legal status in the phrase 'legal residence' the work domicile is defined as one primary legal residence. In other words if my will is to be interpreted by the laws of a state, I cant slip illegally into some state that has lower tax rates and claim that state as my domicile because I am not legally residing there.

It is amazing what I have to explain to libtards.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Mexico's population is 120 million & we now have about 57 million Hispanics living in the United States. We have been invaded !!! In 40 years there will be more Hispanics living here than in Mexico.

Belize ............ 340,844
Costa Rica . 4,755,234
El Salvador. 6,125,512
Guatemala 14,647,083
Honduras .. 8,598,561
Mexico ... 120,286,655
Nicaragua .. 5,848,641
Panama ..... 3,608,431​

TOTAL Central America Pop 164,210,961

We could take them over, send them to Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland & Chicago, retire on their beaches & save big only having to guard a 48 mile border with a big ass canal they would have to cross.

Yeah, they call it 'Reconquista' for a reason...it is reconquest.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Samoa is not in the United States. Read the Insular cases and the dozen or so Court of Appeals cases that specifically hold that Samoans and Filipinos were not entitled to birth right citizenship because neither Samoa now nor the Phillipines before 1946 were " in the United States."

Syriusly, since he is ignoring me, copy and paste this so he gets an answer to his idiotic question.

Plyler does not say within the US, it says in the jurisdiction of the US and American Samoa is American territory and under US law and jurisdiction.

 

[RKMBrown]

Further demolishing this argument regarding domicile and jurisdiction was Plyer v Doe 1982, which struck down a law by Texas to deny education funding to the children of illegal immigrants.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it, even the dissenting opinion stated that even those who entered the country illegally were within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Birthright citizenship is one of the foundations of American Exceptionalism. I guess some "conservatives" think America is less than exceptional.

What a moron. WALKING INTO THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE YOU A US CITIZEN YOU LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE TO EVER WALK THE PLANET. WE DON'T OWE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHIT YOU ASS HOLE

Calm down, angry old man. That's not the argument.

That law was written for slaves dumb ass.

You have no idea how the law works, do you?

You're a moron.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Further demolishing this argument regarding domicile and jurisdiction was Plyer v Doe 1982, which struck down a law by Texas to deny education funding to the children of illegal immigrants.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it, even the dissenting opinion stated that even those who entered the country illegally were within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Birthright citizenship is one of the foundations of American Exceptionalism. I guess some "conservatives" think America is less than exceptional.

What a moron. WALKING INTO THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE YOU A US CITIZEN YOU LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE TO EVER WALK THE PLANET. WE DON'T OWE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHIT YOU ASS HOLE

Calm down, angry old man. That's not the argument.

That law was written for slaves dumb ass.

You have no idea how the law works, do you?

You're a moron.

But if he were at least an honest moron it would be possible to have a conversation with him. But he is an open borders fool and their time is up.

 

[paddymurphy]

What a moron. WALKING INTO THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE YOU A US CITIZEN YOU LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE TO EVER WALK THE PLANET. WE DON'T OWE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHIT YOU ASS HOLE

Calm down, angry old man. That's not the argument.

That law was written for slaves dumb ass.

You have no idea how the law works, do you?

You're a moron.

But if he were at least an honest moron it would be possible to have a conversation with him. But he is an open borders fool and their time is up.

You don't like to have conversations honestly. When your arguments are shot down left and right, you put the person schooling you on ignore so you will not be put to the test of actually explaining yourself. All you do is repeat, ad infinitum, the same nonsense you read from Ann Coulter or some other psuedo lawyer.