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

[Syriusly]

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

I wonder at times why you bother to post citations- and then do not read them


U.S. territories
The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.[5]

There are special provisions governing children born in some current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth".[6]

Outlying possessions
According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. (which is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions explains the complexities of this topic.[7]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

The answers to your question is within your own citation.

American Samoa and Swains Island are not 'incorporated territories' and not considered part of the United States.

Remember the language of the 14th Amendment?

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

They may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but they were not born in the United States.

"In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:

"impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], 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.”

"Justice Gray concluded that:

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

"The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous.

"If undocumented aliens cannot be excepted from the protection of the laws of the State, then they cannot be excepted from subjection to the laws of the State."


Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Jurisdiction

So in Plyler the critical factoid was not that the illegals were in the US but within the jurisdiction of the US, in fact people in Samoa have constitutional rights just like anywhere else in the jurisdiction of the US, but THEY DONT HAVE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

You can't actually read- can you?

The footnote explains it to you clearly- but you either can't read it- or refuse to read it.

"In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:

"impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], 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.”

"Justice Gray concluded that:

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

"The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous.

"If undocumented aliens cannot be excepted from the protection of the laws of the State, then they cannot be excepted from subjection to the laws of the State."

A child born in Samoa does not become a U.S. citizen because he is not born within the United States- even if he is born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

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

I wonder at times why you bother to post citations- and then do not read them


U.S. territories
The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.[5]

There are special provisions governing children born in some current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth".[6]

Outlying possessions
According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. (which is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions explains the complexities of this topic.[7]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

The answers to your question is within your own citation.

American Samoa and Swains Island are not 'incorporated territories' and not considered part of the United States.

Remember the language of the 14th Amendment?

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

They may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but they were not born in the United States.

But according to your reading of the Plyler decision, all that is required is the jurisdiction of the US.

Make you mind up punk.

No- that is just your lack of reading comprehension at work again- I have repeatedly quoted the text of the 14th Amendment

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

So once again- They may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but they were not born in the United States.

 

[paddymurphy]

Plyler v Doe wasn't about giving birthright citizenship to anyone. It was a case about taxpayer funding of public education for illegal aliens.

It is relevant to Wong Kim Ark in that it reaffirms US jurisdiction over illegal aliens.

I agree, and with the jurisdiction it also gives due process rights, but does not imply anything about birthright citizenship.

In US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 and 118 state specifically the parents have to have domicile in the US (which is a type of legal residence) and they have to be here with the permission of the US government.

Spin it all day if you want, but the meaning is clear, Toro, or should I say 'Bull'.


roflmao

Text of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship once again

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

Birth and jurisdiction are what are relevant.

Domicile is not even mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

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

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

He seems to not see that "and" right there between "born...in the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Those are the only two conditions to confer citizenship. He adds words when it suits him and ignores other words when it suits him.

 

[Syriusly]

Starkey either answer the question or shut the hell up and blow away like the wind blown trash you are.

Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along.

"Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along."

roflmao, you truly are a stupid ass.

They are STILL UNDER US JURISDICTION, are they not?

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

Paddy is the one with the facts:

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

But territories are under the jurisdiction of the US, are they not? They are under our laws, so they are under our jurisdiction according to you stupid ass reading of Plyler.

The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States."

And Wong Kim Ark states that not only jurisdiction is called for but also the legal residence or domicile and permission of the US government.

You cant say there are no exceptions then claim that there are exceptions when it suits your stupid ass.

Your inability to read- or comprehend full sentences- is not my problem.

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

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

You don't like it- that is what the Constitutional Amendment process if for.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Plyler v Doe wasn't about giving birthright citizenship to anyone. It was a case about taxpayer funding of public education for illegal aliens.

It is relevant to Wong Kim Ark in that it reaffirms US jurisdiction over illegal aliens.

I agree, and with the jurisdiction it also gives due process rights, but does not imply anything about birthright citizenship.

In US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 and 118 state specifically the parents have to have domicile in the US (which is a type of legal residence) and they have to be here with the permission of the US government.

Spin it all day if you want, but the meaning is clear, Toro, or should I say 'Bull'.


roflmao

Text of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship once again

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

Birth and jurisdiction are what are relevant.

Domicile is not even mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

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

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

Your pretense that case law and the intended meaning of the 14th Amendments authors is hilarious.

US v Wong gives further clarifications to Birthright citizenship and among them is permission of the US government and LEGAL domicile.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along.

"Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along."

roflmao, you truly are a stupid ass.

They are STILL UNDER US JURISDICTION, are they not?

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

Paddy is the one with the facts:

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

But territories are under the jurisdiction of the US, are they not? They are under our laws, so they are under our jurisdiction according to you stupid ass reading of Plyler.

The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States."

And Wong Kim Ark states that not only jurisdiction is called for but also the legal residence or domicile and permission of the US government.

You cant say there are no exceptions then claim that there are exceptions when it suits your stupid ass.

Your inability to read- or comprehend full sentences- is not my problem.

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

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

You don't like it- that is what the Constitutional Amendment process if for.

So then why don't the aliens on American Samoa get birthright citizenship? They are also under US jurisdiction.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I agree, and with the jurisdiction it also gives due process rights, but does not imply anything about birthright citizenship.

In US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 and 118 state specifically the parents have to have domicile in the US (which is a type of legal residence) and they have to be here with the permission of the US government.

Spin it all day if you want, but the meaning is clear, Toro, or should I say 'Bull'.


roflmao

Wrong.

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

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

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

Legal Residence Law & Legal Definition

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

No, YOU lose, sheister.

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now where did I say that?

I stated, "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."


roflmao

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie is now trolling and spamming his own thread.

He does not understand the 14th, Pyler, or Wong.

Please move this to the Conspiracy Forum. Everyone who agrees should do the same.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

I wonder at times why you bother to post citations- and then do not read them


U.S. territories
The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.[5]

There are special provisions governing children born in some current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth".[6]

Outlying possessions
According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. (which is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions explains the complexities of this topic.[7]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

The answers to your question is within your own citation.

American Samoa and Swains Island are not 'incorporated territories' and not considered part of the United States.

Remember the language of the 14th Amendment?

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

They may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but they were not born in the United States.

"In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:

"impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], 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.”

"Justice Gray concluded that:

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

"The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous.

"If undocumented aliens cannot be excepted from the protection of the laws of the State, then they cannot be excepted from subjection to the laws of the State."


Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Jurisdiction

So in Plyler the critical factoid was not that the illegals were in the US but within the jurisdiction of the US, in fact people in Samoa have constitutional rights just like anywhere else in the jurisdiction of the US, but THEY DONT HAVE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

You can't actually read- can you?

The footnote explains it to you clearly- but you either can't read it- or refuse to read it.

"In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:

"impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], 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.”

"Justice Gray concluded that:

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

"The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous.

"If undocumented aliens cannot be excepted from the protection of the laws of the State, then they cannot be excepted from subjection to the laws of the State."

A child born in Samoa does not become a U.S. citizen because he is not born within the United States- even if he is born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

I agree, but that is not what you state when it pleases you. You say that the requirement in Wong for permission of the US government is irrelevant since they are in jurisdiction of the US, but then why isn't the restriction on being born in an incorporated state then not also simply swept aside as well? Because your lies about the 14th amendment are bullshit. The word domicile means 'primary legal residence' and implies that they are here with the permission of the US government, as stated specifically in paragraphs 96 and 118 of Wong Kim Ark.

lol, suck it bitch

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie is now trolling and spamming his own thread.

He does not understand the 14th, Pyler, or Wong.

Please move this to the Conspiracy Forum. Everyone who agrees should do the same.

OMG, now we got the Jake the Fake Delegate bringing his own special kind of bullshit in.

Jake, no one gives a flying fart about what you think since you never back anything up with facts links or reason.

You are just a stupid troll and a poor one at that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie does not understand realty law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie is now trolling and spamming his own thread. He does not understand the 14th, Pyler, or Wong. Please move this to the Conspiracy Forum. Everyone who agrees should do the same.

OMG, now we got the Jake the Fake Delegate bringing his own special kind of bullshit in. Jake, no one gives a flying fart about what you think since you never back anything up with facts links or reason. You are just a stupid troll and a poor one at that.

You are a conspiracy nut, and you offer nothing here. You offer nothing in terms of realty law, above.

 

[Syriusly]

Plyler v Doe wasn't about giving birthright citizenship to anyone. It was a case about taxpayer funding of public education for illegal aliens.

It is relevant to Wong Kim Ark in that it reaffirms US jurisdiction over illegal aliens.

I agree, and with the jurisdiction it also gives due process rights, but does not imply anything about birthright citizenship.

In US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 and 118 state specifically the parents have to have domicile in the US (which is a type of legal residence) and they have to be here with the permission of the US government.

Spin it all day if you want, but the meaning is clear, Toro, or should I say 'Bull'.


roflmao

Text of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship once again

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

Birth and jurisdiction are what are relevant.

Domicile is not even mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

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

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

Your pretense that case law and the intended meaning of the 14th Amendments authors is hilarious.

US v Wong gives further clarifications to Birthright citizenship and among them is permission of the US government and LEGAL domicile.

Text of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship once again

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

Birth and jurisdiction are what are relevant.

Domicile is not even mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

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

I wonder at times why you bother to post citations- and then do not read them


U.S. territories
The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.[5]

There are special provisions governing children born in some current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth".[6]

Outlying possessions
According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. (which is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions explains the complexities of this topic.[7]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

The answers to your question is within your own citation.

American Samoa and Swains Island are not 'incorporated territories' and not considered part of the United States.

Remember the language of the 14th Amendment?

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

They may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but they were not born in the United States.

"In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:

"impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], 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.”

"Justice Gray concluded that:

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

"The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous.

"If undocumented aliens cannot be excepted from the protection of the laws of the State, then they cannot be excepted from subjection to the laws of the State."


Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Jurisdiction

So in Plyler the critical factoid was not that the illegals were in the US but within the jurisdiction of the US, in fact people in Samoa have constitutional rights just like anywhere else in the jurisdiction of the US, but THEY DONT HAVE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

You can't actually read- can you?

The footnote explains it to you clearly- but you either can't read it- or refuse to read it.

"In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:

"impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], 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.”

"Justice Gray concluded that:

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

"The idea that opponents can somehow construe the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens, is not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children can be arrested, imprisoned, and their parents can be deported. To somehow consider them not subject to the authority of the state is ludicrous.

"If undocumented aliens cannot be excepted from the protection of the laws of the State, then they cannot be excepted from subjection to the laws of the State."

A child born in Samoa does not become a U.S. citizen because he is not born within the United States- even if he is born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

I agree, but that is not what you state when it pleases you. You say that the requirement in Wong for permission of the US government is irrelevant since they are in jurisdiction of the US,

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

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)

 

[Syriusly]

Wrong.

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

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

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

Legal Residence Law & Legal Definition

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

No, YOU lose, sheister.

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

There is no such requirement in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

As per Plyler v. Doe- an illegal alien in the United States is within the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

"Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along."

roflmao, you truly are a stupid ass.

They are STILL UNDER US JURISDICTION, are they not?

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

Paddy is the one with the facts:

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

But territories are under the jurisdiction of the US, are they not? They are under our laws, so they are under our jurisdiction according to you stupid ass reading of Plyler.

The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States."

And Wong Kim Ark states that not only jurisdiction is called for but also the legal residence or domicile and permission of the US government.

You cant say there are no exceptions then claim that there are exceptions when it suits your stupid ass.

Your inability to read- or comprehend full sentences- is not my problem.

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

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

You don't like it- that is what the Constitutional Amendment process if for.

So then why don't the aliens on American Samoa get birthright citizenship? They are also under US jurisdiction.

Once again- because they are not born in the United States

Your inability to read- or comprehend full sentences- is not my problem.

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

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

You don't like it- that is what the Constitutional Amendment process if for.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Legal Residence Law & Legal Definition

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

No, YOU lose, sheister.

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

There is no such requirement in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

As per Plyler v. Doe- an illegal alien in the United States is within the jurisdiction of the United States.

...and entitled to due process of the law.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Plyler v Doe wasn't about giving birthright citizenship to anyone. It was a case about taxpayer funding of public education for illegal aliens.

It is relevant to Wong Kim Ark in that it reaffirms US jurisdiction over illegal aliens.

I agree, and with the jurisdiction it also gives due process rights, but does not imply anything about birthright citizenship.

In US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 and 118 state specifically the parents have to have domicile in the US (which is a type of legal residence) and they have to be here with the permission of the US government.

Spin it all day if you want, but the meaning is clear, Toro, or should I say 'Bull'.


roflmao

Text of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship once again

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

Birth and jurisdiction are what are relevant.

Domicile is not even mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

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

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

Your pretense that case law and the intended meaning of the 14th Amendments authors is hilarious.

US v Wong gives further clarifications to Birthright citizenship and among them is permission of the US government and LEGAL domicile.

Text of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship once again

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

Birth and jurisdiction are what are relevant.

Domicile is not even mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

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

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

Plyler states that illegal babies are entitled to due process, nothing else, so again you lie.

Wong Kim Ark states that illegal have to be here with the permission of the US government and have a legal residence aka domicile here to be eligible for birthright citizenship.

You argue that jurisdiction ruling from Plyler also applies to birthright citizenship, ignoring Wong requirement for domicile and permission of the US, but you embraced the statehood restrictions and dismiss the effect of Plyler's jurisdiction ruling when it suits you with American Samoa, etc.

You are a liar and a fraud and it is plain you do not have the slightest concern with understanding these laws and rulings. You are a shyster and are tryi9ng to destroy this country. It isn't going to happen. Your ilk is going to be stopped and we WILL TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK, ass hole.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

Paddy is the one with the facts:

They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:

"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998); Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998); Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States." Id. at 1453 & n. 8; see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19; Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland. Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com

But territories are under the jurisdiction of the US, are they not? They are under our laws, so they are under our jurisdiction according to you stupid ass reading of Plyler.

The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States."

And Wong Kim Ark states that not only jurisdiction is called for but also the legal residence or domicile and permission of the US government.

You cant say there are no exceptions then claim that there are exceptions when it suits your stupid ass.

Your inability to read- or comprehend full sentences- is not my problem.

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

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

You don't like it- that is what the Constitutional Amendment process if for.

So then why don't the aliens on American Samoa get birthright citizenship? They are also under US jurisdiction.

Once again- because they are not born in the United States

Your inability to read- or comprehend full sentences- is not my problem.

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

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

You don't like it- that is what the Constitutional Amendment process if for.

And Wong is clear as well they have to have legal residence and permission of US government, paragraphs 96 and 118.