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

[paddymurphy]

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

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

roflmao, liberalism is a mental disease.

If the argument is over whether a person born here to an illegal immigrant mother and father is a US citizen, then you have been losing the argument for over 100 years. In fact, you are gonna lose that argument about 821 times today. That is how many children will be born to illegal immigrants today and instantly become US citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are such a blithering fool.

Clearly I am not the fool

Since not only can I read the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe- children born if illegal aliens are recognized as U.S. citizens everyday.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

roflmao, liberalism is a mental disease.

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

roflmao, liberalism is a mental disease

I wonder- could you manage to post if you were not allowed to make personal attacks and insults?

Pretty certain you couldn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

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

See, your age and increasing dementia becomes more apparent as you contine to spam and troll your own threads. This thread needs to be in the Conspiracy Forum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow, another one just popped out!

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are such a blithering fool.

Clearly I am not the fool

Since not only can I read the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe- children born if illegal aliens are recognized as U.S. citizens everyday.

You simply ignore the Wong requirement that parents be legal residents and here with the permission of the US government. That makes you a liar.

That you think people are falling for that kind of bullshit any more is what makes you a certified fool.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

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

roflmao, liberalism is a mental disease.

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

roflmao, liberalism is a mental disease

I wonder- could you manage to post if you were not allowed to make personal attacks and insults?

Pretty certain you couldn't.

When you are being a complete liar and fool, cherry picking the laws as you chose, then denying any relevance of the authors of the documents you cite, I think hyperbole and disgust are quite appropriate.

You are a Big Lie shit-for-brains.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are such a blithering fool.

Clearly I am not the fool

Since not only can I read the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe- children born if illegal aliens are recognized as U.S. citizens everyday.

You simply ignore the Wong requirement that parents be legal residents and here with the permission of the US government. That makes you a liar.

That you think people are falling for that kind of bullshit any more is what makes you a certified fool.

There is no such requirement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

^ Cherry Picker Extreme 1st Class on the rant

You don't have a clue about Pyler or Wong.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

roflmao, liberalism is a mental disease.

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

roflmao, liberalism is a mental disease

I wonder- could you manage to post if you were not allowed to make personal attacks and insults?

Pretty certain you couldn't.

When you are being a complete liar and fool, cherry picking the laws as you chose, then denying any relevance of the authors of the documents you cite, I think hyperbole and disgust are quite appropriate.

You are a Big Lie shit-for-brains.

Thanks for proving me right- your post was a particularly delicious confirmation.

I wonder- could you manage to post if you were not allowed to make personal attacks and insults?

Pretty certain you couldn't.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are such a blithering fool.

Clearly I am not the fool

Since not only can I read the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe- children born if illegal aliens are recognized as U.S. citizens everyday.

You simply ignore the Wong requirement that parents be legal residents and here with the permission of the US government. That makes you a liar.

That you think people are falling for that kind of bullshit any more is what makes you a certified fool.

Reposting since you are ignoring who I proved you wrong before:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The word permission is mentioned 5 times in Wong Kim Ark- here they are:

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

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

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

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

Nor does Wong Kim Ark contain the words "legal residents" together.

 

[JimBowie1958]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The word permission is mentioned 5 times in Wong Kim Ark- here they are:

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

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

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

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

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

Well risking the spam Nazi's wrath, I will post the relevant information for the lurkers since you have proven yourself to be a complete liar and do not care about what the text actually says:

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. "

So, once again, you are a proven liar. You are like that liar Angela in the movie 'Catfish' you just lie so much you don't even realize that you are lying, lol.

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

Nor does Wong Kim Ark contain the words "legal residents" together.

The word domicile means 'legal residence' you stupid ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mods, JimBowie continues to spam the thread. Please move it to the Conspiracy forum.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Mods, JimBowie continues to spam the thread. Please move it to the Conspiracy forum.

Why bury it in the Conspiracy Forum when there is no conspiracy mentioned?

Have you lost your meds again, Jake?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your theory is conspiracy because no one accepts your nonsense.

 

[paddymurphy]

Mods, JimBowie continues to spam the thread. Please move it to the Conspiracy forum.

Why bury it in the Conspiracy Forum when there is no conspiracy mentioned?

Have you lost your meds again, Jake?

Is there forum for the congenitally stupid? Move it there.

 

[Syriusly]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The word permission is mentioned 5 times in Wong Kim Ark- here they are:

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

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

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

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

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

Well risking the spam Nazi's wrath, I will post the relevant information for the lurkers since you have proven yourself to be a complete liar and do not care about what the text actually says:

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. "

So, once again, you are a proven liar. You are like that liar Angela in the movie 'Catfish' you just lie so much you don't even realize that you are lying, lol.

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark
.

Thanks for proving my point- nowhere does Wong Kim Ark use the word "Permission' and nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say anything about 'requires government permission'.

We have illegal aliens who are here without the permission of the United States- but we permit them to remain here as long as have not deported them.

I know what you want Wong Kim Ark to say- but it doesn't. Wong Kim Ark no more requires a 'permanent domicile' than it requires that a person be a subject of the Emperor of China- those are statements of fact about the case.

Again the language of the 14th Amendment is clear- anyone born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is born a U.S. citizen.

Wong Kim Ark states that the term 'jurisdiction' means the same thing both times it is mentioned in the 14th Amendment.
Plyler v. Doe states that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Therefore- as it has been all along- children born to aliens- legal or illegal- in the United States- are born U.S. citizens.

You don't like that- change the Constitution.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your theory is conspiracy because no one accepts your nonsense.

You are such a bald faced lying whore.

I have already listed multiple experts that agree with me and presidential candidates running for office as well.

Do you ever get bored just lying about everything?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thanks for proving my point- nowhere does Wong Kim Ark use the word "Permission' and nowhere does Wong Kim Ark say anything about 'requires government permission'.

Lol, you lie like the fascist you are.

I quoted from paragraph 96 "so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here" but you quibble that it doesn't actually use the word "permission", lolololololol.

Do you realize how thoroughly you are losing this discussion? It isn't that you are stupid necessarily, but that you are such a lying whore.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your 'experts' are not accepted as such.

JimBowie, please immediately email SCOTUS, Congress, and the Pres they have it wrong.