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

[Syriusly]

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

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

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

US v Wong Kim Ark says EXACTLY what I claim and I post for the umpteenth time for your chance to read it.

"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."

"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.

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

But of course we all know that you are aware of it, you are just a bald faced liar and a fraud.

if you're going to say that a person must have a domicile you also must say that they must be subjects of the emperor of china, since that is as relevant in the statement of facts.
further, they are entitled to the protections of and owe allegiance to the united states so long as they are permitted by the united states to reside here, but the word "and" meaning additionally, they are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just as all other resident aliens are.

your misinterpretation of the decision does not make me a liar.

and how do you square the idea that an illegal alien can be arrested and prosecuted in the united states for entering the country illegally with the idea that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states?

At risk of offending you an others with *spam* in responding to your repeated dull witted comments, I post the following:

"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."

The us of the word 'but' conjunction means that it is in contrast to, not part of the reasoning of why the court made their decision.

Take a few reading comprehension courses, dude.

Because you weren't saying anything. You hadn't made a point. Even the mods saw it. Why didn't you?

lol, I stated that Wong Kim Ark decision adds legal domicile and the permission of the US government to the jurisdiction phrase of the 14th amendment for the children of aliens in this country, thus no illegal alien can have a Constitutional right to have birth right citizenship, even though most are given citizenship anyway.

Now, did you understand that ass hole?

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

I think a lot of people would have given a different response on what the requirements would be for letting criminal alien shit-stains stay in the country. How much I don't know, but I would guess its a majority now that would say they have to leave and apply at a US embassy or consulate in their home country now.

You give Trump too much credit. He has changed nothing. His supporters fit comfortably within the percentage that was for deportation already.

Whatever solution there is , we will not know as Trump calls for deportation. Your boys rejected any talk of comprehensive reform.

Denying the obvious doesn't make it any less true, it just means that you are being an idiot for whatever reason.

Citing your secret voices doesn't make it real either.
By all means give us the breakdown on Trump's rise.
I've given my numbers, give us yours. Show us why it is as you say it is.

I wont waste my time answering any of your 'tar baby' questions. Hell I could bring down stone tablets carved by the hand of God himself and you would still argue about it, because you are a ******* liar and a jack ass.

Again, US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 specifically states the parent need the permission of the US government in order to get Birthright citizenship. In paragraph 118 it states they need legal domicile as well as jurisdiction which you and your fellow morons interpret so broadly that it is reduced to meaninglessness.

Sorry, bub.

Gonna go with the people who do this shit for a living, not some knuckledragging internet squawker.

Congressional Research Service:


"The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, defined birthright citizenship, extending it to African Americans and also to most persons born in the United States.

In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark , the United States Supreme Court made clear that, under these laws, U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens regardless of the alienage and national origin of their parents, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and hostile invasion and occupation forces of a foreign nation. However, in the 1884 decision Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court held that Native Americans were not U.S. citizens under the terms of the Citizenship Clause. Native Americans were U.S. citizens by treaties or statutes granting U.S. citizenship to members of specific tribes. Immigration and nationality statutes enacted in 1924, 1940, and 1952 granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

Lol, so instead of reading the decision yourself, you make an appeal to authority?

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

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

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

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Toro]

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

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

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

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

In other words- you are both a coward- and a liar.

Besides being just a general idiot.

I have given facts and reason to back them up. All you do is say its wrong without warrant, cause or evidence..

I have presented both quotes and links from the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda- those are the facts. I have presented the opinion of Constitutional attorney's such as James Ho. And I have rationally

You just can't stand the facts.

Yes, it is a fact that you linked to these decisions, and it is also a fact that only Wong is relevant to Birthright citizenship. IT is also a fact that Wong states clearly that legal domicile and permission are also requirements.

It is not my fault that you have weak reading comprehension skills.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wong Kim Ark makes no such requirement on citizenship.

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

if you're going to say that a person must have a domicile you also must say that they must be subjects of the emperor of china, since that is as relevant in the statement of facts.
further, they are entitled to the protections of and owe allegiance to the united states so long as they are permitted by the united states to reside here, but the word "and" meaning additionally, they are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just as all other resident aliens are.

your misinterpretation of the decision does not make me a liar.

and how do you square the idea that an illegal alien can be arrested and prosecuted in the united states for entering the country illegally with the idea that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states?

At risk of offending you an others with *spam* in responding to your repeated dull witted comments, I post the following:

"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."

The us of the word 'but' conjunction means that it is in contrast to, not part of the reasoning of why the court made their decision.

Take a few reading comprehension courses, dude.

lol, I stated that Wong Kim Ark decision adds legal domicile and the permission of the US government to the jurisdiction phrase of the 14th amendment for the children of aliens in this country, thus no illegal alien can have a Constitutional right to have birth right citizenship, even though most are given citizenship anyway.

Now, did you understand that ass hole?

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

You give Trump too much credit. He has changed nothing. His supporters fit comfortably within the percentage that was for deportation already.

Whatever solution there is , we will not know as Trump calls for deportation. Your boys rejected any talk of comprehensive reform.

Denying the obvious doesn't make it any less true, it just means that you are being an idiot for whatever reason.

Citing your secret voices doesn't make it real either.
By all means give us the breakdown on Trump's rise.
I've given my numbers, give us yours. Show us why it is as you say it is.

I wont waste my time answering any of your 'tar baby' questions. Hell I could bring down stone tablets carved by the hand of God himself and you would still argue about it, because you are a ******* liar and a jack ass.

Again, US v Wong Kim Ark paragraph 96 specifically states the parent need the permission of the US government in order to get Birthright citizenship. In paragraph 118 it states they need legal domicile as well as jurisdiction which you and your fellow morons interpret so broadly that it is reduced to meaninglessness.

Sorry, bub.

Gonna go with the people who do this shit for a living, not some knuckledragging internet squawker.

Congressional Research Service:


"The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, defined birthright citizenship, extending it to African Americans and also to most persons born in the United States.

In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark , the United States Supreme Court made clear that, under these laws, U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens regardless of the alienage and national origin of their parents, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and hostile invasion and occupation forces of a foreign nation. However, in the 1884 decision Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court held that Native Americans were not U.S. citizens under the terms of the Citizenship Clause. Native Americans were U.S. citizens by treaties or statutes granting U.S. citizenship to members of specific tribes. Immigration and nationality statutes enacted in 1924, 1940, and 1952 granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

They don't care about the law and The Constitution.

We don't care about your self serving presumptions regarding the Constitution, certainly.

 

[paddymurphy]

Bowie boy is a quick to call anyone he disagrees with a liar- but when called on it- when asked to quote a lie- has consistently run away from the challenge.

And of course quick to call anyone he disagrees with names.

He is an idiot.

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it. but you dumbass liars wouldn't read it apparently and you still have the Liars Nerve to say I never answered you?

roflmao

I have quote Wong Kim Ark so many times the mods tagged me for spamming it

Because you weren't saying anything. You hadn't made a point. Even the mods saw it. Why didn't you?

lol, I stated that Wong Kim Ark decision adds legal domicile and the permission of the US government to the jurisdiction phrase of the 14th amendment for the children of aliens in this country, thus no illegal alien can have a Constitutional right to have birth right citizenship, even though most are given citizenship anyway.

Now, did you understand that ass hole?

The Supreme Court cannot 'add' provisions to the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment says birth and subject to the jurisdiction of

As has been pointed out- the Supreme Court has recognized that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and that the child born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents is a U.S. citizen by birth.

We can lead a horse to water- but we can't make you drink.

The SCOTUS creates case law that adds conditions and further clarification to the Constitution and how it si interpreted.

Damn, you are a stupid ****. Are you trying to be a moron? I don't think you have to try at all.

"The SCOTUS creates case law that adds conditions and further clarification to the Constitution and how it si interpreted." They can certainly interpret it; they cannot, however, add conditions. And, in Wong Kim Ark, they did not add the condition that the parents had to be legally in the nation. You do not seem to understand that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof refers to the child that is born, not the parents. If the child is born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, it is a a citizen.

 

[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 have no idea how to extract your head from your ass do you?

 

[paddymurphy]

Trust me, paddymurphy is a real nut job troll.

He sounds much better on ignore.

So you put me on ignore? That is why, you gutless wonder, you have not even attempted to address the rest of Wong Kim Ark? You know, those parts that prove you wrong?

The gutless always do.

, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

In other words- you are both a coward- and a liar.

Besides being just a general idiot.

I have given facts and reason to back them up. All you do is say its wrong without warrant, cause or evidence.

I have full confidence that any open minded lurkers can read through this thread and see what an ass you have been and completely devoid of anything of substance to say.

Well, when people provide warrant, cause and evidence that you are laughably wrong, you put us on ignore.

 

[paperview]

The gutless always do.

, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

In other words- you are both a coward- and a liar.

Besides being just a general idiot.

I have given facts and reason to back them up. All you do is say its wrong without warrant, cause or evidence..

I have presented both quotes and links from the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda- those are the facts. I have presented the opinion of Constitutional attorney's such as James Ho. And I have rationally

You just can't stand the facts.

Yes, it is a fact that you linked to these decisions, and it is also a fact that only Wong is relevant to Birthright citizenship. IT is also a fact that Wong states clearly that legal domicile and permission are also requirements.

It is not my fault that you have weak reading comprehension skills.

You can squirt milk out of your eyeballs till the cows come home -- moo up a storm all you like.

You'll still be wrong. And that reality is gonna smack itself upside your fat head one of these days.

 

[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.

The word "legal" does not appear anywhere in the case. Stop lying.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

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

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

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

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


New York Military Academy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JimBowie1958]

, bald faced lying, and using every agit prop technique in the commie fagot playbook.

You are a waste of time.

In other words- you are both a coward- and a liar.

Besides being just a general idiot.

I have given facts and reason to back them up. All you do is say its wrong without warrant, cause or evidence..

I have presented both quotes and links from the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda- those are the facts. I have presented the opinion of Constitutional attorney's such as James Ho. And I have rationally

You just can't stand the facts.

Yes, it is a fact that you linked to these decisions, and it is also a fact that only Wong is relevant to Birthright citizenship. IT is also a fact that Wong states clearly that legal domicile and permission are also requirements.

It is not my fault that you have weak reading comprehension skills.

You can squirt milk out of your eyeballs till the cows come home -- moo up a storm all you like.

You'll still be wrong. And that reality is gonna smack itself upside your fat head one of these days.

No, I don't have to do any of that. I just have to read the decision, research the background on the case law, read the 14th amendment and the mentality of the authors and the culture of the time and make up my own mind.

You can keep sucking libtard cock if you think that makes you right, but I don't give it much credit.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

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

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

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

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


New York Military Academy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do realize, I hope, that that is a prep school for children? You think that they taught 15 year old boys much that would be of help to a President 50 years later?

 

[paddymurphy]

In other words- you are both a coward- and a liar.

Besides being just a general idiot.

I have given facts and reason to back them up. All you do is say its wrong without warrant, cause or evidence..

I have presented both quotes and links from the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda- those are the facts. I have presented the opinion of Constitutional attorney's such as James Ho. And I have rationally

You just can't stand the facts.

Yes, it is a fact that you linked to these decisions, and it is also a fact that only Wong is relevant to Birthright citizenship. IT is also a fact that Wong states clearly that legal domicile and permission are also requirements.

It is not my fault that you have weak reading comprehension skills.

You can squirt milk out of your eyeballs till the cows come home -- moo up a storm all you like.

You'll still be wrong. And that reality is gonna smack itself upside your fat head one of these days.

Yeah says the manwho thinks Trump has only had military training from watching TV.
"military training" From a high school? Maybe he was in the marching band or the rifle drill team. That qualifies him for the Joint Chiefs of Staff if he decides not to run.
You don't know jack shit, you ******* retard.

 

[paddymurphy]

I have given facts and reason to back them up. All you do is say its wrong without warrant, cause or evidence..

I have presented both quotes and links from the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda- those are the facts. I have presented the opinion of Constitutional attorney's such as James Ho. And I have rationally

You just can't stand the facts.

Yes, it is a fact that you linked to these decisions, and it is also a fact that only Wong is relevant to Birthright citizenship. IT is also a fact that Wong states clearly that legal domicile and permission are also requirements.

It is not my fault that you have weak reading comprehension skills.

You can squirt milk out of your eyeballs till the cows come home -- moo up a storm all you like.

You'll still be wrong. And that reality is gonna smack itself upside your fat head one of these days.

Yeah says the manwho thinks Trump has only had military training from watching TV.
"military training" From a high school? Maybe he was in the marching band or the rifle drill team. That qualifies him for the Joint Chiefs of Staff if he decides not to run.
You don't know jack shit, you ******* retard.

In other words- you are both a coward- and a liar.

Besides being just a general idiot.

I have given facts and reason to back them up. All you do is say its wrong without warrant, cause or evidence..

I have presented both quotes and links from the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda- those are the facts. I have presented the opinion of Constitutional attorney's such as James Ho. And I have rationally

You just can't stand the facts.

Yes, it is a fact that you linked to these decisions, and it is also a fact that only Wong is relevant to Birthright citizenship. IT is also a fact that Wong states clearly that legal domicile and permission are also requirements.

It is not my fault that you have weak reading comprehension skills.

You can squirt milk out of your eyeballs till the cows come home -- moo up a storm all you like.

You'll still be wrong. And that reality is gonna smack itself upside your fat head one of these days.

No, I don't have to do any of that. I just have to read the decision, research the background on the case law, read the 14th amendment and the mentality of the authors and the culture of the time and make up my own mind.

You can keep sucking libtard cock if you think that makes you right, but I don't give it much credit.

"military training" From a high school? Maybe he was in the marching band or the rifle drill team. That qualifies him for the Joint Chiefs of Staff if he decides not to run.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

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

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

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

I think he got it from coming here and reading the brilliant analysis of JB. They both have the same habit of repeating the same false shit over and over again and, when someone points out that they are making shit up, they lash out.

 

[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."