U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-12-2017, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 5,999,925 times
Reputation: 2377

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
ONLY because there's a specific exception for them in federal nationality law:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

This is what you're failing to understand... If all those born in the US are automatically US citizens at birth, subsection (b) would neither be included nor necessary in our CURRENTLY IN EFFECT nationality law.

There is no such legal exception made for the children of illegal aliens.
It seems that you're hung up on the historical technicality concerning 8 U.S.C § 1401(b). You fail to understand that because of demographic trends, 8 U.S.C § 1401(b) wasn't necessary when it was included in U.S. nationality law, and that it remains on the books to ensure the "forced assimilation" of members of "Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes."

As for the U.S.-born children of "unauthorized migrants," 8 U.S.C § 1401(a) covers them, and 119 years of Federal policy and SCOTUS decisions after Wong Kim Ark support that particular view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No need. The WKA ruling specifically lists WKA's parents' "permanent domicile"as a qualifying condition of WKA's birthright US citizenship. Illegal aliens aren't permanently domiciled in the US. They aren't legally permitted to even be here at all.
Okay, define "permanent domicile." Here's the text of first two paragraphs of Wong Kim Ark, which may (or may not) help you out…
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 domicil 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, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2017, 05:43 PM
 
7,534 posts, read 4,022,885 times
Reputation: 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerlily87 View Post
They're only taxed if they make over $101k USD a year.
Not necessarily a mark in the win column; again it is a numbers game, for the U.S. purse. Then there is the hassle and expense to the citizen of filing two tax returns every year, regardless of the amount of money they earned that year. 5411 people this year said no more and I don't blame 'em.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2017, 10:02 PM
 
62,391 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
It seems that you're hung up on the historical technicality concerning 8 U.S.C § 1401(b). You fail to understand that because of demographic trends, 8 U.S.C § 1401(b) wasn't necessary when it was included in U.S. nationality law, and that it remains on the books to ensure the "forced assimilation" of members of "Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes."
No, it remains on the books to grant birthright US citizenship to US-born members of US Native Americans in accordance with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Otherwise, they would not have it.

Quote:
As for the U.S.-born children of "unauthorized migrants," 8 U.S.C § 1401(a) covers them, and 119 years of Federal policy and SCOTUS decisions after Wong Kim Ark support that particular view.
No, it does not. Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanently domiciled in the US, and the ruling specifically states that domicile as a condition on which WKA's birthright citizenship is based. Illegal aliens aren't permanently domiciled in the US. They aren't even supposed to be here at all.

Quote:
Okay, define "permanent domicile."
In the practice of law, one's domicile is one's lawful residence. It's why a resident of one state can't venue shop courts, judges, etc., and sue someone/an entity in which neither party (or none of the parties) has a legal domicile. For example, if a married couple's domicile is in Illinois, neither of the two can file for divorce in California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2017, 09:14 AM
 
1,225 posts, read 361,254 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, it remains on the books to grant birthright US citizenship to US-born members of US Native Americans in accordance with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Otherwise, they would not have it.

No, it does not. Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanently domiciled in the US, and the ruling specifically states that domicile as a condition on which WKA's birthright citizenship is based. Illegal aliens aren't permanently domiciled in the US. They aren't even supposed to be here at all.

In the practice of law, one's domicile is one's lawful residence. It's why a resident of one state can't venue shop courts, judges, etc., and sue someone/an entity in which neither party (or none of the parties) has a legal domicile. For example, if a married couple's domicile is in Illinois, neither of the two can file for divorce in California.
But illegals can file for divorce in America
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2017, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 5,999,925 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, it remains on the books to grant birthright US citizenship to US-born members of US Native Americans in accordance with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Otherwise, they would not have it.
Wrong. Looks like you've flunked demography and history pertaining to members of "Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes" in the United States. When two-thirds of a population are already U.S. citizens has offspring with the remaining third that are non-citizens, there's a high probability that those offspring are going to be U.S. citizens at birth. Thus, no additional legislation was required; however, to ensure "assimilation," U.S. citizenship was forced upon the "holdouts."

Hint: Study the Dawes Act of 1887 and its impact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, it does not. Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanently domiciled in the US, and the ruling specifically states that domicile as a condition on which WKA's birthright citizenship is based. Illegal aliens aren't permanently domiciled in the US. They aren't even supposed to be here at all.
Wrong. Because of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Wong Kim Ark's parents were "aliens ineligible for citizenship." Moreover, if they had left the United States, they probably would not have been allowed to return, despite their so-called "permanent domicile." United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905), illustrates that even U.S. citizens of Chinese ancestry were subject to deportation if they had the temerity to travel abroad.

Study Question: What's the difference between an "alien ineligible for citizenship" and a so-called "illegal alien?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
In the practice of law, one's domicile is one's lawful residence. It's why a resident of one state can't venue shop courts, judges, etc., and sue someone/an entity in which neither party (or none of the parties) has a legal domicile. For example, if a married couple's domicile is in Illinois, neither of the two can file for divorce in California.
Sadly, it's quite apparent that you haven't been anywhere near a decent legal dictionary, such as "Black's Law Dictionary."

Here's a little something from an old copy of Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition) that might help…
As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. Fuller v. Hofferbert, C./A.Ohio, 204 F.2d 592, 597. [see also In re Riley's Will, 266 N.Y.S. 209, 148 Misc. 588.]
"Residence" is not synonymous with "domicile," though the two terms are closely related; a person may have only one legal domicile at one time, but he may have more than one residence. Fielding v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, L.App., 331 So.2d 186, 188.

In certain contexts the courts consider "residence" and "domicile" to be synonymous (e.g. divorce action, Cooper v. Cooper, 269 Cal.App.2d 6, 74 Cal. Rptr. 439, 441); while in others the two terms are distinguished (e.g. venue, Fromkin v. Loehmann's Hewlett, Inc., 16 Misc.2d 117, 184 N.Y.S.2d 63, 65).
Now, try defining "permanent domicile" again…
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2017, 10:11 PM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,282,218 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
Wrong. Looks like you've flunked demography and history pertaining to members of "Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes" in the United States. When two-thirds of a population are already U.S. citizens has offspring with the remaining third that are non-citizens, there's a high probability that those offspring are going to be U.S. citizens at birth. Thus, no additional legislation was required; however, to ensure "assimilation," U.S. citizenship was forced upon the "holdouts."

Hint: Study the Dawes Act of 1887 and its impact.


Wrong. Because of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Wong Kim Ark's parents were "aliens ineligible for citizenship." Moreover, if they had left the United States, they probably would not have been allowed to return, despite their so-called "permanent domicile." United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905), illustrates that even U.S. citizens of Chinese ancestry were subject to deportation if they had the temerity to travel abroad.

Study Question: What's the difference between an "alien ineligible for citizenship" and a so-called "illegal alien?"


Sadly, it's quite apparent that you haven't been anywhere near a decent legal dictionary, such as "Black's Law Dictionary."

Here's a little something from an old copy of Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition) that might help…
As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. Fuller v. Hofferbert, C./A.Ohio, 204 F.2d 592, 597. [see also In re Riley's Will, 266 N.Y.S. 209, 148 Misc. 588.]
"Residence" is not synonymous with "domicile," though the two terms are closely related; a person may have only one legal domicile at one time, but he may have more than one residence. Fielding v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, L.App., 331 So.2d 186, 188.

In certain contexts the courts consider "residence" and "domicile" to be synonymous (e.g. divorce action, Cooper v. Cooper, 269 Cal.App.2d 6, 74 Cal. Rptr. 439, 441); while in others the two terms are distinguished (e.g. venue, Fromkin v. Loehmann's Hewlett, Inc., 16 Misc.2d 117, 184 N.Y.S.2d 63, 65).
Now, try defining "permanent domicile" again…
Jim Crow was killed, the ban against Gay marriage was killed. Birthright citizenship for US born kids will be killed too, unless at least 1 parent's a US citizen.

Laws can and DO change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2017, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,626 posts, read 5,999,925 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
Jim Crow was killed, the ban against Gay marriage was killed. Birthright citizenship for US born kids will be killed too, unless at least 1 parent's a US citizen.

Laws can and DO change.
Yep, laws can and DO change. As you've illustrated above, laws in the U.S. tend to become less restrictive over time. And, as "InformedConsent" has shown, "birthright citizenship" has been extended to groups that were previously excluded from it. A tortuous reinterpretation of existing law pertaining to "birthright citizenship" is probably not enough to exclude the U.S.-born offspring of "unauthorized migrants." However, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution can do the job.

Just for fun, let's assume that "birthright citizenship" is eliminated for the offspring of "unauthorized migrants." Here's a link to a Migration Policy Institute (MPI) brief entitled, "The Demographic Impacts of Repealing Birthright Citizenship" that shows the likely effects…
The Demographic Impacts of Repealing Birthright Citizenship | migrationpolicy.org
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2017, 04:21 AM
 
62,391 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerlily87 View Post
But illegals can file for divorce in America
Only if their spouse is a US Citizen, which would be grounds for US jurisdiction.

For example, a spouse in a US citizen couple from NJ can't be ILLEGALLY present in France and file for divorce in France.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2017, 04:26 AM
 
62,391 posts, read 27,757,678 times
Reputation: 7866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
Wrong.
No. I'm quite correct. And I've given numerous legal examples. You just don't like it. /shrug

This is why only Constitutionalists should be SCOTUS Justices. They do indeed, upon taking their oath, swear to uphold the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2017, 04:36 AM
 
1,225 posts, read 361,254 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Only if their spouse is a US Citizen, which would be grounds for US jurisdiction.

For example, a spouse in a US citizen couple from NJ can't be ILLEGALLY present in France and file for divorce in France.
Wrong. Two illegals can divorce in America. Here's an example from Texas
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/i...ca-509381.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top