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.
They are doubts that SCOTUS hasn't resolved with the exception of the specific conditions named by Gray in the Wong Kim Ark ruling, one of which is permanently domiciled parents, a condition which Obama does not meet.
Grey doesn't make it a condition. He simply notes it as a characteristic of Wong's parents. As he also notes that they are Chinese. Since Wong's parents had gone back to China, your definition of "permanent" seems quite flexible. Some people can come and go, but others are only "temporary". Even when they are here for YEARS.
This is just another red herring from you. Tax jurisdiction has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
It is an example of jurisdiction that extends beyond territorial boundaries. The jurisdiction of the British Nationality Act of 1948, which governed Obama's status at birth, similarly extends beyond territorial boundaries.
The U.S. asserts JURISDICTION to tax on the basis of two factors: source of income, and citizenship. If a foreign individual or corporation receives income from a U.S. source, that income is subject to tax. If a U.S. citizen living abroad received income from a foreign source, that income is subject to tax merely because of the U.S. citizenship of the receiver.
Thus we have a perfect example of WORLDWIDE JURISDICTION over citizens within a certain area: The U.S. taxes the foreign-earned income of U.S. citizens living abroad.
The same principle applies to the U.K.'s birthright citizenship law (in Obama's case, the British Nationality Act of 1948). The U.K. had WORLDWIDE JURISDICTION to bestow automatic British citizenship at birth to any child born worldwide to a British father provided that the father of such a person is not a citizen of the U.K. by descent only.
As such, Obama was NOT under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. at birth. He fell under the U.K.'s jurisdiction in the area of citizenship. Obama does NOT meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement's meaning and intent stated in the Congressional Record: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Obama was subject to the U.K.'s citizenship jurisdiction. He owed allegiance to a foreign power at birth. Legally, Obama isn't even a U.S. citizen at all. He is only recognized as one by current political policy.
The same is true of any child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent whose country asserts worldwide jurisdiction in the same manner. Legally, they are not U.S. citizens. They are only recognized as such by current political policy.
"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 partieswere to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
A child born in the United States is born in the jurisdiction of the United States. United States laws always take precedence in the United States. This isn't a policy. This is the LAW. Whether other countries might extend citizenship does not mean they extend jurisdiction over that child. That American-born child can choose to accept or decline the foreign country's extension of citizenship. And that choice has zero impact on his or her citizenship status in the United States. Because the child was BORN an American citizen. You can cite foreign laws all day long and until the fat lady sings, but the bottom line, you cannot cite one American law or court ruling that says a natural-born citizen must have TWO citizen parents. So you have NO legal argument.
"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 partieswere to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
The Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to Obama. His father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.
As I pointed out, your definition of "permanent domicile" is strange and inconsistent. Wong's parents had moved back to China. Which is why he had left the United States to begin with. To visit his parents, who had moved their "permanent domicile" to China.
A child born in the United States is born in the jurisdiction of the United States. United States laws always take precedence in the United States. This isn't a policy. This is the LAW. Whether other countries might extend citizenship does not mean they extend jurisdiction over that child. That American-born child can choose to accept or decline the foreign country's extension of citizenship. And that choice has zero impact on his or her citizenship status in the United States. Because the child was BORN an American citizen. You can cite foreign laws all day long and until the fat lady sings, but the bottom line, you cannot cite one American law or court ruling that says a natural-born citizen must have TWO citizen parents. So you have NO legal argument.
Two U.S. citizen parents of a child born in the United States is the Bright Line Rule for determining Natural Born Citizen as pertaining the presidential qualification.
And, quit hyphenating "natural born" as a sleezy attempt to appear honest when called on the floor.
Hyphenating "natural born" throws the meaning into an irrelevant context. AS YOU WELL KNOW!
SMERGER!
Last edited by Nonarchist; 04-11-2013 at 12:29 PM..
As I pointed out, your definition of "permanent domicile" is strange and inconsistent. Wong's parents had moved back to China. Which is why he had left the United States to begin with. To visit his parents, who had moved their "permanent domicile" to China.
You're off the timeline, Buddy!
The reasoning of the court had much to do with determining citizenship of Wong - AT BIRTH!
AT THE TIME OF BIRTH.
NOT THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE FACT!
At the time he was born, his birth was of parents permanently domiciled in the United States of America.
Birther thread disclaimer: All discussions in this post are for entertainment purposes only, since birthers have lost every single one of the more than 200 court cases they have filed, and Barack Obama has been elected and inaugurated as President of the United States... twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Only because SCOTUS determined that the Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one.
"Only because?" That's like saying Lincoln died "only because" Booth shot him in the head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The fact is that SCOTUS derived Minor's citizenship in order to proceed in the examination of the case. SCOTUS explicitly states so.
And as we know from the outcome, they didn't need to. See? That's what makes something obiter dicta. The fact that is actually is unnecessary to the outcome of the case.
You know... like "permanent domicile" in WKA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The U.S. asserts JURISDICTION to tax on the basis of two factors: source of income, and citizenship.
It can "assert" anything it wants. But as you remember (since I forced you to stop misleadingly editing the definition) it doesn't actually have jurisdiction until it is in a position to enforce the law. And that is only on its own territory.
Birther thread disclaimer: All discussions in this post are for entertainment purposes only, since birthers have lost every single one of the more than 200 court cases they have filed, and Barack Obama has been elected and inaugurated as President of the United States... twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Only for those whose parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S., among other conditions specifically named in the ruling by Gray.
More than a dozen court decisions disagree with you.
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.
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.
