Newborn babies obtaining citizenship when born in the U.S. despite neither of parents are citizens!!! (lawyers, solutions)

[Attus Black]

Originally Posted by Arus

once again, their permanent domicile is the place they live.

They must state their intentions of making the US their home, they have not done this as they have no recognition by the US as having legally been admitted.

Are these aliens (illegal or not) going back to their home country daily? why won't you answer this question?

I have answered the question, you obviously didn't like the answer. The answer is in the above sentence once again.

and the US Supreme Court and various lower courts say that domicile of parents MEAN nothing to birthright citizenship.

No court has said that.

Only that the place of birth matters.

Place of birth is merely one aspect.

The US Supreme Court was stating facts in Wong Kim Ark, not that they all applied to Citizenship. And the rest of the ruling went on to clarify birthright citizenship.

I gave the quote from WKA that proves otherwise, its not so easily dismissed.

Fact 1: Wong Kim Ark was born to Chinese Nationals in San Francisco (indicating born on US Soil)
Fact 2: Wong Kim Ark's parents were not US Citizens
Fact 3: Wong Kim Ark's parents were not in the employ of the Chinese Empero
Fact 4: Wong Kim Ark's parents moved back to China in 1890

Fact 5: WKAs parents were here with the authorization of the US and Chinese Govt's
Fact 6: They established a permanent domicile and residence

The only thing that the US Supreme Court went on to clarify is Fact #1 - the rest of the facts were ancillary to Wong Kim Ark's position.

without the rest of the facts, WKAs parents wouldn't have been here.

No they did not. Otherwise Akeny V Daniels wouldn't have ruled:

Ankney vs Daniels doesn't apply. That court was a Fed court, not Supreme Court. Second, all SCOTUS rulings in regards to citizenship discuss domicile.

sorry if you don't know the rules of forum etiquette. Next time, learn them. Grammar policing is an act of conceding the argument, since that is the only thing you have left to "attack".

Forum etiquette, lost argument based on "attack"? really? This is pathetic and laughable simply on face value. How old are you? 10 y.o.?

Yes, obligations like an Ambassador or a soldier in an invading army (they are obligated to serve the interests of their country, not themselves). an illegal alien here has no obligations to his home country. Are you saying that all illegal aliens are ambassadors or invading soldiers?

Illegal aliens due have obligations to their home nation, even aliens have obligations to their home nation up to the point of them obtaining US citizenship. Some even have obligations to their home nations after obtaining US citizenship, dual citizens are still required to pay taxes to their home nation based on their income. You don't seem very adept in matters of immigration at all.

no I'm not. Its not my problem that you fail to understand "all persons born" statement of the 14th Amendment

Fail to understand? Its all about interpretation, mine is simply different than yours. You don't need to act so butt hurt because of it. Ive simply refuted your claims, for which you really have no answers, yet you keep regurgitating the same statements over and over.

Yes, because persons/soldiers of invading armies and prisoners of wars are not authorized to be here (that is what HE was referring to). Ambassadors are "authorized" in the content of their jobs as representatives of their country, and while on US soil, they ARE their country.

I know what Gray was stating, you obviously don't understand what I have stated.

Are you saying that all illegal aliens are ambassadors or soldiers?

No, illegals can be called into service by their home nation, conscription into their military. Do you know what a draft dodger is?

why do you persist on ignoring that part of Grays decision where he explicitly points out these exceptions?

Why do you persist on ignoring the fact that Gray makes light that WKAs parents were here with the authorization of our govt and that they established a permanent domicile and residence.

Last I looked England (as a nation) has existed since its inception in 927 AD. 2013 - 927 = 1086 years (yup over 1000 years). as a country it has existed long before Jesus was born. English Law has existed for just as long - traced back to the 800's AD (and oops. that's where most of the US Law came from).

Citizenship law has existed in Common Law since ancient times (and many citizenship laws can be traced back to the early years of Ancient Egypt and Greece), where a person born in servitude or domain of a leader or country, were citizens (or subjects) by birth.

Once again, you have failed to prove your point. domicile means a place to live with no obligations or working directly for a foreign nation. These obligations are defined in Wong Kim Ark ( the exceptions to the US Citizenship clause at the time: Native Indians, Ambassadors, persons of an invading army/prisoners of war)

Shaking my head.......failed to prove my point? Your links contradict your own claims, I have given the quote from WKA that says the parents were authorized by the govt to establish a permanent domicile and residence, the rest is simply your decision to not accept as fact. I can only show you the path, I cant make you walk it.

[Attus Black]

Originally Posted by Arus

The State Department has power to give and take away citizenship. That is solely on Congress to recognize (which they have with the passing of the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment, and the naturalization laws).

So you agree with me.

Wrong, you would need a FULL amendment the US Constitution. Unless you wish to continue to ignore the "all persons born" part of the 14th Amendment.

No you wouldn't. Many scholars state the same as me, only the Foreign Affairs Manuel needs to be changed or a simple Act passed by Congress denying BRC to children born to illegals.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by djmilf

So...you couldn't point to the passage in the body of the majority opinion of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark where Justice Gray requires parental permanent domicile as a required condition of the plaintiff's citizenship at birth...

It's right here in the majority opinion decision's closing paragraph, word for word:

"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 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."

"The necessary effect of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, namely..."

Which then goes on to include as a named agreed upon fact: parents who had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of WKA's birth in the U.S.

So you won't actually provide your special and unique definition of 'permanent domicile'?

My definition doesn't matter. What matters is whether the parents have their LPR (Lawful Permanent Resident) cards (available since the late 1940's, early 1950's) at the time of their child's birth.

[GregW]

IMHO (much less learned than you pseudo lawyers) any illegal immigrant that has made it to this country is very unlikely to consider his residence anything less than permanent. Therefor his children are to be considered citizens.

[OICU812]

Illegal aliens are here illegally, so they may not avail themselves upon our Constitution. If a person is in the US illegally, they are not subject to any agreements, or contracts or treaties their country signed with the US, because they chose to enter illegally. If they are apprehend they are a criminal and shall be deported back to their country of origin.

Illegals are not subject to US jurisdiction, in that they are still citizens and subjects of their originating country. They can still be punished for violating our laws, but they are still citizens of another country, and that country has jurisdiction over their person, not the US government.

People who enter our country thru proper channels, and follow and obey our immigration laws, are entitled to protection that were agreed to by the US when we signed various treaties with their home country's government. Most all of those treaties afford a dual citizenship for the children born to legal immigrants.

A person violating our immigration laws is a criminal, and gets no protections, they should just get a boot in the rear that sends them back to their home country.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by Attus Black

So you agree with me.

No, you do not agree at all, seeing as you can't even get your head around what permanent domicile means.

No you wouldn't. Many scholars state the same as me, only the Foreign Affairs Manuel needs to be changed or a simple Act passed by Congress denying BRC to children born to illegals.

Many scholars are just that scholars. You could be agreeing with scholars who are racists who deny that the 14th Amendment gives citizenship at birth despite its exact wording in the first sentence of the Amendment.

Tell us how one goes about changing the US Constitution? (Hint: It involves Amendments).

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by GregW

IMHO (much less learned than you pseudo lawyers) any illegal immigrant that has made it to this country is very unlikely to consider his residence anything less than permanent. Therefor his children are to be considered citizens.

It also depends on what treaties the US has signed with their country's government. Maybe their home country does not wish a US dual citizenship be conferred on them.

We need to sign treaties with every nation, stating that if any of their citizens knowingly violates our immigrations laws, and gives birth to a child inside our borders, as an illegal alien, that the child will not get US citizenship, and that the home country shall recognize the child as a citizen of their country.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by GregW

IMHO (much less learned than you pseudo lawyers) any illegal immigrant that has made it to this country is very unlikely to consider his residence anything less than permanent. Therefor his children are to be considered citizens.

Any illegal immigrant may also fancy him/herself to have supernatural powers. Would such a belief make it factually true?

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by OICU812

Illegal aliens are here illegally, so they may not avail themselves upon our Constitution. If a person is in the US illegally, they are not subject to any agreements, or contracts or treaties their country signed with the US, because they chose to enter illegally. If they are apprehend they are a criminal and shall be deported back to their country of origin.

Illegals are not subject to US jurisdiction, in that they are still citizens and subjects of their originating country. They can still be punished for violating our laws, but they are still citizens of another country, and that country has jurisdiction over their person, not the US government.

People who enter our country thru proper channels, and follow and obey our immigration laws, are entitled to protection that were agreed to by the US when we signed various treaties with their home country's government. Most all of those treaties afford a dual citizenship for the children born to legal immigrants.

A person violating our immigration laws is a criminal, and gets no protections, they should just get a boot in the rear that sends them back to their home country.

As would their offspring be subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's homeland. Therefore they shouldn't be "assumed" citizens just because they were born on our soil. The SC need to re-visit the 14th Amendment and clarify birthright citizenship once and for all.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by OICU812

Illegal aliens are here illegally, so they may not avail themselves upon our Constitution.

So do many resident aliens and LEGAL citizens of the US. We see that by those who constantly deny the rights of people. Politicians who wish to circumvent certain privacy laws and rights with unconstitutional laws.

If a person is in the US illegally, they are not subject to any agreements, or contracts or treaties their country signed with the US, because they chose to enter illegally.

Again wrong. As long as they are in our domain, legally or not, they've accepted that they are under our jurisdiction. If not, then WE could NEVER deport illegal aliens back to their homeland.

Can you show us YOUR written contract with the US? When did you sign that contract that you would agree to every law, or treatise?

Oops, your agreement is already given by simply LIVING in the US. And any crimes you do will be held to the laws of this nation.

If they are apprehend they are a criminal and shall be deported back to their country of origin.

But you just said that the are not subject to any agreements, contracts, treaties or jurisdiction. How can they be deported if they are not subject to our jurisdiction. That means they don't have to follow our laws, and OUR laws do not apply to them. that would mean illegal aliens can enter and leave the US freely, commit murder, destroy property, wage war, steal, rape, and do any type of crime without any repercussions.

Talk about you can't get your argument straight.

Illegals are not subject to US jurisdiction

Wrong. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that they are.

And once again, birthers use subject to jurisdiction wrongly.

As Senator Jacob Howard explained during the drafting of the 14th Amendment concerning the phrase "subject to jurisdiction" the main proposer of the Amendment:

[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

And it was also explained in Wong Kim Ark, those who are not subject to our jurisdiction (at the time of the ruling) were ambassadors, prisoners of war/soldiers of an invading army, and native indians.

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.


III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - 169 U.S. 649 (1898) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

in that they are still citizens and subjects of their originating country.

And they are residents of their host country.

As explained in Wong Kim Ark (using Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor - 28 U.S. 99 (1830) as support):

"The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens."

Explains in Inglis that children born of those of an invading army are NOT citizens but....

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

Thereby giving credence to the birth on soil to any resident alien and whose parents are under the protection of another government are owing temporary allegiance to the US are subjects (citizens) by birth.


Again, "subject to jurisdiction" in the 14th amendment was in REFERENCE to everyone born in the US except for "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States" and to "an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation"

They can still be punished for violating our laws, but they are still citizens of another country, and that country has jurisdiction over their person, not the US government.

Wrong. Any country's laws END at our borders. Only if we have an AGREEMENT in the form of a treaty does a country's law extend into our domain.

Again, you can't have it both ways. They are either subject to our jurisdiction (laws) or they are not.

Ambassadors are NOT subject to our laws. Persons of invading armies are NOT subject to our laws (they are actively fighting against them).

An illegal alien is NEITHER an ambassador or a person of an invading army, so OUR laws apply to them, in their ENTIRETY unless specifically excluded.

An illegal alien can be arrested for stealing
an illegal alien can be charged with murder.
an illegal alien can be ticketed for jaywalking, driving without a license/insurance, and even as simple as littering.

People who enter our country thru proper channels, and follow and obey our immigration laws, are entitled to protection that were agreed to by the US when we signed various treaties with their home country's government. Most all of those treaties afford a dual citizenship for the children born to legal immigrants.

Wrong. ALL persons on US Soil who is NOT an ambassador or a person of an invading army are entitled to OUR protections under US law, but the US, unless specifically excluded.

A person violating our immigration laws is a criminal, and gets no protections, they should just a boot in the rear that sends them back to their home country.

Wrong. ALL persons on US Soil who is NOT an ambassador or a person of an invading army are entitled to OUR protections under US law, but the US, unless specifically excluded.