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.
Already proven false by Obama's father's 1961 "APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF TEMPORARY STAY" filed while he was residing in Hawaii.
According to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark both a residence AND an established permanent domicile in the U.S. are necessary for an alien's child born in the U.S. to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.
What is an "established permanent domicile" in your opinion? How is it different from a residence?
A car won't run and move without an engine, which is a required component. The absence or presence of any of the other required components is irrelevant at the point of failure caused by the lack of an engine. Duh.
You might as well have said that a triangle cannot be parallelogram because a the sides of a triangle cannot be parallel. Something that is exactly true and exactly immaterial.
Your analogy fails because it doesn't apply to U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. And the reason why it doesn't apply is that you are forcing one of many circumstances of the plaintiff's birth and demanding that everyone else accede to this tortured reading of a final paragraph in a majority opinion, disregarding the bulk of the text.
Quote:
No. Gray, in the closing paragraph of the majority opinion, explicitly states that:
Wait, let's try this out without your random decoration, but with the actual sentence stripped down to its bones (you remember sentence diagramming, don't you?).
Quote:
"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."
Breaking it down to its simplest structure, Justice Gray is saying: The intension and effect were to present the question, that question being whether the circumstances of the plaintiff's birth allows that person to become a citizen at birth.
It's merely the summation of the original question, not a decision.
The body of Justice Gray's opinion contains the reason for the ruling. The last paragraph is merely contains a restatement of the question posed by both parties and the conclusion arrived at by the majority of the court.
If you disagree (and of course, you will) then I pose this further question: As the last paragraph is merely a conclusion to the opinion, where in the body of the opinion does Justice Gray hold that a person's parents must have established a "permanent domicil" in order to establish citizenship for that person?
My opinion doesn't matter. DoJ FACT is that Obama's father was resident in the U.S. on only a TEMPORARY basis:
Barack H Obamanever qualified for U.S. citizenship at birth because of his non-permanently domiciled alien father. That's a FACT.
Does it not occur to you that a foreign national who is legally in the United States on a temporary visa will also have a legal residence?
I mean, Barack Obama Senior wasn't homeless, he had a mailing address...1482 Alencastre Street, Honolulu, Hawaii...if I'm reading your offered-up form correctly.
And ones legal residence is the same as one's permanent domicile....or have you always lived in the same house, Informed Consent?
See, you're stretching definitions well beyond reason to cover your opinion, that's all.
My opinion doesn't matter. DoJ FACT is that Obama's father was resident in the U.S. on only a TEMPORARY basis:
Barack H Obamanever qualified for U.S. citizenship at birth because of his non-permanently domiciled alien father. That's a FACT.
You're off-topic. This thread is about anchor babies.
And since you've brought up "permanent domicile", and have argued that "residence" and "permanent domicile" are two different things, you should be prepared to defend that argument.
Again, how are you defining "permanent domicile" and how is it different from "residence"?
Does it not occur to you that a foreign national who is legally in the United States on a temporary visa will also have alegal residence in the U.S.?
Would such a person have a residence in the U.S.? Yes.
Would such a person have a permanent domicile in the U.S.? No. And that would be easily proven by the fact that said foreign national would NOT have a Lawful Permanent Resident (Green) Card (available late 1940's, early 1950's... to present day).
I mean, Barack Obama Senior wasn't homeless, he had a mailing address...
Yes, he had a residence. But he did NOT have a permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of his son's, Barack H Obama's, birth. We know that because of this document which is a matter of public record. Note the word TEMPORARY prominently displayed on the legal form AND the fact that he only possessed a Kenyan passport:
Last edited by InformedConsent; 08-20-2013 at 03:00 PM..
It's merely the summation of the original question, not a decision.
False.
Read the relevant portion of 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 anamed 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.
considering that our population would have stagnated at 1970 levels if we had not had illegal immigration and "anchor babies" and that the Ponzi scheme our selective socialism economy would have collapsed without continuous growth many consider any immigration to be a direct benefit to the people that own and control our economy.
IMHO - babies is babies and each has the potential to be a fine upstanding responsible citizen, and most do, I have no problem with them becoming citizens at birth. I also see your complaints as being based on the fact that most of these kids are not proper Master Race Aryans. Too bad they are just a good as any other kids.
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...
So you won't actually provide your special and unique definition of 'permanent domicile'?
Tell me, Informed Consent, did you ever change your place of residence during your lifetime? If you ever changed your domicile, then what was it that made the previous domicile 'permanent'? How does anyone know if your current domicile is 'permanent'?
It's like the 5 D's of dodgeball with you...
Dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge, Informed Consent....
Dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge...
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.
