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.
It says merely that under the circumstances of the specific case at hand, citizenship and right to return is not disputed. It says nothing about any other circumstance, and whether or not in those circumstances there might be a dispute.
Entirely false. Read the syllabus:
Quote:
[T]he District Attorney of the United States was permitted to intervene in behalf of the United States in opposition to the writ, and stated the grounds of his intervention in writing as follows: That, as he is informed and believes, the said person in whose behalf said application was made is not entitled to land in the United States, or to be or remain therein, as is alleged in said application, or otherwise.
Because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the State of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China.
All the permanent domicile means is that they lived in the United States, they weren't part of an occupying army, they weren't ambassadors living in an embassy that claimed foreign jurisdiction.
False. Read the syllabus:
Quote:
The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts agreed by the parties:
That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, and that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer.
That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid.
We know permanent domicile was an important factor as it was mentioned several times throughout the syllabus AND in Gray's own ruling. Decades later, in 1920, the Kwock Jan Fat decision ALSO referred to the permanent domicile factor ruled in Ark.
We KNOW at the time of Obama's birth, Obama's father was a non-citizen, a British, subject, and never had a permanent domicile in the U.S. He was only in the U.S. on a temporary student visa.
Nothing about this is hard to understand. Yet you still resolutely refuse to understand it anyway.
I'm going on documented fact. The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman stated the intent and meaning of the 'subject to the jurisdiction' requirement in the 14th Amendment in the Congressional Record. It is historical fact.
You're going on feeling
Quote:
For the fourth time... what do you think "domicile" means?
Don't you mean permanent domicile? That's the term used in Ark AND Kwock Jan Fat.
And you know what it means. It excludes those here on a temporary student visa, among others.
I am truly sorry that your feelings are hurt, but the facts simply DON'T support your "feelings." Learn to think critically instead of just feeling when dealing with facts, and you wouldn't be so confused.
"Permanent domicile" does not actually even mean permanent at all, but only (as case law has established again and again) indefinite. This is no better shown than in the Wong Kim Ark case where his parents are referred to as having "permanent domicile" in the United States... even though they had by the time of the case already moved back to China! In the case of Obama's father, you would be hard pressed to get any court to agree with you that he did not have permanent domicile, since all the way up to his repatriation to Kenya he was trying to stay in the US, and at the time of the President's birth his stay here was still indefinite.
False. His student visa had an expiration date.
Note the title of the form, APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF TEMPORARY STAY. And the following: Date on which authorized stay expires: August 9, 1961. Date to which extension is requested: August 9, 1962.
Start thinking, HD. Your logic is failing because you're relying on your emotional feelings and wishes. Feelings and wishes do not facts make.
We know permanent domicile was an important factor as it was mentioned several times throughout the syllabus AND in Gray's own ruling. Decades later, in 1920, the Kwock Jan Fat decision ALSO referred to the permanent domicile factor ruled in Ark.
We KNOW at the time of Obama's birth, Obama's father was a non-citizen, a British, subject, and never had a permanent domicile in the U.S. He was only in the U.S. on a temporary student visa.
You can spell out the losing side's argument in Wong all you want. They were the ones who LOST the lawsuit. Their arguments LOST. And when you use LOSING arguments to support your argument, your argument LOSES as well.
Which get EXTENDED all the time. Case in point: Barack Obama Sr, whose student visa was extended multiple times.
Never indefinitely. His student visas ALWAYS had an expiration date. He always had to apply for any extension he sought beyond the expiration date. And he returned to Kenya. Obama Sr was NEVER permanently domiciled in the U.S. He was always only in the U.S. on a temporary basis, as noted in the title of the extension request form itself: "TEMPORARY STAY".
You can spell out the losing side's argument in Wong all you want. They were the ones who LOST the lawsuit.
The question asked and answered. I'll refer you to Gray's Ark ruling:
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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Precedent set. Parents must be permanently domiciled in the U.S., AND carry on business in the U.S., AND are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power.
I have answered it. You just don't like the answer. The facts don't support your "feelings."
I'm still reading the thread, but as of this post, no. You continue to run from the question. You have yet to demonstrate a clue regarding the legal meaning of domicile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Obama Sr. was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. It is KNOWN that he was only in the U.S. on a temporary student visa. Look at the INS records.
A temporary student visa has exactly nothing to do with domicile.
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.
