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's not a matter of "if" InformedConsent is correct.
Says the guy whose side has lose in court over 200 times, to the guy whose side has won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
One of the major factors in the SCOTUS decision for Wong, was that besides being born in the US, Wong had lived most of his life in the US and his parents had been permanently domiciled and in business in the US for a considerable and substantial number of years.
The actual discussion of domicile in this case is clear that permanent domicile is never an issue. Gray repeatedly points out that simple domicile is enough to establish full and exclusive jurisdiction.
Quote:
In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866
Not permanent domicile, merely domicile.
Quote:
The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens.
Not permanent domicile, merely domicile.
Quote:
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate.
Not only is mere domicile enough, but it comes into effect directly and immediately. Not after some arbitrary amount of time.
Quote:
It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.
You can't get more explicit than that an alien visitor's complete subjection to the jurisdiction of the US comes "independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation."
Nothing in Wong Kim Ark supports IC's (and now your) idiotic assertion that permanent domicile is necessary to bestow birthright citizenship.
You fail. At least you do not fail alone. IC is right there with you.
This does not even need us to consider that "permanent domicile" doesn't mean permanent at all. By the time of this court case, Wong's parents had already left the US and returned to China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Obviously the Wong court considered Wong's parents as "subject to the jurisdiction", BECAUSE of their lengthy permanent domicile and carrying out of business within the US.
Wrong again. They considered them "subject to the jurisdiction" because they were not foreign diplomats or alien invaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Bottom line is, that it is the status of the PARENTS which is of primary importance in determining the ordinary US birth-right citizenship (aka "the child of an alien, if born in the country") or the US natural born birthright citizenship (aka " the natural born child of a citizen).
Wrong again. As Horace Binney explained, parents have nothing to do with it, as citizenship never descends in the legal sense.
It is breathtaking that even after all this time, neither you nor IC show any sign of having actually read Justice Gray's decision in the single most important case that bears on this entire issue.
The depth of your ignorance is only exceeded by its persistence.
Says the guy whose side has lose in court over 200 times, to the guy whose side has won.
Says the guy who lied when he said that Lord Coke in his report of Calvin's case, was not speaking of PARENTS ligeance and obedience, and when this guy was repeatedly shown to be WRONG on umpteen occasions, he went into his usual state of deep denial of the facts and truth and continued to deceive.
The matter of eligibility for the office of POTUS has never been before the court, so there have been no losses in court at all.
Here, you need to brush-up, then you might realize how useless is your childish use of fallacy.
Quote:
Description of Appeal to Common Practice
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:
X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.
The actual discussion of domicile in this case is clear that permanent domicile is never an issue. Gray repeatedly points out that simple domicile is enough to establish full and exclusive jurisdiction.
Where does Gray point this out?
Getting back to the matter at hand.....
The fact remains that in Wong's case, it was at the time, the permanent domicile of his PARENTS as well as Wong's which were considered in the DECISION as important factors in determining Wong's citizenship by native-birth.
Gray considered the "stable" aka "permanent" domicile and business activity status of Wong's PARENTS as IMPORTANT in deciding Wong's citizenship.
"In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866"
The child native-born to the DOMICILED alien Scots, was apparently ALSO assessed and found to be "not subject to any foreign power" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Therefore it was NOT merely being native-born which was the deciding factor, but it was IMPORTANT also whether or not the child was subject to any foreign power, and the ONLY WAY THAT COULD BE A FACTOR FOR A NATIVE-BORN, would be via the CHILD'S ALIEN PARENTS.
Bottom line is, that it is the status of the PARENTS which is of primary importance in determining the ordinary US birth-right citizenship (aka "the child of an alien, if born in the country") or the US natural born birthright citizenship (aka " the natural born child of a citizen).
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Wrong again. As Horace Binney explained, parents have nothing to do with it, as citizenship never descends in the legal sense.
I have already proven the case as regards the TWO TYPES of born citizens as recognized in the DECISION of the SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark case, where Binney spoke of children of PARENTS of different citizenship statuses, i.e. the alien PARENT and the citizen PARENT, and how the words "natural born" were TIED to the CITIZEN PARENTS and NOT the place.
1. "the child of an alien, if born in the country"
2. "the natural born child of a citizen"
Therefore in the Wong DECISION, "natural born" was tied to PARENTS and NOT to place and Wong was ruled in the SCOTUS DECISION, a "citizen" but NOT a natural born citizen, because Wong was "NOT born under the ligeance" of US citizen parents, Wong was "the child of an alien, if born the country", but NOT "the natural born child of a citizen".
Keep squirming Frank, but you STILL haven't been able to prove that the PARENTS were/are of no concern in determining the allegiance of their children.
Says the guy who lied when he said that Lord Coke in his report of Calvin's case, was not speaking of PARENTS ligeance and obedience, and when this guy was repeatedly shown to be WRONG on umpteen occasions, he went into his usual state of deep denial of the facts and truth and continued to deceive.
He wasn't. Since ligeance is a binary reciprocal obligation, no third person's ligeances are relevant. Your claim otherwise is delusional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
The matter of eligibility for the office of POTUS has never been before the court, so there have been no losses in court at all.
The matter of eligibility for the office of the President has been before the court 207 times. Six are still pending, but all 201 decisions have been birther losses. More than 90 of these have been appealed. Birthers have lost all 90. 25 times the issue has gone to the Supreme Court for conference. 25 times the birthers have lost. That's a score of at least 296 to zero. This is not an appeal to popularity nor an appeal to authority. It is legal reality.
Again... your delusion serves you poorly in the face of your spectacular fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Where does Gray point this out?
I provided four examples in my previous post. I will repeat only one of them.
Quote:
It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.
Did you get that?
"(A)n alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides... independently of any domiciliation."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
The fact remains that in Wong's case, it was at the time, the permanent domicile of his PARENTS as well as Wong's which were considered in the DECISION as important factors in determining Wong's citizenship by native-birth.
Gong. It is always interesting to see how shared bigotry can generate the same comprehension deficits in two people on opposite sides of the globe (you and IC). The facts of the case include a number of different details... some of which bore on the decision and some of which did not. If your and IC's argument is correct then the fact that his parents were Chinese as opposed to, say, Italian must also have been considered "as important factors in determining Wong's citizenship by native-birth."
But of course, that would be stupid.
Justice Gray is explicit that the allegiance of an alien on US Soil is "direct and immediate," not something that requires any arbitrary period of time to kick in, and that it is independent of domicile or the intention to stay.
And again, the adjective "permanent" in this case does not conform to the useless definition you quoted. By the time Wong's case came before the Supreme Court, his parents had already been back in China for more than seven years. So whatever their "permanent domicile" may or may not have been, it was not "permanent" in the sense of your definition. The legal meaning of domicile alone continues to completely escape both you and IC. This is only compounded by your flaccid equivocation regarding the adjective.
So further, and ignoring completely that permanent domicile of parents is completely irrelevant to birthright citizenship, there is not a court in the country that would rule Obama's father did not have permanent domicile here when his son was born.
You fail fractally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Gray considered the "stable" aka "permanent" domicile and business activity status of Wong's PARENTS as IMPORTANT in deciding Wong's citizenship.
He never says that anywhere in the decision... never even hints at it. In fact even the word "stable" is found nowhere in the decision... so one can only wonder again at the dishonesty that inspired you to put it in quotation marks.
Outside of stating the facts of the case, Gray never once qualifies permanent domicile as relevant to his decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
The child native-born to the DOMICILED alien Scots, was apparently ALSO assessed and found to be "not subject to any foreign power" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Domiciled. Not permanently domiciled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
I have already proven the case as regards the TWO TYPES of born citizens as recognized in the DECISION of the SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark case, where Binney spoke of children of PARENTS of different citizenship statuses, i.e. the alien PARENT and the citizen PARENT, and how the words "natural born" were TIED to the CITIZEN PARENTS and NOT the place.
This is a lie so stupid that it is astounding you insist on repeating it.
Originally Posted by MichaelNo[IMG]file:///C:\Users\Michael1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\ 01\clip_image001.gif[/IMG] "Says the guy who lied when he said that Lord Coke in his report of Calvin's case, was not speaking of PARENTS ligeance and obedience, and when this guy was repeatedly shown to be WRONG on umpteen occasions, he went into his usual state of deep denial of the facts and truth and continued to deceive."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ”Frank”
He wasn't. Since ligeance is a binary reciprocal obligation, no third person's ligeances are relevant. Your claim otherwise is delusional.
Frank, you really need do something about facing the truth, as I have already demolished your absurd argument along these lines, on numerous occasions, earlier in this thread.
Lord Coke speaks of the ligeance or obedience of the alien PARENT.....
Quote:
Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144.
Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long ashe was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject:
As anyone reading this thread can see, YOU have been shown to be WRONG Frank........ smacked down by the truth again.
So in the instance of recognizing a natural born subject, it was the ligeance and obedience of the PARENT which was THE DECIDING FACTOR.
Similarly, in the instance of recognizing native-born children as alien-born, it was the status of the PARENTS, as not being subjects (i.e. without local ligeance ans obedience) which was THE DECIDING FACTOR.
Lord Coke emphasizes that native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born subject, and that to be a natural born subject, a native-born child must be "born under the ligeance of a subject", i.e. the status of the PARENTS was THE DECIDING FACTOR.
Quote:
And it is to be observed, that it isnec coelum, nec solum,neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King
Then we have this jibberish from you Frank, which contradicts your prior load of garbage.
In one instance you, in your usual bigoted manner, attempt to deny the truth i.e. absurdly proposing that the allegiance of the parent doesn't matter, but then you say that the allegiance of the alien DOES MATTER!.................. you are all over the place Frank, pull yourself together............. but it seems that's what happens when one gets into practicing deception.............. it gets all tangled and one trips themselves up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ”Frank”
Justice Gray is explicit that the allegiance of an alien on US Soil is "direct and immediate," not something that requires any arbitrary period of time to kick in, and that it is independent of domicile or the intention to stay.
Frank, do you sometimes hear strange voices!
Last edited by MichaelNo; 04-07-2013 at 04:46 PM..
[/b] I have already proven the case as regards the TWO TYPES of born citizens as recognized in the DECISION of the SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark case, where Binney spoke of children of PARENTS of different citizenship statuses, i.e. the alien PARENT and the citizen PARENT, and how the words "natural born" were TIED to the CITIZEN PARENTS and NOT the place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank
This is a lie so stupid that it is astounding you insist on repeating it.
Binney says the exact opposite of what you claim.
Frank, your saying a thing is a lie or stupid, will get you nowhere.
We all know that when you have no sound or reasonable argument, you in your usual bigoted style, go all silly and accuse people of lying.
Here is what Binney said, which was cited favorably, without opposition in the DECISION of the Wong Kim Ark case.
Quote:
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute.
The child ofan alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child ofa citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
TWO children.
One child is described as "the child of an alien, if born in the country"
One child is described as "the natural born child of a citizen"
BOTH children are US citizens by birth.
One is a US citizen, under the 14th Amendment, by "birth in he country"
One is a US citizen, by "by statute" if born off shore, or by 14th Amendment, if born native.
TWO types of PARENTS, one for each child.
One PARENT is alien, with local allegiance.
One PARENT is US citizen with full allegiance.
BECAUSE of the full allegiance of the US citizen PARENT, the child of said US citizen PARENT is described as "natural born"
Ergo: The DECISION of the Wong Kim Ark case held that "natural born" was tied to US citizen PARENTS and Wong was ruled to be a "citizen" and NOT natural born, because Wong was "the child of an alien, if born in the country".
It's really simple stuff, Frank, and only your long time bigoted commitment to your lies and how you wish things were, that prevents you from coming clean and acknowledging the truth that has smacked you down so many times already.
It has ALWAYS been about the the allegiance of the PARENTS when deciding the citizenship of their children.
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
ankeny v daniels
Amateur embroidery.
The blurring of distinctions by poorly knit connections.
Frank, you really need do something about facing the truth, as I have already demolished your absurd argument along these lines, on numerous occasions, earlier in this thread.
And yet... we win all the court cases, and Obama has been inaugurated president twice.
Your detachment with reality is profound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Lord Coke speaks of the ligeance or obedience of the alien PARENT.....
Lord Coke never once even mentions ligeance of a parent.
I cannot account for the demons that haunt you, for whatever has broken deeply within your soul that might explain your spectacular commitment to objective error. But you have proven to be fractally wrong. You are equally and spectacularly wrong at every level of resolution, at every level of analysis, in every signification detail. Your insistence at trying to fight what is real and true can only bespeak of something organically wrong with you.
One child is described as "the child of an alien, if born in the country"
One child is described as "the natural born child of a citizen"
BOTH children are US citizens by birth.
And as Binney asserts, their citizenship is identical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
One is a US citizen, under the 14th Amendment, by "birth in he country"
Binney never says that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
One is a US citizen, by "by statute" if born off shore, or by 14th Amendment, if born native.
Binney never says that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
TWO types of PARENTS, one for each child.
And both children with identical citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
One PARENT is alien, with local allegiance.
Binney never says that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
One PARENT is US citizen with full allegiance.
Binney never mentions that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
BECAUSE of the full allegiance of the US citizen PARENT, the child of said US citizen PARENT is described as "natural born"
Wrong. Binney says nothing about natural born have anything to do with any qualification of allegiance in that quotation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Ergo: The DECISION of the Wong Kim Ark case held that "natural born" was tied to US citizen PARENTS and Wong was ruled to be a "citizen" and NOT natural born, because Wong was "the child of an alien, if born in the country".
This is a lie. Nothing vaguely similar to those statements can be found anywhere in Justice Gray's decision.
You are hallucinating. It is not good. Seek help.
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.
