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.
2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SOLVE THESE DOUBTS. Meaning, they didn't need to rule about children born in the United States without reference to the citizenship of their parents. It was irrelevant to the case.
Exactly. DOUBTS REMAIN as to whether those born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent are even citizens at all.
There is NO Constitutional Amendment or federal law that makes all of such citizens. As I previously posted...
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.
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.
Don't be stupid. The 19th Amendment gives the US no authority whatsoever to go to Thailand and enforce our tax laws. We can only do so, here, within our own jurisdiction to those citizens who are here, and submit themselves to that jurisdiction.
Ignoring that it's not obiter dictum at all (it is in fact one of the most commonly cited precedents in all of Supreme Court history) the US can tax anything it wants. It can enforce nothing unless and until the individual involved submits themselves within our borders to US jurisdiction.
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
2) Minor v. Happersett had to derive Minor's citizenship in order to examine the question presented to SCOTUS.
No. It didn't. Minor's citizenship ultimately proved irrelevant to the decision, since the court concluded that there was no right to vote, regardless of citizenship.
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
Exactly. DOUBTS REMAIN as to whether those born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent are even citizens at all.
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.
Don't be stupid. The 19th Amendment gives the US no authority whatsoever to go to Thailand and enforce our tax laws.
Of course not. It's a suffrage Amendment. You've already proven you're off the rails, HD. Go take a nap.
Quote:
the US can tax anything it wants. It can enforce nothing unless and until the individual involved submits themselves within our borders to US jurisdiction.
False. I already posted the Convention the U.S. has with Canada. A U.S. citizen living in Canada never has to set foot in the U.S. to have what the U.S. considers their tax liability confiscated from their Canadian bank account.
Exactly. DOUBTS REMAIN as to whether those born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent are even citizens at all.
There is NO Constitutional Amendment or federal law that makes all of such citizens. As I previously posted...
DOUBTS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN RESOLVED. Since you have NO legal rulings that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents, YOU have no legal argument.
And your ridiculous jurisdiction argument implies that British jurisdiction supercedes American jurisdiction for a person born on American soil. Guess what, American jurisdiction trumps any other country's when in America!
You can't get around that. So President Obama was born under American jurisdiction. President Obama was born an American citizen. If Great Britain wants to extend citizenship to a baby born in the United States, great, they can do that. But the American citizen born in the United States is under NO obligation to accept that citizenship. Because the American citizen is born under US jurisdiction, and the American citizen's only obligations are to the United States.
That was a typo. It was obviously intended to be the 16th, not the 19th.
Confirmation: HD admits the U.S. has WORLDWIDE JURISDICTION to tax U.S. citizens regardless of their physical location and regardless of income source.
Minor's citizenship ultimately proved irrelevant to the decision
Only because SCOTUS determined that the Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one.
The fact is that SCOTUS derived Minor's citizenship in order to proceed in the examination of the case. SCOTUS explicitly states so.
That said...
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.
Only for those whose parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S., among other conditions specifically named in the ruling by Gray.
Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. Wong Kim Ark does NOT apply to Obama. There are public records attesting to that fact.
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.
