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.
Certainly, although visa overstays are merely considered "out-of-status" and are not illegal in the same sense as those that enter without inspection...
Speaking of the military, there's even "Parole in Place", where an Active Duty servicemember can have their illegal alien spouse process within the United States, no matter how they entered. Also the "Matter of Quinlantan", to show that an illegal alien (married to a U.S. citizen) was "admitted", even fraudulently. Which contrasts to what the IIRRA lays out.
If you had bothered to read the case, you would have learned that the fact that Wong Kim Ark's parents had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of WKA's birth was a FACT AGREED UPON by all parties in the caseAND a fact on which the SCOTUS ruling was based.
See, that last part...that's what I asked you to point out in the body of the majority opinion in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark.
In the body of the opinion, whenever Justice Gray used the concept of 'permanent domicil' it was to support the concept that the parents were under the legal jurisdiction of the United States at the time of Wong Kim Ark's birth - a necessary point to support the concept of jus soli.
I did read the opinion...you obviously haven't.
Quote:
Because the LPR Card exists now for the specific purpose of IDENTIFYING those who have permanent domicile status in the U.S. Duh.
But it was obvious to identify those who had permanent domicile prior to the LPR Card's implementation, yet you insist that it's now required for permanent domicile status?
Right.....
Duck and dodge, Informed Consent, duck and dodge....
See, that last part...that's what I asked you to point out in the body of the majority opinion in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark.
It actually appears three times throughout the majority opinion:
"The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco"
"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution"
"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."
There is no wiggling out of that. Gray explicitly states that "the question presented by the record" and "the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties"includes the condition that alien parents have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of their child(ren)'s U.S. birth in order for their child(ren) to acquire birthright citizenship.
See, that last part...that's what I asked you to point out in the body of the majority opinion in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark.
In the body of the opinion, whenever Justice Gray used the concept of 'permanent domicil' it was to support the concept that the parents were under the legal jurisdiction of the United States at the time of Wong Kim Ark's birth - a necessary point to support the concept of jus soli.
I did read the opinion...you obviously haven't.
But it was obvious to identify those who had permanent domicile prior to the LPR Card's implementation, yet you insist that it's now required for permanent domicile status?
Right.....
Duck and dodge, Informed Consent, duck and dodge....
In order to be considered “natural born”, the person must be born on American soil and to 2 American citizens. This term “natural born citizen’ is extremely important qualification, as it demonstrates complete allegiance. one born with a parent of another country will have a tainted birth.
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself.
Speaking of the military, there's even "Parole in Place", where an Active Duty servicemember can have their illegal alien spouse process within the United States, no matter how they entered. Also the "Matter of Quinlantan", to show that an illegal alien (married to a U.S. citizen) was "admitted", even fraudulently. Which contrasts to what the IIRRA lays out.
Quilantan wasn't admitted fraudulently, she presented herself for inspection, she merely wasnt asked about her citizenship or any other questions. Basically she made no false claims, was asked no questions, and was allowed to enter by the BP. She made a lawful entry due to a mistake made by the BP, not her.
It doesn't contrast at all with IIRRA or Selective Service requirements, since women aren't required to register. Your deviating from the original discussion.
In order to be considered “natural born”, the person must be born on American soil and to 2 American citizens. This term “natural born citizen’ is extremely important qualification, as it demonstrates complete allegiance. one born with a parent of another country will have a tainted birth.
Exactly.
A person born in the U.S. with birthright foreign citizenship (jus sanguinis) would have conflicting allegiance(s), which is exactly what the Founders intended to prevent by requiring 'natural born citizen' status for POTUS eligibility in the Constitution.
Quilantan wasn't admitted fraudulently, she presented herself for inspection, she merely wasnt asked about her citizenship or any other questions. Basically she made no false claims, was asked no questions, and was allowed to enter by the BP. She made a lawful entry due to a mistake made by the BP, not her...
Realizing that she was admitted with a Border Crossing Card that wasn't hers. But you're right, the burden of proof is on the customs official (CBP, not BP) to which they present themselves for inspection. I'm not bringing this up for anything around the Selective Service registration, but rather there are many means (primarily tied to marriage to a U.S. citizen, currently or in the past) to be able to get into legal residency after illegal presence (currently foreign national spouses of U.S. citizen that are a citizen of a Visa Waiver Program country can fraudulently enter the United States under VWP, and adjust status).
I'm aware of another case that is going to try the Matter of Quinlantan defense. He was a legal resident from Germany back in the 80's, and brought his Mexican family across a deserted Port of Entry on the Southwestern border one night. The single CBP inspector was more interested in his critique of a popular book he had in the car than inspecting his passengers. They chatted cordially for several minutes.
The truly interesting thing is the man naturalized without issue in the United States, and became a law enforcement officer...
A person born in the U.S. with birthright foreign citizenship (jus sanguinis) would have conflicting allegiance(s), which is exactly what the Founders intended to prevent by requiring 'natural born citizen' status for POTUS eligibility in the Constitution.
Not that there hasn't been any former Presidents with foreign-born (and unnaturalized at the time of their birth) parent(s)...
In order to be considered “natural born”, the person must be born on American soil and to 2 American citizens. This term “natural born citizen’ is extremely important qualification, as it demonstrates complete allegiance. one born with a parent of another country will have a tainted birth.
Exactly.
A person born in the U.S. with birthright foreign citizenship (jus sanguinis) would have conflicting allegiance(s), which is exactly what the Founders intended to prevent by requiring 'natural born citizen' status for POTUS eligibility in the Constitution.
On that note... I'll reiterate the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
USCIScurrently clarifies the following federal statute...
Quote:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That hereafter a woman, being a native-born citizen. who is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated or who has resided continuously in the United States since the date of such marriage, shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922.
...by currently stating the restored U.S. citizenship of such persons as thus:
Quote:
The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.
Native-born citizen is currently broken down into two different sub-classifications by USCIS (Citizenship and Immigration): native-born citizen OR natural-born citizen.
Bears repeating... Not all native-born citizens are natural-born citizens. Current fact.
Not that there hasn't been any former Presidents with foreign-born (and unnaturalized at the time of their birth) parent(s)...
Name them.
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.
