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.
PERMANENT domicile is not referred to in that case. Try again.
And yet, everything you say that is dependent on permanent domicile is referred to.
Why don't YOU find a LEGAL definition of permanent domicile? After all, it's YOUR opinion that is being challenged. Since you are the one with all the answers, why don't you defend them sometime, instead of always attacking everyone else?
No, it isn't. Cite where in that case PERMANENT domicile is referred to. It's not. Neither is it defined.
It's still your assertion on the meaning of Permanent Domicile that needs to be defended. Why do you expect everyone else to do your work for you? You tried to tell us what it means. Now defend your definition.
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; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him
right from Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court explained it that since Wong Kim Ark's parents were NOT in the employ of the Emperor of China, nor here under any official capacity for the Emperor, they were permanently domiciled. They even ACCOUNTED for the fact that his parents LEFT the US in 1890
During Obama Sr time here, he held a job, went to school and lived like any resident alien on a student visa. He was permanently domicled in the the US until he was asked to leave (since his visa wasn't renewed)
I have several co-workers who are here on work visas. They brought their wives, and had children here. Their children are US Citizens from birth, and if they decide, can run for the POTUS.
If the work visa is rescinded or my company refuses to renew, my co-workers will have to return to their home country, with children and family . Their children however, can come back to the US at any time, live here the minimum 14 years, meet the lowest age required (35) and run for the POTUS.
birthers, continue to be butt hurt over the fact that a man with a foreign sounding name is the POTUS.
short answer: A domicile is the "home". Where you return to and is recognized as your place of living.
Barack Obama Sr, had a permanent domicile while attending UH for his studies, and the fact that he married an AMERICAN woman showed his commitment to remain the US. That's all that matters. His intention to leave whether voluntarily or not has nothing to do with permanent domicile.
Same with Wong Kim Ark. They stayed in the US until 1890, the chose to leave in 1890. They were permanently domiciled in the US until 1890
Duck and dodge, Informed Consent, duck and dodge....
You still won't explain why only one of the six observations made in the U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark decision applies and not why the others are of no consideration. You've simply started name-calling.
And you totally ran away from the Ted Cruz question.
Actually you should know better. You have been at this long enough to know the benfits are not the 'parents' but are for the American child.
Depending on the state, benefits are given to illegal aliens, but welfare benefits are for the child.
Oh, so now you are splitting hairs? The point is that because they gave birth on our soil the taxpayer is paying for their kid's upkeep. If the parents hadn't come here illegally then it wouldn't even be an issue. The kid isn't cashing the check the parents are.
This has been going on as long as Illegal Immigrants have been coming to America, not a news flash and nothing is going to be done by anyone to try to stop it.
Not sure if you are salivating over this or not but I wouldn't bet on it if I were you. At some point birthright citizenship will be changed. The sooner the better before our country goes totally bankrupt supporting anchors. It makes a mockery out of our citizenship to bestow it on kids born from parents here illegally.
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.