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.
They are taxed BECAUSE they are citizens. Even if they've never set foot in the U.S. since the year of their birth. Even if the income source is foreign. And even though it has nothing to do with the U.S.
Why? Tax LAW and the U.S.'s WORLDWIDE jurisdiction. Hell, the IRS even states specifically that, "the IRS Office of Assistant Commissioner (International) has primary jurisdiction for overseas taxpayers." http://www.treasury.gov/press-center...nts/tax598.pdf
Just like countries have WORLDWIDE jurisdiction with their automatic jus sanguinis nationality LAWS (e.g., the U.K.).
I honestly wish many of you people would get half a clue so you would stop spewing deluded nonsense.
What makes in $deity sake, does IC think that those without citizenship do not pay taxes?
They as hell pay income tax. I work with several foreign born co-workers, who are NOT US Citizens who have:
Social Security Numbers
Employee Identification Numbers
Submit and Pay taxes.
Have taxes taken from their paycheck.
IF YOU work or earn a living in America, you have to pay taxes
Good grief, man. Learn to read.
I'm specifically discussing the tax liabilities of those NOT living in the U.S.
Here Justice Gray is only stating the facts of the case
WRONG.
How can we be sure that's WRONG?
Justice Gray SPECIFICALLY STATES, "the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties"
Parents permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of their child's birth in the U.S. was indeed a fact agreed by the parties. Justice Gray was very clear about that, and he was very clear that the case was decided UPON the facts agreed by the parties.
Justice Gray SPECIFICALLY STATES, "the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties"
Parents permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of their child's birth in the U.S. was indeed a fact agreed by the parties. Justice Gray was very clear about that, and he was very clear that the case was decided UPON the facts agreed by the parties.
Informed Consent, go look at Attus Black's comments in post #248. He's at least quoting from the opinion where precedence is cited. That's what I'm talking about when I ask you to reference Justice Grays' arguments...do you see the difference from what you've been posting?
Oh, and go look at Arus's comments in post #250, where he points out Attus Black's uses the quote out of context by truncating the sentence.
Is there any glimmer of understanding in your eyes?
He was speaking specifically to CHINESE PERSONS. Or are you forgetting that we had the Chinese Exclusion Act in place at the time of Wong Kim Ark? why are you ignoring the rest of the quote:
Gray was talking about the Treaty that WKAs parents came over under and the establishment of a domicile and residence, that is why he listed the many cases of other Chinese.
Quote:
He wasn't speaking to those who weren't allowed to be here, he was comparing Chinese Persons to all Aliens in the US.
Illegal alien wasnt a concept during the time, you are attempting to use a definition from the present to justify a case from the past. Your definition is useless. "Aliens" are always defined in every case to their actual status, from your own link: There are different categories of aliens....In the past the government used the terms "resident alien" and "non-resident alien,"
Gray was speaking to the fact that many Chinese came over under a treaty and established domicile and residence.
Quote:
why do you ignore this part of Wong Kim Ark; it makes no mention of permanent domicile, or residency as a requirement to be a citizen at birth:
Ive not ignored it, but I hope you realize that during the time after the US Constitution, only "whites" were allowed to be born citizens provided the parents establish a domicile and residence. There were requirements of a length of time (to establish a domicile and residence) or a declaration of intent (filing documents in the local courthouse, which still required the length of time to establish) by the father. Why do you think they needed the 14th Amendment? If you are going to exclaim your quote does it all, then the 14th is irrelevant.
Last edited by Attus Black; 08-22-2013 at 07:48 AM..
Informed Consent, go look at Attus Black's comments in post #248. He's at least quoting from the opinion where precedence is cited. That's what I'm talking about when I ask you to reference Justice Grays' arguments...do you see the difference from what you've been posting?
Oh, and go look at Arus's comments in post #250, where he points out Attus Black's uses the quote out of context by truncating the sentence.
Is there any glimmer of understanding in your eyes?
Except the quote I used wasnt truncated. It was an entire paragraph in which Gray precedes the cases he cited. Gray points to all the cases in which an establishment of domicile and residence was used. Arus, to this point, has failed in every attempt to claim my comments are incorrect. To this point, Arus doesn't appear to be the shinning beacon of light to look to or refer to for an opinion to back yourself up with.
Last edited by Attus Black; 08-22-2013 at 07:50 AM..
Informed Consent, go look at Attus Black's comments in post #248. He's at least quoting from the opinion where precedence is cited. That's what I'm talking about when I ask you to reference Justice Grays' arguments...do you see the difference from what you've been posting?
Sure, and I read that Gray stated this, as well:
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Quote:
...Is there any glimmer of understanding in your eyes?
You can opine and throw as many temper tantrums as you like. Where Gray's obiter dicta loses any supposed "everyone born in the U.S. is a born citizen" assertion is when he misrepresents actual history in this passage:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
Even a very brief examination of actual history reveals the truth that "the same rule" was NOT in force in the United States afterwards [after the Declaration of Independence].
Four examples just off the top of my head (there are quite likely many more)...
Federal nationality law which states that one must NOT be "subject to any foreign power" in order to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth: Civil Rights Acts of 1866
Furthermore, we KNOW the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision was decided upon the facts agreed upon by the parties (specifically including parents who had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of their child's U.S. birth) because Gray SPECIFICALLY states so:
"the decision of the court UPON the facts agreed by the parties"
You, or anyone else, simply CANNOT wiggle out of that, djmilf.
Ive not ignored it, but I hope you realize that during the time after the US Constitution, only "whites" were allowed to be born citizens provided the parents establish a domicile and residence. There were requirements of a length of time (to establish a domicile and residence) or a declaration of intent (filing documents in the local courthouse, which still required the length of time to establish) by the father.
They are taxed BECAUSE they are citizens. Even if they've never set foot in the U.S. since the year of their birth. Even if the income source is foreign. And even though it has nothing to do with the U.S.
Why? Tax LAW and the U.S.'s WORLDWIDE jurisdiction. Hell, the IRS even states specifically that, "the IRS Office of Assistant Commissioner (International) has primary jurisdiction for overseas taxpayers." http://www.treasury.gov/press-center...nts/tax598.pdf
Just like countries have WORLDWIDE jurisdiction with their automatic jus sanguinis nationality LAWS (e.g., the U.K.).
I honestly wish many of you people would get half a clue so you would stop spewing deluded nonsense.
When the IRS agents roll up to someone's house in Munich, then you can tell us about the IRS having jurisdiction. In the meantime, an assertion that US citizens have an obligation to pay taxes, regardless of where they live, is not about jurisdiction, it's about the obligations that citizenship imposes.
No country has WORLDWIDE jurisdiction. Even the UN doesn't have WORLDWIDE jurisdiction.
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.
