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.
To wit, Obama's father's signed and submitted 1961 "APPLICATION TO EXTEND TEMPORARY STAY" listing his current permission to be in the U.S. set to expire on August 9, 1961:
"Temporary" does not equal "permanent."
Wow, you've really got me confused. 'Cause just a few posts ago, you said your definition was that the US government "permitted them to reside" here in the United States. That visa certainly seems to "permit them to reside" here in the United States, doesn't it? Just because there is a time limit on how long they can stay doesn't mean they aren't "permitted to reside" here. So, what you said a few posts ago was wrong? Are you TRYING to make it more confusing? Really, all you have to do is provide a LEGAL citation defining "permanent domicile". That will surely clear up the confusion.
I asked you earlier, what if the bank they want to impose costs and penalties on is the Ledbetter Bank in Thamesbury and that bank doesn't have any transactions or holdings in the United States. If they've got worldwide jurisdiction like you claim, they surely must be able to collect those costs and penalties, right? So how do they do that? Can you please answer? Pretty please?
Wow, you've really got me confused. 'Cause just a few posts ago, you said your definition was that the US government "permitted them to reside" here in the United States.
You conveniently forgot the qualification of "permanent."
Yes, aliens are permitted by the U.S. government to reside in the U.S., some on a temporary basis (as noted in Obama's father's legal form). Some on a permanent basis (such as was the status of Wong Kim Ark's parents, a fact agreed upon by all parties in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS case).
Three things to remember about the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case:
1) "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"
2) "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.
3) According to the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling, one's parents must have BOTH a residence ANDpermanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of one's birth in order to qualify one for birthright U.S. citizenship.
Residence alone doesn't cut it. Neither does a government authorization for a "Temporary Stay." Illegal alien status certainly doesn't cut it.
You conveniently forgot the qualification of "permanent."
How did I forget the qualification of "permanent"? I asked you for a legal definition of "permanent domicile". You referred me to Attus's explanation, which said that a person was "permitted to reside" here. The fact that YOU referred me to that definition implies that that was the definition you were using.
So, okay, it's not the definition you are using.
Can you refer us to the legal definition you ARE using? That would really help clear up everyone's confusion.
Still, if they can't collect the fines and penalties overseas, then they don't really have worldwide jurisdiction, do they?
I mean, I've asked you three times, now, and you've ignored the question.
If the IRS wants to impose costs and penalties on a foreign bank which doesn't have holdings or transactions on US soil, how do they do it? 'Cause if they had worldwide jurisdiction, they'd be able to.
Still, if they can't collect the fines and penalties overseas, then they don't really have worldwide jurisdiction, do they?
I mean, I've asked you three times, now, and you've ignored the question.
If the IRS wants to impose costs and penalties on a foreign bank which doesn't have holdings or transactions on US soil, how do they do it? 'Cause if they had worldwide jurisdiction, they'd be able to.
They can't so they are going after the banks themselves and threatening to exclude them from SWIFT transactions which is global banking. And the banks don't want that so they are shunning expats from opening accounts. Those that have expats only need to provide a list to the IRS.
How did I forget the qualification of "permanent"?
You're easily confused? You've already readily admitted several times in this thread to being "confused."
Anyway, you already got an explanation, here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You conveniently forgot the qualification of "permanent."
Yes, aliens are permitted by the U.S. government to reside in the U.S., some on a temporary basis (as noted in Obama's father's legal form). Some on a permanent basis (such as was the status of Wong Kim Ark's parents, a fact agreed upon by all parties in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS case).
Three things to remember about the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case:
1) "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"
2) "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.
3) According to the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling, one's parents must have BOTH a residence ANDpermanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of one's birth in order to qualify one for birthright U.S. citizenship.
Residence alone doesn't cut it. Neither does a government authorization for a "Temporary Stay." Illegal alien status certainly doesn't cut it.
Still, if they can't collect the fines and penalties overseas, then they don't really have worldwide jurisdiction, do they?
There would be no collection of penalties or fines without the existence of WORLDWIDE jurisdiction. The violations on which the penalties and fines are based were committed ABROAD.
Come on, DC, you're not that dumb.
Or, at least I used to believe you were smarter than that.
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.
