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.
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.
The IRS cannot collect the money when it's not in the US.
That is the point.
They can pile on the fees, fines and penalties and do nothing more.
You're easily confused? You've already readily admitted several times in this thread to being "confused."
Anyway, you already got an explanation, here:
Yes, the way you switch positions all the time is confusing.
I didn't ask for an explanation of your reasoning. I asked for a legal definition of "permanent domicile". Your explanations keep on changing, so an actual citation to a legal source would be great. Thanks in advance!
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.
And yet, they cannot collect except when in the United States. Doesn't sound like worldwide jurisdiction to me.
They can't so they are going after the banks themselves
Exactly. The U.S. is penalizing FFIs and NFFEs, not just individuals.
Why? Because the U.S. has WORLDWIDE jurisdiction over the federal taxable events of U.S. citizens wherever in the world they reside. Presence in the U.S. not necessary.
Again, the CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT, prevented many Chinese immigrants from even entering the US, and disallowed ALL of them from becoming citizens.
YOUR QUOTE, directly refers to CHINESE PERSONS being treated the same as all OTHER ALIENS.
That includes ALIENS who WERE NOT in the US with permission.
You would have to purposefully obtuse to think that there weren't any immigrants here illegally at the time of Wong Kim Ark.
The Chinese Exclusion Act isn't pertinent to the Burlingame Treaty that Gray was talking specifically about from 1868, that allowed Chinese Citizens to move to the US and establish a domicile and residence here, but it would not allow them to naturalize. Your incorporation of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) is when Wong attempted to return to the US after his second trip (1894) to China and has absolutely nothing to do with my previous quoting of Gray. You are jumping around so much you aren't even discussing what was discussed.
Quote:
can you provide proof that EVERY SINGLE ALIEN in the US in 1890 was HERE legally?
Would it matter? Back then immigrants entered through ports of entry so there are records of it, to include ship manifests. There are also records of filings at courthouses claiming the intent of the immigrant. Again, you know very little history and you are arguing based on your handicap.
Quote:
I'm sure you have the paperwork of every Canadian and Mexican who came across the border and showed that they had permission in the form of a VISA or PASSPORT.
Why would I have paperwork for them? I dont need their paperwork, I only need mine if I were to cross.
Quote:
you would have to be purposefully obtuse to believe that the US Supreme Court did not realize that there were Aliens in the US who were here with permission.
So you have an inability to discuss anything, why would I be purposefully obtuse to believe that the US Supreme Court did not realize that there were Aliens in the US who were here with permission.It is exactly what Gray states.
Quote:
Again, Gray (and I don't know why you keep on saying "Gray's Opinion" when the damn thing was approved and written by 4 other Justices) was speaking to the ISSUE of CHINESE PERSONS, because CHINESE PERSONS NEEDED PERMISSION TO BE in the US, from THEIR home country.
Becuase Gray wrote the opinion, duh.
Quote:
And domicile in legal terms is the PLACE To live. Residency is to establish that YOU are living there.
Domicile means more then simply a place to live. Residency is established by the government recognizing your domicile or by declaring with intent (i.e. filing documentation with the local magistrate).
Quote:
Wrong. Again, you seem to not be able to understand the basic English as presented in this portion of the Wong Kim Ark decision:
THERE is no requirement of permanent domicile. There is NO REQUIREMENT of residency.
There had always been a requirement for domicile and residency, unless the alien was in amity (i.e. an alien from a friendly nation prior to the US Articles of Confederation). You need to understand basic history before you can exclaim someone being obtuse or not understanding basic English.
Quote:
I've bolded the part you keep on ignoring.
Ive already addressed that portion of Grays opinion. Prior to the ratification of the 14th, only "white" persons could be born citizens and or naturalize. Do you understand why Congress had to pass the Naturalization Act of 1870? If, by your continued quoting of Gray placing into perspective a requirement of English natural-born-subjects, the Acts of 1866 and 1870 to include the 14th would have never been needed.
Quote:
in an opinion delivered by Justice Van Syckel with the concurrence of Chief Justice Beasley, said: The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race. The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized or in any way have become entitled to the right of citizenship.
Do you now understand my point? Your quote of Gray is irrelevant, as it pertained to the "white" race only. If your quot meant what you exclaim, then the Act of 1866 the 14th Amendment and the Act of 1870 would have never been needed.
Quote:
Please show us where in this entire quote is the requirement for domicile and residency. All it says that anyone BORN IN England, and that the SAME RULE is in effect in the United States.
Please show in your quote where every child born in the US from the time of the Articles of Confederation up to the ratification of the 14th Amendment made every child, no matter race, a US citizen.
Quote:
Once again, it applies to the child, NOT the parents. YOUR parents can be from MARS, for all the United States cares, their child if born on US Soil is a citizen at birth.
The birth of the child is relied upon the domicile and residence of the parents. The parents had to establish a domicile and residence in the US (during this time that meant to have the govt recognize your changing of a nation, this is why Gray brings up the Burlingame Treaty from 1868). It allowed the Chinese to enter the US and become resident and establish a domicile, but would not allow them to naturalize.
Quote:
Please provide these "requirements". What law required at the time required this?
Lok to the State Constitutions, New York as informed consent makes light of. Transient aliens were denied status, along with their children born.
Quote:
"The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1779 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:
[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens."
"Other States, like Kentucky, made the condition of citizenship dependent on either parent: “…every child, wherever born, whose father or mother was or shall be a citizen of Kentucky at the birth of such child, shall be deemed citizens of that State.”"States adopted laws that excluded either “transient aliens” or those not resident of the State. New York by 1857 had already a code that read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.” This code overturned the court ruling in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) where the court was forced to consider the English common law rule in regards to children born of aliens because New York had no laws on the subject.
After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted identical language as New York. States could enact such laws because “transient aliens” could not be considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Now, citizens of the United States who were born in any State would be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States (Hint: newly freed slaves who were now citizens themselves).
The State of Connecticut adopted a law that read, “All persons born in this State … except aliens, paupers, and fugitives from justice or service, are and shall be deemed to be citizens of this State, owing it allegiance and entitled to receive its protection, until they shall have voluntarily withdrawn from its limits and become incorporated into some other State or sovereignty as members thereof.”
Quote:
The quote is RELEVANT because the US in Wong Kim Ark was trying to say that because WONG was CHINESE, and that we had the CHINESE EXCLUSION act in place, that he wasn't a citizen of the US.
The Chinese Exclusion Act only came into play upon Wongs second return when he attempted to enter the US.
Quote:
It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.
This is where Gray then goes into explaining that WKA's parents came here and established a permanent domicile and residence, and that they came under the Treaties as laid out by China and the US (1868)
Quote:
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,
until you can understand actual history you have no real business in this discussion. You would do better as a spectator.
Quote:
the court affirmed the decision by citing the 14th Amendment.
So what. Gray went through and explained that WKAs parents were here with the authorization of the govt, therefor they established a permanent domicile and residence during that time he was born here (1873), ergo, he was born a US citizen even though his parents were denied the ability to naturalize here from the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. He was born prior to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. His parents remained in the US until 1890.
Quote:
the 14th was never irrelevant to the case; it was the REASON why Wong Kim Ark was a citizen from birth, despite a federal law that says Chinese persons cannot become citizens.
Ive never said the 14th was irrelevant to the case, I made a point which you obviously didnt grasp. The 14th wouldnt have been needed if we used your logic in this discussion. Your quoting of Gray using that one paragraph pertaining to English natural-born subjects should be all that was needed, yet prior to the 14th only "whites" were natural born citizens. No other race was considered to be a citizen of the US if they were born here.
Quote:
Again the text of the 14th Amendment for which you continue to ignore:
Your grasp of this discussion is ludicrous.
Last edited by Attus Black; 08-22-2013 at 12:45 PM..
Collect on what? Where was the violation committed?
Abroad? What right does the U.S. have to levy fines and penalties for violations committed abroad?
I agree with you. It's a slippery slope for the US to criminalize acts committed abroad. On the other hand, if someone attacks an American embassy, I think we should be able to criminalize that act. It's just too bad that we don't have worldwide jurisdiction and have to rely on other countries to allow us to pursue such criminals. It's a damn shame that we have to go through extradition processes, and have to have extradition agreements. But that's what happens when you don'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.
until you can understand actual history you have no real business in this discussion. You would do better as a spectator.
