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.
What I'm saying is I don't believe Wong Kim Ark court ever intended for their decision to be interpreted as it is today
That is exactly correct.
As I've stated many times, Justice Gray specifically limits the effect of the ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the courtupon 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."
determination [of] the single question
namely
permanent domicil and residence in the United States
The parents must have a permanent domicile in the U.S. Illegal aliens don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally, and shouldn't even be here. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor (provide housing or shelter) an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
I think they were trying to interpret the 14th Amendment as written. The wording for a lot of purposes was unfortunate.
That's why it's important to refer to the primary sources for clarity:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Howard:
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already..."
The law of the land already, written and introduced by Senator Trumbull, was passed as The Civil Rights Act of 1866:
"all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"
As I've stated many times, Justice Gray specifically limits the effect of the ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the courtupon 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."
determination [of] the single question
namely
permanent domicil and residence in the United States
The parents must have a permanent domicile in the U.S. Illegal aliens don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally, and shouldn't even be here. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor (provide housing or shelter) an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
Repetition of a false analysis does not make it true.
"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 the meat as interpreted by the Feds and all 50 states.
Repetition of a false analysis does not make it true.
It's not false. It's Gray's own words. Just because you don't like that he limited the effect of the ruling doesn't make that he did so false.
Quote:
"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 the meat as interpreted by the Feds and all 50 states.
You forgot the permanentdomicile part, which is also a requirement.
As explained to you NUMEROUS times, illegal aliens do NOT have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally, and shouldn't even be here. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor (provide housing or shelter) an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one. Therefore, their children are ineligible for birthright citizenship.
It's not false. It's Gray's own words. Just because you don't like that he limited the effect of the ruling doesn't make that he did so false.
You forgot the permanentdomicile part, which is also a requirement.
As explained to you NUMEROUS times, illegal aliens do NOT have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally, and shouldn't even be here. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor (provide housing or shelter) an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one. Therefore, their children are ineligible for birthright citizenship.
Repeated recitation of a false narrative does not make it true.
Illegal aliens have permanent domiciles i the US. The fact the antis don't like that in no way changes the location of their domicile.
Repeated recitation of a false narrative does not make it true.
How is what Justice Gray wrote in the decision a false narrative? It just simply isn't. That you disagree with what Justice Gray wrote in the ruling, doesn't make it false.
Quote:
Illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US.
No, they do not:
Quote:
"An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien."
How is what Justice Gray wrote in the decision a false narrative? It just simply isn't. That you disagree with what Justice Gray wrote in the ruling, doesn't make it false.
One who is not a permanent resident does not have a permanent domicile.
Repeating bad analysis does not make it true.
The question of domicile is simply where a person intends to live. It is nothing more. Illegal aliens are permanently domiciled in the US. They are not permanent resident aliens which is a legal class. But they are permanently domiciled in the US.
The question of domicile is simply where a person intends to live. It is nothing more. Illegal aliens are permanently domiciled in the US. They are not permanent resident aliens which is a legal class. But they are permanently domiciled in the US.
No, they are not.
Pay careful attention to the wording of Gray's ruling and the USCIS:
Wonk Kim Ark ruling:
"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."
US Citizenship and Immigration Services:
"An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien."
Pay careful attention to the wording of Gray's ruling and the USCIS:
Wonk Kim Ark ruling:
"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."
US Citizenship and Immigration Services:
"An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien."
According to the federal government, illegal aliens have no permanent residence and therefore no permanent domicile in the U.S.
Repetition of a fallacious argument does not make it true.
An illegal alien is pretty much domiciled where he lives. If he intends it to be permanent than he is permanently domiciled there. This has nothing to do with permanent resident status.
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.
