re: Trump has officially petitioned the SCOTUS to allow him to END birthright citizenship

quote:

---

Even in the face of the undeniable evidence contained in your own written statements you refuse to acknowledge your mistake.

You are certifiable.

---

There was no mistake.

You are reaching and flailing even with me breaking down your post line by line and pointing out where you failed, and continue to fail.

And you are still dodging, proving the point above.

At this point you're just throwing out unfocused and insane ad homs. Are you going to discuss the topic or just flail? I'll know whether or not you're clogging up the thread.

That’s right. Time to deport birthright citizenship.

You are assuming an illegal naturally has permanent domicil. Domicil is usually fact-intensive. The Court couldn't create a blanker rule that anyone living here is permanently domiciled here.

quote:

---

it was addressed by the court in 1898...by a son of Chinese immigrants who claimed citizenship because he was born here.

---

Weren't his parents legal residents?

quote:

---

Since originally written for slaves and descendants

---

Note: the specific text does not reference either.

quote:

---

Earlier court cases which appear to rule on this did not apparently address this specific problem.

---

Wong Kim Ark, does.

He was not a slave or descendant of a slave, and if you read the analysis, the limits of the text of the 14A are interpreted without any specific need to reference either. The case explicitly says that the common use of the term "subject to the jurisdiction" applies to 2 classes of people:

1. Diplomats and their family here on diplomatic reasons
2. People in areas of the US under hostile occupation (something that has only happened during the War of 1812 and I don't believe has ever happened since, but otherwise I hope we can agree has no application to the US today).

And precedent created a 3rd class to which the 14A did not apply to: Indians (which also is not applicable to a discussion on the issue today as Congress fixed that loophole).

quote:

---

so legality of presence is of no concern

---

Concern towards what?

A logical-legal analysis or an opinion policy analysis or something else?

quote:

---

Sounds exactly like what the founders, who only allowed white male property owners to vote, would implement.

---

Do you think we should only allow white male property owners to vote now?

quote:

---

His parents were here legally. They were not citizens and could not become citizens. Wong was a citizen because he was born here and subject to his parents jurisdiction.

---

To me - this is clear as air.

I think the parent's legal status counts more than the roll of the dice physical location.

AND - if they PLANNED their illegal presence in the USA just to take advantage of idiotic interpretations of a common sense situation, then that fact should be the subject of a brand new violation = conspiracy to break a law.

No intellect can 'outwit' dedicated idiots when it comes to putting down into the English language exactly what is and what is not 'legal'

And anyone who tries to say that the 'common sense interpretation of what the words meant when they were written' is not the go-to definition of how to interpret it today is just making mouth/keyboard noise.

quote:

---

had always thought domicil and residence were state matters, but the Wong Kim Court says " permanent domicil and residence in the United States" i would assume that in the late 19th Century federal courts had already been dealing with jurisdictional questions involving which State a litigant was domiciled or permanently resided. So, they would have a purpose in not referring to domicil of a State but rather permanent domicil of the united States. Why? What does it mean to have a permanent domicil of the United States as opposed to a permanent domicil of, say, California? Does the Court talk about that?

---

There wasn't the same concept of naturalization at that time. Although the various naturalization acts set rules ( and in some cases revoked citizenship), the “courts” provision was often state courts and there was discrepancy in standards. After 1906, we started to gave the modern concept of immigration. The Jus Soli concept is often considered sacrosanct, but there are distinguishable characteristics ( such as you have mentioned)

Historically we allowed Congress to determine methods to grant (or revoke) citizenship. That was extant at the time of Wong Kim Ark. The justices in their wisdom, chose to apply a defenition that was over 100 years older than the legislature that introduced the 14A and did so while there was an active consensuslist lobby and active dispute on the application of English Common law by that legislature. They didn't choose the meaning of the term at the time of ratification, but the meaning established by another country from before the Constitution was even written

The chief reason for even including that term was to ensure legislation couldn't rescind the civil rights act, but also to distinguish American Indians.

As for the focus on domicile, IMHO, it was a fair test for permanent residency at that time. Transient residence would have been rare due to costs of travel and transportation. The only transients would have been ambassadors and ocean travelling merchants

Since that time, Congress has determined a test for lawful permanent residency. Congress power was only defeased by the 14th Ameceased, and It has only been evaluated as discussed in this thread. No challenge has ever been made to Congresses right to determine lawful residency, and tgat seems to be way beyond the 14A

It's a long way to get past Jus Soli because we consider it in the constitution. ( I.e. the same as a right to privacy) Nevertheless, it's not there and there are distinguishable elements to a new Jus Soli challenge. I'm not optimistic the court will change their opinion but there is required m to distinguish the opinion or overrule prior precedent