- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NJ challenging EO to end birth right citizenship
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:23 am to Dandy Chiggins
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:23 am to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
You said that I added a layer of analysis the court didn’t cover. (Legal residency)
Not legal residency, legal status.
quote:
The courts literal opinion, that I posted, covers the fact his parents were in the US legally.
You offered no quote from the case declaring them "legal"
I just searched the case for every use of "legal" and none were used the way you are using it.
1
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:26 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Wong doesn't say children of illegals are citizens since illegal immigration was negligible and superbly easy to control then,
There was no federal "legal" or "illegal" when Wong was written.
That came about 2 decades later, via Congress (which they have the authority to do).
Congress cannot create a class of persons that usurps the Constitution, however.
quote:
Either way, not even Wong guarantees completely unqualified birthright citizenship.
There are 2 exceptions given in Wong. Asking if the persons involved today fall into either class is the start (and end) of the analysis.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:26 am to SlowFlowPro
So no conviction of purpose for either just a joy of winning in court cases. That's interesting.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:26 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
The idea of birthright citizenship is based on English Common Law.
Guess what no longer exists in English law? Birthright citizenship.
I'd love to hear how their Parliamentary system has any bearing on our Constitutional system.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:30 am to SlowFlowPro
The Supreme Court in 1898 got it wong.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:31 am to LSUFAITHFUL2
quote:
The constitution literally says they have to reside here.
It does not. The granting of residence (to a particular state) of the children is not a statement of the parents.
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The comment about residency is about the "persons born...in the United States", which is not the parents in this analysis.
quote:
WKA was dealing with a case in which the parents indisputably resided here.
Illegal immigrants reside in the US, just FWIW. It would be difficult to argue they're not domiciled here based on the common legal meaning of the word, also.
quote:
The court also noted that WKA and his parents had not done anything illegal.
No, they say Wong did nothing illegal. Again, like residency, the comment is not about the parents but the child.
The refence in your quote about his parents is about renouncing his allegiance to the US, the next clause is about Wong solely.
quote:
SFP is completely misconstruing that these issues are well settled law.
Where do illegals fall within the 2 exceptions created by WKA?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:32 am to goatmilker
quote:
So no conviction of purpose for either just a joy of winning in court cases. That's interesting.
If you can't discuss politics or the law in a dual nature, you're probably shouldn't be doing so. This isn't even difficult.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:42 am to SlowFlowPro
The term used a great deal is "domicile.:
Domicile has long been interpreted to mean the home recognized by law , the place where you exercise your political rights, among other things. That is what differentiates it from a mere residence.
So, while there were no categories of illegal and legal aliens at the time of the case, the focus on "domicile" makes clear the legality of the subject's presence
Domicile has long been interpreted to mean the home recognized by law , the place where you exercise your political rights, among other things. That is what differentiates it from a mere residence.
So, while there were no categories of illegal and legal aliens at the time of the case, the focus on "domicile" makes clear the legality of the subject's presence
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:45 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Guess what no longer exists in English law? Birthright citizenship.
Its much easier to change things without a written constitution and needing only a majority in the House of Commons as opposed to our amendment process.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Where do illegals fall within the 2 exceptions created by WKA?
You think the case made Indians citizens and overturned Elk, because Indians do not fall into either category?
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 9:53 am
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:51 am to SlowFlowPro
Being able to travel here and have a kid that is an auto citizen is pretty stupid on Americas part.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:52 am to dgnx6
quote:
Being able to travel here and have a kid that is an auto citizen is pretty stupid on Americas part.
It has certainly morphed into a huge mess, but the problems with it were not exactly foreseeable at the time.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:54 am to JimEverett
quote:
Domicile has long been interpreted to mean the home recognized by law , the place where you exercise your political rights, among other things. That is what differentiates it from a mere residence.
quote:
In Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: 'The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicile.' Page 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage rei ed on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: 'The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions,—one by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.' And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicile (domicilium), the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which 'the personal rights of the party—that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy— must depend,' he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country (patria), and his 'nationality,—that is, natural allegiance,'—'may depend on different laws in different countries.' Pages 457, 460. He evidently used the word 'citizen,' not as equivalent to 'subject,' but rather to 'inhabitant'; and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: 'By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.'
The court goes on to discuss their ruling with the 2 exceptions and never makes the distinction you're trying to make (implying a different definition of the term domicile than is what's common legally).
In fact, they use "reside" quite often interchangeably with domicile.
quote:
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.
quote:
and with the intention of returning to and continuing his residence in this country, claimed the right under a statute or treaty to re-enter it; and the distinction between the right of an alien to the protection of the constitution and laws of the United States for his person and property while within the jurisdiction thereof, and his claim of a right to re-enter the United States after a visit to his native land, was expressed by the court as follows: 'He is none the less an alien, because of his having a commercial domicile in this country. While he lawfully remains here, he is entitled to the benefit of the guaranties of life, liberty, and property, secured by the constitution to all persons, of whatever race, within the jurisdiction of the United States. His personal rights when he is in this country, and such of his property as is here during his absence, are as fully protected by the supreme law of the land as if he were a native or naturalized citizen of the United States. But when he has voluntarily gone from the country, and is beyond its jurisdiction, being an alien, he cannot re-enter the United States in violation of the will of the government as expressed in enactments of the law-making power
Describing Wong himslef
quote:
Whether any act of himself, or of his parents, during his minority, could have the same effect, is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere
It's clear this distinction you're trying to make was not important to the court itself.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:58 am to JimEverett
quote:
You think the case made Indians citizens and overturned Elk
I never said that.
WKA specifically addresses Indians and that case.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:58 am to dgnx6
quote:
Being able to travel here and have a kid that is an auto citizen is pretty stupid on Americas part.
We have an amendment process to fix it.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
look at what you just posted -
The texts you are highlighting prove my point.
quote:
are permitted by the United States to reside here
quote:
While he lawfully remains here, he is entitled to the benefit of the guaranties of life, liberty, and property, secured by the constitution to all persons, of whatever race, within the jurisdiction of the United States. His personal rights when he is in this country, and such of his property as is here during his absence, are as fully protected by the supreme law of the land as if he were a native or naturalized citizen of the United States.
The texts you are highlighting prove my point.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I never said that.
WKA specifically addresses Indians and that case.
Your whole argument boils down to the idea that WKA creates two and only two categories of persons for which birthright citizenship does not apply - neither of which would apply to Indians.
So either it overturned Elk or the list is not exhaustive and/or it is not part of the holding binding lower courts.
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 10:03 am
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:15 am to JimEverett
quote:
The texts you are highlighting prove my point.
About domicile or are you making a different one?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:15 am to JimEverett
quote:
Your whole argument boils down to the idea that WKA creates two and only two categories of persons for which birthright citizenship does not apply -
It's specifically in the case. Do you want me to copy/paste it?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:22 am to SlowFlowPro
yes, about domicile. The texts you are highlighting prove the point - there is a consent to a person presence by the U.S. They are here legally as one of the texts you posted explicitly states.
Page 20 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News