Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

LEGAL residents with a LEGAL domicile.

Please show me the word "legal" in the actual ruling, and not a paraphrased opinion of the ruling. There was no such thing as legal and illegal people in 1886.

originally posted by: SookiechachaThere was no such thing as legal and illegal immigrants then. They looked at the established residency of the ARK family. Lots of illegal immigrants today have established residency and proven allegiance to the USA.

Wong Kim Ark subsequently exited the U.S. and was denied re-entry under the Chinese Exclusion Act, signed into law in 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers.

False, at the time of the court ruling there were illegal immigrants. The court ruled at the time of his birth his parents were legal still, and thus he was an American citizen.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.

I believe that is from the ruling. So if someone came over and immediately gave birth, they are not domiciled here, their child would not be a citizen.

The argument is bogus; Trump is just demagoguing
the issue to see what he can get out of it.

Even Paul Ryan denounced this idiotic, unconstitutional idea as well as Kellyanne Conway's husband, a constitutional lawyer, said its bogus and any constitutional Lawyer with any sense knows that.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

False, at the time of the court ruling there were illegal immigrants.

Not true. There was no such thing as illegal immigration back then, except for the Chinese Exclusionary Act, which was enacted after Ark was born. Anyone could come, set up shop, dig for gold, strike it rich and buy land.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, and before the court ruling. So at the time of the ruling there was such a thing as illegals.

a reply to: Willtell

Then why do you care if it goes to the SC?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.

So, nothing about them being legal or illegal people. Just that they had been here since before the Chinese Exclusionary Act, so Ark was not subject to it, were not here on behalf of the Chinese government, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, and had established a livelihood and a life.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Who says I care

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, and before the court ruling. So at the time of the ruling there was such a thing as illegals.

Not really. The Chinese Exclusionary Act prohibited the massive influx of Chinese labor ships from docking.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Act didn't make Chinese people illegal, or Chinese immigration illegal. Just Chinese migrant laborers.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.

So, nothing about them being legal or illegal people. Just that they had been here since before the Chinese Exclusionary Act, so Ark was not subject to it, were not here on behalf of the Chinese government, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, and had established a livelihood and a life.

I see repetitions of the term 'domiciled' which means, as far as I have found, the parents were lawful residents - meaning they had made their presence known to their jurisdiction and were legally documented/recognized.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, because if they were here AFTER then they would not be legal.

If someone came over and immediately gave birth, they are not domiciled here, their child would not be a citizen. Right or wrong according to that ruling?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You can't prevent a massive influx unless you have rules about people not being able to be here, meaning illegal.

If one president circumvents law to allow mass immigration why can another not use the law to stop it?

originally posted by: xuenchen
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

All he needs to do is declare people with both parents "not born or naturalized" are no longer "subject to the jurisdiction".

Therefor they are not Citizens until Naturalized.

💥😃💥

If they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then the United States can't enforce laws against them like deportation.

Kind of a problem with the logic y'all are trying to push.

originally posted by: matafuchs
If one president circumvents law to allow mass immigration why can another not use the law to stop it?

Which president are you referring to?

Former President Obama deported more people than any other previous administration. President Trump hasn't even matched his deportation figures yet.

a reply to: Greven

I think you know. It is not about deportation numbers as much as how many were allowed to stay...that is the thing about statistics and numbers.

a reply to: SaturnFX
WRONG.
Chinese citizens giving birth to chinese children no matter where - those kids are chinese citizens.
Just the same as if the situation were reversed.
Best outcome: dual citizenship for the kids, but I doubt China recognizes such.

ganjoa

a reply to: Greven

False. Diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction and can be expelled.

a reply to: Greven

That's actually a lie. Obama changed the definition of deport to include people turned away at the border.

A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data. Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

www.latimes.com...

Obama drastically reduced deportations and then changed the definition to hide it.