Children of Immigrants Denied Citizenship

Unlike nationality, no person can be without a domicile even if stateless. Domicile is permanent residence. It doesn't have to be legal, it just has to be permanent.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z...q=amity definition english common law&f=false

You'll find amity in there. but it means friendship in a general sense, and when you take the context of the AMITY as it is used in WKA (or rather the case WKA is quoting) that mentions FOREIGN ENEMIES not qualifying for BRC the meaning is quite clear.
Well I guess you'll have to argue with SCOTUS then

 

I have read enough and especially those who are actually refuting your assertions about it, they are doing a good job so no need for me to add to it. But I'll take it as a no you cannot find a reason what I have proposed would not work.

 

I don't believe any court would deem illegal aliens have a friendship in any sense. They are here illegally and have to play a cat and mouse game around our laws and government to remain here.

 

You mean other than the fact that BRC is settled law and out of the reach of congress because its guaranteed by the 14th amendment? Yeah I totally can't find a reason why congress couldn't amend the constitution with a simple bill

- - - Updated - - -

doesn't mean they have conquered territory and are holding it against the government literally making them not subject to US jurisdiction because the land they hold is foreign territory while occupied.

 

Children of immigrants are some of the most successful people our country has. I'm more than happy to do anything we can to keep them here. Including giving them citizenship at birth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/pew-study-tracks-success-of-children-of-immigrants.html

 

Thats why a child follows the domicile of the father which is called the Domicile of Origin. https://books.google.com/books?id=d...=onepage&q=Domicil according to dicey&f=false

Well look at that, Amity means exactly what I stated. (the top of your page refers to amity as in relations of peace with the Indians, but down below in (b) it states A Treaty of amity has held to be the equivalent of a treaty of peace.) You really should read your own links

 

Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark states the following

Yea, that kinda says no amendment need be done to the USC, simply change the Law will suffice.

 

It is only settled law for specific classes of persons, i.e. Those that are citizen already, and those that have legally changed their domicile to the US. Illegals don't fall under any class that has been adjudicated in the past, nor are they here with a legally recognized domicile. Nothing is guaranteed by the 14th BR Clause, the clause is merely declaratory of existing law, not made up law, or wants to be law. It is only policy (interpretation of law) right now, not actual law, that allows for children born to illegals to be assumed to be born citizens.

By being within the boundaries of the US they are assumed to be here with an implied license, once it is determined that they are here in violation of immigration law, that implied license is revoked, they then become limited in any rights or protections they may have believed to have had. They can be deported with no ability to have hearings, etc. They have no legal right to be here, therefor they have no legal right to stay. The Schooner Exchange

 

So exactly what I said then: If youre not an occupying army you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Thanks for agreeing with me.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't have to be legal, just permenant intent IE a domicile.

I didn't say the illegals couldn't be deported. I said if they pop a kid that kid is a citizen.

 

*shrug* Ask as much (or more) from citizens as you give to citizens, then open the door to anyone who want's to sign up. It's not immigration of any kind that strains our system, it's the fact that America has a deficit relationship with most of it's citizens.

We should be less worried about the 'wrong' people getting a free ride... that providing a free ride in the first place.



​

 

Is there a common law alternative to a birth certificate still on the books like a witnessed name in a holy book that's still on the books in areas my family comes from and many have a proof of birth besides a birth certificate a name entered in the family bible with the signature of the minister at the time next to it and it counts as proof of birth.

I'm not sure this will likely be a Court issue but unless a parent is proven to be a parent ,DNA should make that possible, then its a child to foreign nationals with no loyalty here unless the parents hold a VISA or other document saying they are here legally. If an Ambassador's child was born on our soil and they were from France the child would have citizenship rights here, they are here legally as per Treaty obligations and such with an Ambassadorial standing which I'm sure happened as a strong example from the here under our jurisdiction as guest to our nation by another governments dignitary. But the average Farm Worker with a VISA counts.

 

Thats hilarious, the 2 countries must have an accord or treaty. thus then those individuals are allowed to change their domicile to the other country and are then in amity. Even in England, back then, any new person entering into a new community had to register with the local magistrate, which is the beginning of a recognition of a change of domicile.

I know what it is, its those big words that you don't comprehend. Why else would Justice Gray make light of the Treaty between China and the US in the Wong Kim Ark case?

Again wrong. The domicile must be recognized as being changed, if not then the domicile is their place of origin. If the US does not recognized their domicile as being within the US, even if the illegals claims he moved here permanently, he is still not considered domiciled here.

The kid is merely assumed to be a citizen, there is no case that merits that they are. It is only administrative policy (interpretation of the law) that claims them to be.

 

You miss this part? always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution>>> They had all sorts of things they did back then declared unconstitutional when the 14th amendment was passed and after. It takes time to work through these things.
There were 2 excluded categories: Those with immunity to the law and those foreign enemies during an occupation.
Anyone else who pops a kid, that kid is a citizen. You can flail and cherry pick all you want, that is the operative portion of the decision which has been upheld a number of times.


Did you miss the part about even the stateless have a domicile? Domicile's don't require recognition or persmission. They aren't inviolate, having a domicile doesn't mean you can't be deported if not a citizen, but they are still a domicile.

 

And there is no case known that grants BRC to children born to illegals.

There are actually 3 "recognized exceptions" in WKA, Indians were number 3 because they were unknown to common law (not as you claimed being treated as ambassadors ).

That means there can definitely be more recognized exceptions that can come up.

Don't project your ignorance on to me, the only ones flailing and cherry picking are you and Rhal by taking phrases out of context and projecting meanings onto words without knowing their context. There has never been any case to which any US court has heard to give precedent to children born to illegals is automatically a US citizen if born on us soil and WKA doesn't go to that extent nor does any case cited, English or US. It is only administrative policy right now that claims that these children can be born citizens, and this can change under a new administration, as Obama changed it from what it was under G W Bush, where in it stated prior that these children "may acquire" which wasn't definitive by any means.

No I didn't, because nobody who is stateless can be without a domicile, their domicile would revert to their domicile of origin automatically if their domicile of choice was negated. A person can never lose their domicil of origin, for a child that would be the domicil of origin of the father (if parents married) or Mother (if child is born a bastard). The domicil of origin isn't always the country in which one is born.

Again, Domicil requires 2 things: One must become a resident in a law district, intending to reside there indefinitely: both conditions must be satisfied in relation to the law district in which the domicil is to be established before acquisition is complete. https://books.google.com/books?id=F...domicil definition english common law&f=false go to page 32

You are arguing words you have no idea of their meanings. Throwing claims out that make you look

 

Nope.......http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=417022&p=1065196869#post1065196869

 

Dude, noone denied these children were born on the territory of the US. They'll have their birth certificates.
But their mothers who live here illegally just need to follow immigration rules to get birth certificate copies for their children.

 

Late to the party, maybe you should read the entire thread. You're stating nothing more than what I have already stated.