End od Anchor babies

@Mott-The-Hoople said
The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.

You keep overlooking domiciled

“The concept of domicile has different meanings in different context. For purposes of jurisdiction, “domicile” means a legal residence which is the place where a person has fi ...[text shortened]... e/

Soon, you will be on here complaining SCOTUS got it wrong when the rule against anchor babies.

And you keep ignoring that those decisions use the word "domiciled" and "resident" interchangeably and include "all" persons born except for a few enumerated exceptions. You left out the immediately following sentence for example:

"The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.
This obligation of temporary allegiance by an alien resident in a friendly country is everywhere recognized by publicists and statesmen."


That's why you are an uneducated gullible sap and not someone who can understand legal reasoning.

@no1marauder said
And you keep ignoring that those decisions use the word "domiciled" and "resident" interchangeably and include "all" persons born except for a few enumerated exceptions. You left out the immediately following sentence for example:

"The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.
Thi ...[text shortened]...

That's why you are an uneducated gullible sap and not someone who can understand legal reasoning.

what does "whilst domiciled " mean?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
what does "whilst domiciled " mean?

The relevant question is what did it mean to the Justices who wrote the decisions cited. Here they use the term interchangeably with residence.

Nowhere do they qualify the Amendment with a term like "illegals" (which, again, the Amendment refers to the person born, not their parents). They make clear that one born here is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" unless they fit into one of the limited exceptions that were understood by the Framers of the 14th Amendment.

This is called interpreting the Constitution by "original intent" which makes it unsurprising that a Reagan appointed judge would find Trump's EO "blatantly unconstitutional".

@no1marauder said
The relevant question is what did it mean to the Justices who wrote the decisions cited. Here they use the term interchangeably with residence.

Nowhere do they qualify the Amendment with a term like "illegals" (which, again, the Amendment refers to the person born, not their parents). They make clear that one born here is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United Stat ...[text shortened]... es it unsurprising that a Reagan appointed judge would find Trump's EO "blatantly unconstitutional".

Write all you want , the Framers hardly took into account that the parents of the baby were illegally in this country. See if you can convince us that the Framers would have found their illegal status (not being citizens, lawbreakers, such as that) to be irrelevant....that, they would not have even mentioned it. Would they have mentioned it? What would they have said? Before you answer, take into account that they were not too keen on invaders, given they had just fought the British army.

@no1marauder said
The relevant question is what did it mean to the Justices who wrote the decisions cited. Here they use the term interchangeably with residence.

Nowhere do they qualify the Amendment with a term like "illegals" (which, again, the Amendment refers to the person born, not their parents). They make clear that one born here is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United Stat ...[text shortened]... es it unsurprising that a Reagan appointed judge would find Trump's EO "blatantly unconstitutional".

answer the question

@AverageJoe1 said
Write all you want , the Framers hardly took into account that the parents of the baby were illegally in this country. See if you can convince us that the Framers would have found their illegal status (not being citizens, lawbreakers, such as that) to be irrelevant....that, they would not have even mentioned it. Would they have mentioned it? What would they have said? ...[text shortened]... e into account that they were not too keen on invaders, given they had just fought the British army.

Your attempt to put your present ideas into the heads of the Framers of the 14th Amendment (who had just fought folks wanting to have slaves, not the British) is unavailing. They wrote what they wrote with their understanding and beliefs of their times. The country strongly desired immigration at that time and a bigger population and the Amendment was written with that in mind; if transient political beliefs have changed but the wording of the Constitution remains the same, it is that wording that is dispositive.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
answer the question

I already gave you the answer from the SCOTUS in 1873:

"They extend to all strangers therein, not only to those who are naturalized and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/147/ at p. 154

So to them "domiciled" meant nothing more than taking up a permanent residence which virtually everyone has including undocumented immigrants.

@no1marauder said
I already gave you the answer from the SCOTUS in 1873:

"They extend to all strangers therein, not only to those who are naturalized and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are w ...[text shortened]... than taking up a permanent residence which virtually everyone has including undocumented immigrants.

answer the question

@Mott-The-Hoople said
answer the question

I just did. Like the Justice said:

"having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence".

@no1marauder said
I just did. Like the Justice said:

"having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence".

😂 a lot more involved than that

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851

@no1marauder said
I just did. Like the Justice said:

"having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence".

But, you will not answer mine? If someone is domicile as you say in the USA, what need would that person have to hide if the immigrant posse is in his neighborhood?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
😂 a lot more involved than that

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851

What the IRS thinks NOW, is irrelevant to what the Framers of the 14th Amendment believed in 1868.

It is the latter which is controlling.

@no1marauder said
What the IRS thinks NOW, is irrelevant to what the Framers of the 14th Amendment believed in 1868.

It is the latter which is controlling.

nothing has changed, simply initially misinterpreted