@no1marauder said"The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. "
It's already been clarified by the SCOTUS 126 years ago. Persons born here are under the jurisdiction of the US and have to obey its laws. None of the exceptions understood at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment apply; these are not the children of diplomats or of an invading army:
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these ...[text shortened]... y some treaty stipulations."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/ at pp. 693-94
" It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -"
"it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations."
What part of this aren't you getting, Mott?
"
@no1marauder saidnow, explain how an illegal is “domiciled” in the US
"The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of th ...[text shortened]... his case is varied by some treaty stipulations."
What part of this aren't you getting, Mott?
"
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI am not really keeping up with you fellers scatter-gunning this issue, but may i comment on this one post of No1:
It's already been clarified by the SCOTUS 126 years ago. Persons born here are under the jurisdiction of the US and have to obey its laws. None of the exceptions understood at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment apply; these are not the children of diplomats or of an invading army:
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these ...[text shortened]... y some treaty stipulations."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/ at pp. 693-94
#1. ">>Including all children here born of resident aliens" (?) They are not resident aliens. An example of a lib (No1) ignoring an inconvenient fact.
#2. "....an alien is subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he RESIDES. (?). He does not reside, he is illegal, he cannot be regarded as residing...as a matter of fact, by matter of course, he is hiding.. Cannot be both.
#3, well, I don't see the reason to dissect this further, my point is made. Except to say, that, no reference is made to those individuals who are here illegally. They broke law, they are hiding. She has a baby. Do you think the framers considered this pesky problem? Had they, how do you think your paragraph would have read? I'm thinking they would say that babies of illegals would be treated differently, but certainly not be considered full-fledged citizens of the United States, when their parents aren't. It does not make sense.
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople said"Domiciled" means having a residence; same as "resides".
now, explain how an illegal is “domiciled” in the US
So undocumented immigrants both are "domiciled" and "reside" in the United States.
However, that doesn't even matter; see my next post.
@AverageJoe1 saidIn any event, the 14th Amendment is referring to the persons born or naturalized, not their parents. They are not "illegal" and have done nothing wrong.
I am not really keeping up with you fellers scatter-gunning this issue, but may i comment on this one post of No1:
#1. ">>Including all children here born of resident aliens" (?) They are not resident aliens. An example of a lib (No1) ignoring an inconvenient fact.
#2. "....an alien is subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he RESIDES. (? ...[text shortened]... ered full-fledged citizens of the United States, when their parents aren't. It does not make sense.
@no1marauder saidand you pretend to be a lawyer😂
"Domiciled" means having a residence; same as "resides".
So undocumented immigrants both are "domiciled" and "reside" in the United States.
https://www.keenan-law.com/blog/2017/11/30/domicile-vs-residence
3 edits
@no1marauder saidOK. So, could you work the concept of illegal into your argument? This def makes it appear that they are not hiding from the Immigration Squads which are going house to house. But, they ARE hiding.
"Domiciled" means having a residence; same as "resides".
So undocumented immigrants both are "domiciled" and "reside" in the United States.
Is my contention that if they are illegally here, they cannot consider the USA as their permanent home? It don't wash, man.
I looked this up;Domiciled: "...treat a specified country as a permanent home."
"the tenant is domiciled in the US"
They are HIDING in the US, not dokmiciled. Cant be both
@AverageJoe1 saidAgain, you're wrong but it doesn't even matter.
OK. So, could you work the concept of illegal into your argument? This def makes it appear that they are not hiding from the Immigration Squads which are going house to house. But, they ARE hiding.
Is my contention that if they are illegally here, they cannot consider the USA as their permanent home? It don't wash, man.
I looked this up;Domiciled: "...treat ...[text shortened]... e."
"the tenant is domiciled in the US"
They are HIDING in the US, not dokmiciled. Cant be both
The person born is the subject of the Amendment not their parents. And being born in the US isn't illegal.
@no1marauder saidBut when the (babies) are referred to, the sentence includes the parents, So it would follow that a judge will want to know their status. The parents would have to say that they are hiding from the immigration cops.
In any event, the 14th Amendment is referring to the persons born or naturalized, not their parents. They are not "illegal" and have done nothing wrong.
The cant be hiding, and consider themselves domiciled at the same time.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidHere is a more direct answer from AI:
and you pretend to be a lawyer😂
https://www.keenan-law.com/blog/2017/11/30/domicile-vs-residence
Can an illegal resident be considered domiciled in the US
This is a complex legal question. Here's a nuanced explanation:
Legal Domicile Typically Requires:
Physical presence
Intent to remain
Legal right to be in the location
For Illegal Residents:
Generally cannot be considered legally "domiciled"
Lack legal status to establish permanent residence
Cannot typically claim legal domicile for tax, legal, or voting purposes
May have limited rights related to physical presence
Exceptions and Complications:
Some state laws provide limited rights
Certain legal proceedings might recognize physical presence
Tax law and immigration law treat "domicile" differently
Court interpretations can vary
Practical Considerations:
Illegal residents are physically present but legally not authorized
Cannot typically establish legal domicile without changing immigration status
Risk of deportation complicates establishing permanent residency
Legal Advice Recommended:
Immigration status significantly impacts domicile determination
Specific circumstances matter greatly
Consulting an immigration lawyer would provide most accurate guidance for individual situations
This is a nuanced area where legal interpretation can be complex and context-dependent.
@AverageJoe1 saidThat's not what the Amendment says.
But when the (babies) are referred to, the sentence includes the parents, So it would follow that a judge will want to know their status. The parents would have to say that they are hiding from the immigration cops.
The cant be hiding, and consider themselves domiciled at the same time.
@no1marauder saidDear Readers: This is where No1 takes a left turn, off into some other tangent.
Again, you're wrong but it doesn't even matter.
The person born is the subject of the Amendment not their parents. And being born in the US isn't illegal.
Lets see if he can come back and answer the simple question above. Hopefully he will not refer to irrelevant statutes.
I keyed off of Marauder's comments, as he mentioned 'domiciled'. I looked it up, see above, and I ask simply, how can one be domiciled and be hiding from the immigration squads at the same time? C'mon, Marauder. 😕
@no1marauder saidPeople have been abusing the lack of clarity in the 14th Ammendment. Trump aims to fix that. Of course it is going to take time and there will be a lot of opposition but it is the right thing to do. Europeans have modified and fix their laws so that illegals cannot come in a claim residence based on jus soli from their newly born child. The US lags behind the common sense approach other western nations have adopted.
That's not what the Amendment says.
@AverageJoe1 saidI've made my prediction; if it gets there, the most Trump's position will get is 3 votes.
C'mon Marauder, let's face off at SCOTUS!
It may well go unanimously against him; this issue is considered well-settled law.