Replies

The word allegiance to me is far more important and appropriate to argue. Illegals have no allegiance to this country. In order to become a citizen, you have to take an oath to give up your allegiance to the country you came from. No illegal has done that, nor the kid in their belly, or the kid they dropped while being in this country. You can only swear allegiance to the United States when you take the oath of Naturalization, and your children only become citizens once you swear that oath of allegiance, and become a U.S. Citizen.

Anyone can "reside" here in a "domicile." The definition of "reside" is to dwell someplace permanently in a particular place. It says nothing about legally residing in a particular place permanently. The definition of "domicile" is the country that a person treats as their permanent home, or lives in and has a substantial connection with. Again, the words legally treats or legally lives in isn't mentioned.

Illegals came to this country willingly, and many have been here 20+ years, residing permanently in a particular place, despite having broken the law to come here. That means the children they brought here, or had here, have resided here permanently with their parents in a particular place...just not legally.

At the time, because slavery was legal in this country, slaves, despite having been kidnapped from their homeland, by law, were here legally. Slaves were brought to this country against their will, taken away from their homeland and forced to permanently reside in a particular place, and it was all legal based on law. In many cases, babies born of those slaves were children of slave owners, or other white men who permanently resided in a particular place.

I have no good feelings over this argument, and no hope that the Supreme Court will rule properly on this issue.

The word allegiance to me is far more important and appropriate to argue.

But "allegiance" isn't in the 14th Amendment either. It also would seem to exclude legal immigrants who retain foreign citizenship as well. And that seems more like judicial activism than just taking the document on its face.

Anyone can "reside" here in a "domicile." The definition of "reside" is to dwell someplace permanently in a particular place. It says nothing about legally residing in a particular place permanently. The definition of "domicile" is the country that a person treats as their permanent home, or lives in and has a substantial connection with.

If it helps, here are more precise definitions of what you're trying to describe.

See my post that includes relevant definitions from Black's Law (sixth edition).

Residence
Place where one actually lives or has his home; a person's dwelling place or place of habitation;
An abode; house where one's home is; a dwelling house.
Personal presence at some place of abode with no present intention of definite and early removal and with purpose to remain for undetermined period, not infrequently, but not necessarily combined with design to stay permanently.
Residence implies something more than mere physical presence and something less than domicile.
"Domicile" compared and distinguished
As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile.
Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home.
Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile.

"Residence" is a place where someone stays habitually, but not permanently. A person can have more than one "residence" at a time.

-PJ