That doesn’t mean they were here legally. There was no lawful way at the time for Chinese to emigrate to the US.
Domiciled simply means they were currently living in the US when he was born.
Every illegal in the country currently is “domiciled in the US”.
There was no lawful way for Chinese Subject to become “Citizens” at the time.
There was no lawful way for them to emigrate to the US period.
Maybe we are disagreeing on the term emigrate. They were residing here lawfully.
No they weren’t, they could not legally enter the US.
Did you read the SCOTUS statement I posted? It stated they were legally domiciled in the U.S. running a business. Besides, Chinese subjects were living, legally in the U.S. for decades prior to this decision. Unless you can provide a legal ruling to the contrary, you seem to be mistaken.
No it says they were “domiciled”. There was no legal way for Chinese to emigrate to the US at the time.
Define emigrate…
Legally enter to become permanent residents
Did you read the SCOTUS statement where it stated they were domiciled here. No mention of illegal status?
No mention of legal status either.
What is all this BS about. I thought I made it clear enough that a MORON would understand. I have been proven wrong with all this nitpicking. The SCOTUS decision was clear in a 6-2 ruling.What are some people trying to prove by arguing over minutiae. Some are thick headed DOLTS!!!
Debate? It is how people learn things by seeing the other person’s evidence and perspective.
My info came from Wikipedia and I thought I made it clear so there wouldn’t be this arguing because some people want to be DICKHEADS.
The SCOTUS decision made it clear on his citizenship and isn’t hard to understand if you have any kind of intelligence and there should be any debate. Was there any ambiguity in the decision that I missed???
I thot it was clear…
What is TWR missing???
TWR asserts the parents were here illegally since the ruling didn’t confer citizenship to Chinese subjects in the U.S. per Chinese Exclusion Act
Apparently the SCOTUS didn’t think so, since they had a PERMANENT DOMICIL and RESIDENCE in the U.S. and weren’t EMPLOYED in ANY WAY by the Chinese Emporer. Then his assertion is WRONG!!!
No, the person who seems to not be following or understanding the discussion is yourself.
The court didn’t specifically speak to a special consideration for the children of illegals.
Domiciled in the US doesn’t mean they were here legally, that point simply wasn’t addressed.
It was much later in our history when the courts specifically addressed that issue and ruled that irrespective of the parents citizenship status, any child born on US soil is considered to be a citizen at birth.
SMH 
Where the hell have you been ? The Second Amendment is under attack by EVERY DemoRATS in the Country . Obama loved EO’s all 276 , and so did Slick Willie 364 , FDR 3728 . SMH