- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Supreme Court to hear birthright citizenship challenge today
Posted on 5/15/25 at 7:44 am
Posted on 5/15/25 at 7:44 am
Time to end people invading here just to drop an anchor on the backs of Americans
18
Posted on 5/15/25 at 7:49 am to stout
Don't worry. John Roberts and ACB will disappoint...again.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 7:52 am to stout
Originally a decent idea so the Democrat slaves that were born here would be citizens.
But now they turned it into a tourism industry.
But now they turned it into a tourism industry.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 7:55 am to stout
Prediction, they will uphold birthright citizenship but stop the nationwide injunctions.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 7:59 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Don't worry. John Roberts and ACB will disappoint...again.
Unfortunately, I think this will be the case.
But if not, this will be a huge statement moving forward.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:01 am to stout
SCOTUS will uphold birthright citizenship. It’s a little short-sighted to believe they won’t.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:02 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Don't worry. John Roberts and ACB will disappoint...again.
At some point you have to quit calling it disappointment and call it expected.
ACB for sure will go against this.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:05 am to TDsngumbo
I just can't even imagine how we could work things backwards if they ruled WKA didn't rule the 14A created birthright citizenship.
Even if they did a limited "the parents must have been present legally" carve out, how many people would become non-citizens with illegal status overnight? 20M? 40M? This is like 3-4 generations of people in some cases, too.
I think WKA was pretty clear, but it boggles the mind to think how we would unwind 130 years of law and immigration and people born here as citizens, their kids born as citizens, etc.
Even if they did a limited "the parents must have been present legally" carve out, how many people would become non-citizens with illegal status overnight? 20M? 40M? This is like 3-4 generations of people in some cases, too.
I think WKA was pretty clear, but it boggles the mind to think how we would unwind 130 years of law and immigration and people born here as citizens, their kids born as citizens, etc.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
Why do we have to unwind it?
It’s not going to go backwards. It would just be from this point forward (if it happened, which it won’t).
It’s not going to go backwards. It would just be from this point forward (if it happened, which it won’t).
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think WKA was pretty clear, but it boggles the mind to think how we would unwind 130 years of law and immigration and people born here as citizens, their kids born as citizens, etc.
Citizenship remains for those born here as of today but not for those moving forward. Simple
This post was edited on 5/15/25 at 8:09 am
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:08 am to the808bass
Yeah I would think people would be grandfathered in that are already classified as citizens
Moving forward would seem to be the end goal here
Moving forward would seem to be the end goal here
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:09 am to the808bass
quote:
Why do we have to unwind it?
I'll use more precise language because there are 2 ways it can be undone
1. If WKA is plainly overruled, it doesn't have to be retroactive.
2. My posting above was about if the court doesn't overrule WKA and tries to claim the new argument that the Trump admin is pushing that "WKA only ruled on people present legally who had children on US soil". If THAT is the ruling, then our government has been acting on an improper assumption/read for 130 years. Distinguishing these new cases from WKA is not just a statement of the impact of WKA today; it's a statement of the impact of improper interpretation of WKA for 130 years.
This post was edited on 5/15/25 at 8:11 am
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:10 am to stout
quote:
Citizenship remains for those born here as of today but not for those moving forward. Simple
And it would more than likely be a future date for the cutoff that is known months in advance. Things like this aren't a light switch that you just flip. It might be something like Jan 1st 2026 this goes into effect if it goes the way MAGA (and to be fair some other non MAGA people) want
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:11 am to stout
Barrett will joins the libs to say this is all good
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:11 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Don't worry. John Roberts and ACB will disappoint...again.
They really need to step up for America this time. This crap can't continue. Birthright citizenship is insane.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:12 am to stout
I agree but I suspect we will lose this one the way it’s worded.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:16 am to Powerman
Birthright citizenship should be limited to those children born to parents here legally and not here on a temporary visa (B1,B2 for example).
You could even make it more exclusive by eliminating J student visas since that is meant for students sponsored by their home countries to study here and then return back.
The problem is and always has been two-fold: persons born to parents here illegally or on tourist/short-term work visas. That should be eliminated and would go a long way because the other visa types require significantly more vetting than the B visas and obviously infinitely more than the 0 vetting for an illegal immigrant.
You could even make it more exclusive by eliminating J student visas since that is meant for students sponsored by their home countries to study here and then return back.
The problem is and always has been two-fold: persons born to parents here illegally or on tourist/short-term work visas. That should be eliminated and would go a long way because the other visa types require significantly more vetting than the B visas and obviously infinitely more than the 0 vetting for an illegal immigrant.
This post was edited on 5/15/25 at 8:26 am
Posted on 5/15/25 at 8:22 am to stout
Mark Levin did a great piece on this earlier this year. If you look to the legislative history, the enacters clearly did not contemplate the birthright citizenship system that we have today. No sane country would allow what we allow. It's ridiculous.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News