- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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
Republicans petition SC on birth right citizenship
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:29 am
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:29 am
We need this one. I don’t understand the procedural rules that need to take place exactly but it sounds like the wheels are in motion.
Full document
There’s a potential bonus? This is according grok analysis so don’t get too excited just yet.
Dual citizenship and divided allegiance: By stressing that children are excluded if their parents (or home country) claim allegiance via jus sanguinis (blood-based citizenship), this could undermine citizenship for U.S.-born kids whose parents retain foreign nationality. For instance, if a parent is a dual citizen or the child is automatically a citizen of another country at birth, challengers could argue "divided loyalty" voids U.S. citizenship,
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Full document
There’s a potential bonus? This is according grok analysis so don’t get too excited just yet.
Dual citizenship and divided allegiance: By stressing that children are excluded if their parents (or home country) claim allegiance via jus sanguinis (blood-based citizenship), this could undermine citizenship for U.S.-born kids whose parents retain foreign nationality. For instance, if a parent is a dual citizen or the child is automatically a citizen of another country at birth, challengers could argue "divided loyalty" voids U.S. citizenship,
5
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:36 am to UncleLogger
The only way to do this should be a Constitutional Amendment.
I know most here will disagree.
I know most here will disagree.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:48 am to UncleLogger
It must end, Massie is absolutely correct on the issue and appreciate him adding this brief to the review of trumps EO. We need major immigration reform.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 4:48 am to MetArl15
quote:
The only way to do this should be a Constitutional Amendment.
bullshite. Birthright citizenship is based on a bureaucratic interpretation of a court interpretation of a law that doesn't address the actual issue. It has never been directly addressed.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 4:57 am to shinerfan
Wasn’t it addressed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark?
Posted on 1/29/26 at 5:08 am to IMSA_Fan
I'll say NO.
Why don't you discuss why you think it might have been, and maybe provide link or two to help support why you think it was addressed?
Why don't you discuss why you think it might have been, and maybe provide link or two to help support why you think it was addressed?
Posted on 1/29/26 at 5:12 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
Wasn’t it addressed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark?
Were his parents here illegally?
Posted on 1/29/26 at 5:24 am to MetArl15
quote:
The only way to do this should be a Constitutional Amendment.
Not sure what you mean here
- do the promoters of giving citizenship to illegal aliens need an amendment?
if so, I agree
OR
- does the opposition to giving citizenship to illegal aliens need an amendment?
if so, I disagree,
Everything about our constitution has always lent itself to logic and common sense. I do not think we should allow "word-smithers" to change definitions of words written a century ago and claim new 'constitutional rights in direct opposition to common sense and original intent.
NO CITIZENSHIP for illegal aliens - anyone proposing otherwise is intent on destroying the very concept of our constitution.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 5:28 am to Victor R Franko
Bingo, my friend.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 6:31 am to UncleLogger
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
I’ve always been curious of the interpretations of “subject to the jurisdiction therof” part. It seems if you are living in the shadows and illegal then, You aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of.
Apologies if this is too basic of an amendment question.
I’ve always been curious of the interpretations of “subject to the jurisdiction therof” part. It seems if you are living in the shadows and illegal then, You aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of.
Apologies if this is too basic of an amendment question.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 6:33 am to shinerfan
quote:
Were his parents here illegally?
If you read the case, that is not specifically addressed.
Because that concept didn't really exist at the time, which should inform you.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 6:37 am to Victor R Franko
quote:
Why don't you discuss why you think it might have been,
Because the court did a very detailed, textual analysis of the 14A that still applies today.
The court ruled that there are effectively 3 classes of persons that don't get birthright citizenship pursuant to the 14A, and the only applicable one today is the progeny of diplomats.
Indians were excluded due to prior USSC case law, but that was changed by Congress so it's not an issue anymore. And by this time, we're talking great great grandchildren of naturalized citizens so they're all citizens moving forward even if they repealed that statute.
The other exclusion deals with war and occupied territory, which hasn't existed since the War of 1812. When an enemy we're at war with occupies some territory, it will become relevant again.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 6:38 am to Trapped in time
quote:
I’ve always been curious of the interpretations of “subject to the jurisdiction therof” part.
Read Wong Kim Ark.
It goes into a very detailed, textual-historical analysis of what that meant at the time of drafting the amendment.
This post was edited on 1/29/26 at 6:40 am
Posted on 1/29/26 at 6:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because the court did a very detailed, textual analysis of the 14A that still applies today.
The court ruled that there are effectively 3 classes of persons that don't get birthright citizenship pursuant to the 14A, and the only applicable one today is the progeny of diplomats. s.
Indians were excluded due to prior USSC case law, but that was changed by Congress so it's not an issue anymore. And by this time, we're talking great great grandchildren of naturalized citizens so they're all citizens moving forward even if they repealed that statute. t statute.
The other exclusion deals with war and occupied territory, which hasn't existed since the War of 1812. When an enemy we're at war with occupies some territory, it will become relevant again. again.
Prove it, in 2 posts or less. Besides, The court opinion changes from time to time. Slavery was legal once. Abortion was Federal law once, now it's to the States.
We all know, as Dragline in Cool Hand Luke stated....
"When it comes to the law, nothin' is understood.".......
Posted on 1/29/26 at 6:57 am to Victor R Franko
quote:
Besides, The court opinion changes from time to time
Sure, but you specifically responded to this
quote:
Wasn’t it addressed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark?
So my comment is based on that.
quote:
Prove it, in 2 posts or less.
I can do it in 2 quotes.
quote:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
quote:
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
I get the children of occupying forces thing, but aren’t illegals basically the same thing? occupy force is more legal since I assume a declaration of war is part of it.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 7:59 am to Trapped in time
quote:
but aren’t illegals basically the same thing?
No. Not even close.
*ETA: ignoring the "war" issue. What areas are under control of illegals? None. You can't have a hostile occupation without that.
This post was edited on 1/29/26 at 8:06 am
Posted on 1/29/26 at 8:17 am to MetArl15
quote:Why? The SC often rules on the meaning of the constitution. Original intent, if you will. I don't believe the original intent was to allow border jumpers to squat and drop, then have the kid be a citizen.
The only way to do this should be a Constitutional Amendment.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 8:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:In case no one has ever mentioned it, you're more full of shyte than a constipated blue whale.
SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/29/26 at 8:55 am to RollTide4547
Whatever interpretation that allowed birth tourism by adversarial foreign powers is the wrong one.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News