- 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
Did the concept of an illegal immigrant exist in the US when the 14th Amendment was
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:56 pm
ratified? If so, pretty big miss not to exclude their offspring. I would have excluded them explicitly.
And who were the people NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US at that time? They thought to mention that, but not offspring of illegals, so it’s not like they didn’t try to be careful with the drafting.
And who were the people NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US at that time? They thought to mention that, but not offspring of illegals, so it’s not like they didn’t try to be careful with the drafting.
17
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:58 pm to baybeefeetz
No intellectually honest person could believe or argue that the Constitutional intent was to have a woman hop the fence, have a kid and that kid be granted citizenship.
This just proves how inane the politics have gotten.
This just proves how inane the politics have gotten.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:59 pm to baybeefeetz
There was a legal path to citizenship at that time. That path involved assimilation.
That is the only line in the sand that I am aware of.
But "immigration" was not on the minds of the politicians who passed the 14th amendment. It was about post-slavery America.
You are complaining about a problem that was not even in the back of the minds of the amendment makers at the time.
That is the only line in the sand that I am aware of.
But "immigration" was not on the minds of the politicians who passed the 14th amendment. It was about post-slavery America.
You are complaining about a problem that was not even in the back of the minds of the amendment makers at the time.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:59 pm to meansonny
Idk if it was or wasn’t. Was it legal for anybody to sneak in?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:07 pm to baybeefeetz
Where does the Constitution allow rights provided therein for noncitizens of the Republic?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:10 pm to baybeefeetz
What was the immigration process like in 1868? Would individuals simply arrive by boat or walk across a land border and be considered American and allowed to register to vote? Was there documentation required? Were there any screening procedures?
It is my understanding that states and local governments largely were responsible. That immigrants arrived by boat, were inspected at the port to ensure that were free of obvious diseases and could support themselves and then let in. Very few were rejected and sent back. I could be wrong, though.
I honestly don’t know the exact answers. I am curious if anyone here does.
It is my understanding that states and local governments largely were responsible. That immigrants arrived by boat, were inspected at the port to ensure that were free of obvious diseases and could support themselves and then let in. Very few were rejected and sent back. I could be wrong, though.
I honestly don’t know the exact answers. I am curious if anyone here does.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:12 pm to kingbob
You could google it. Just a suggestion
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:28 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
ratified? If so, pretty big miss not to exclude their offspring. I would have excluded them explicitly.
And who were the people NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US at that time? They thought to mention that, but not offspring of illegals, so it’s not like they didn’t try to be careful with the drafting.
The 14th amendment was ratified when the US had approximately 40 million people. The US was a growing nation that needed immigrants. Today there are nearly 350 million people in the US with a steeply declining need for any immigrants, rather skilled or unskilled the need for immigrants by the millions is now a drag on the economy and only adds to the current uncertainty in the job market. As AI, automation and robotics replace humans there will be a serious glut of human labor sitting idle in the near future......it's already happening.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:38 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Did the concept of an illegal immigrant exist in the US when the 14th Amendment was ratified? If so, pretty big miss not to exclude their offspring. I would have excluded them explicitly.
No. And we're fricked.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:40 pm to CDawson
quote:
No intellectually honest person could believe or argue that the Constitutional intent was to have a woman hop the fence, have a kid and that kid be granted citizenship.
But that was exactly the situation when the 14th Amendment was ratified. We as a nation had open borders. Anyone could come in. That is how my ancestors came in. And every child born here became a citizen. How you got here did not matter.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:42 pm to TBoy
quote:
But that was exactly the situation when the 14th Amendment was ratified. We as a nation had open borders. Anyone could come in. That is how my ancestors came in. And every child born here became a citizen. How you got here did not matter.
They also had the same weapons the military had. Correct? In reference to "arms"? When the 2nd was ratified?
You folks positive you want to become constitutional wording absolutists?
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:44 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Did the concept of an illegal immigrant exist in the US when the 14th Amendment was ratified?
No. This came about a few decades later.
quote:
And who were the people NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US at that time?
1. Diplomats
2. People born in areas of hostile occupation
3. Indians
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:44 pm to TBoy
quote:
That is how my ancestors came in
How exactly did your ancestors come in? About what year?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:44 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
During the 1930s Mexican Repatriation, the U.S. did not grant new citizenship to deportees; instead, it wrongly deported approximately 1 to 2 million people, 40% to 60% of whom were already U.S. citizens. These citizens, overwhelmingly children, were forced out alongside Mexican nationals because they lacked identification or were pressured into "voluntary" removal.
Seems that there is a history of NOT recognizing birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:46 pm to LSUbest
quote:
Seems that there is a history of NOT recognizing birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
quote:
it wrongly deported approximately 1 to 2 million people, 40% to 60% of whom were already U.S. citizens
Did you miss the "wrongly" in that language?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Did you miss the "wrongly" in that language?
No dumbass I didn't not.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:48 pm to 4LSU2
quote:
Where does the Constitution allow rights provided therein for noncitizens of the Republic?
Just the other day there was a 15 page or longer thread where one right winger after another proclaimed that "rights" do not come from governments or constitutions, that "rights" derive from life itself in God's creation. There was universal agreement that the Constitutional provisions about rights merely limited the power of the government to take away rights that are naturally ours.
But today, no one has a "right" unless that "right" is conferred by a government as a reward for a "status" recognized specifically by the government. Immigrants have no "rights" because the government has never conferred any specific "rights" upon immigrants.
The hypocrisy of right wingers could not be more on open display.
I guess all that stuff about rights coming from God was all a bunch of bunk.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:51 pm to LSUbest
Then how did you come to the conclusion that birthright citizenship was not granted? If your position was correct, those deportations wouldn't have been "wrong".
quote:
dumbass
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:52 pm to meansonny
quote:
You are complaining about a problem that was not even in the back of the minds of the amendment makers at the time.
Our borders looked quite a bit different at that time, with our Southwestern to northwestern states were mostly territories.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:58 pm to baybeefeetz
Well, there was a prescribed, orderly way to enter this country which - if nothing else - communicates there to be an erroneous way to enter this country....likely had a public health impetus rather than illegality as we now view immigration
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News