- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Are illegal children “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:12 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:12 am
quote:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Seems to me like progs like to stop reading bc they’re naturally lazy and criminal. The conjunction “and” is a very important part of the amendment.
Illegal children are clearly not subject to the jurisdiction of our country. Convince me otherwise.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 7:20 am
25
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:15 am to Federal Tiger
quote:
Are illegals “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
i don't think you'd like the end results if they weren't
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:19 am to Federal Tiger
I'm wondering about that clause. I assume they're subject to the jurisdiction thereof because they're actually in the US when they give birth despite the fact that they're here illegally, right?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:20 am to Federal Tiger
quote:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Why the selective paste, why not include the part that specifically EXCLUDES "foreigners" and "aliens"?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:20 am to Federal Tiger
quote:
Are illegals “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
That, being born of legal citizens, was the intent of the law when written according to some but then it was interpreted differently by others that came along later. Trump is reinterpreting the interpretation.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:22 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I assume they're subject to the jurisdiction thereof because they're actually in the US when they give birth despite the fact that they're here illegally, right?
yes
if they weren't subject to our jurisdiction, then we couldn't do shite to them while they were here
think lethal weapon 2
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:24 am to SlowFlowPro
So Trump doesn't really have a leg to stand on here, right?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:24 am to Homesick Tiger
That’s the entirety of section 1 of the amendment. Not sure what you’re talking about.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:24 am to Federal Tiger
quote:If they were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, they'd never be here in the first place. That is what makes them . . . . . illegal
Are illegal children “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:25 am to Federal Tiger
quote:
Illegal children are clearly not subject to the jurisdiction of our country. Convince me otherwise.
What do we do when a child of an illegal immigrant robs a gas station or breaks a traffic law? Do we not send them to jail or issue them a ticket?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:25 am to upgrayedd
No. wouldn't shock me if this was 9-0
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:26 am to GetCocky11
quote:
What do we do when a child of an illegal immigrant robs a gas station or breaks a traffic law? Do we not send them to jail or issue them a ticket?
exactly. see my first comment in this thread
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
think lethal weapon 2
Trump thinks he is Danny Glover, I guess.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:30 am to Federal Tiger
Not according to SCOTUS precedent.
Elk v. Wilkins, (1884), when the Court held that a Native person born a citizen of a recognized tribal nation was not born an American citizen and did not become one simply by voluntarily leaving his tribe and settling among whites. The syllabus of the decision explained that a Native person "who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution."
So if an Indian who’s ancestors had been born within the borders of the USA for ten thousand years was a foreign national. An illegal invader’s child doesn’t have a shot.
Now we all know libtards love them some Roe precedent, but I wonder how they like the taste of Elk?
Elk v. Wilkins, (1884), when the Court held that a Native person born a citizen of a recognized tribal nation was not born an American citizen and did not become one simply by voluntarily leaving his tribe and settling among whites. The syllabus of the decision explained that a Native person "who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution."
So if an Indian who’s ancestors had been born within the borders of the USA for ten thousand years was a foreign national. An illegal invader’s child doesn’t have a shot.
Now we all know libtards love them some Roe precedent, but I wonder how they like the taste of Elk?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:30 am to Federal Tiger
The word “and” btwn born and “subject to the jurisdiction” is the most important word in the clause.
Every leftist stops at “born.” In most cases leftists add things to the amendment that aren’t there. In this case they subtract.
Every leftist stops at “born.” In most cases leftists add things to the amendment that aren’t there. In this case they subtract.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:40 am to More&Les
quote:
Why the selective paste, why not include the part that specifically EXCLUDES "foreigners" and "aliens"?
Because that language is not in the Amendment. It’s just what the guy who wrote the amendment stated 2 years before it was ratified. The problem is that the way it is written seems to include anyone born in the US has a right to citizenship. Unfortunately, with the way it’s written and will be interpreted, Trump’s EO will not hold up....unless he does something crazy in regards to “time of war” and not letting foreigners birth here during that time, but still probably gets shot down by SCOTUS.
The best thing we can do is try to have congress define the law, wait for someone to then sue based on that law, then it miiiiight have a shot at getting through SCOTUS.
Obviously something needs to be done, just going to take a much much bigger effort than an EO.
The irony on both sides, is that the left wants to “adjust” the 2A, but doesn’t want to budge on this and we don’t want to doing anything to the 2A, but want to adjust 14A, section 1.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 7:42 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:53 am to Federal Tiger
wong kim arc v united states supreme was the supreme court decision that first stated children born of immigrants in the us are subject to the jurisdiction of, and are, citizens. it's been the law of the land ever since. that question really seems to boil down to if the immigrants are legally domiciled versus illegally domiciled though.. the losing side of wong kim argued about the implications of birthright citizenship. the definition seems to have expanded from legally domiciled immigrants to anyone that happens to be in the us.
maybe an EO can speak to children of illegally domiciled immigrants and directing government agencies not to act on those.. obviously ultimately a congress decision / supreme court argument.
maybe an EO can speak to children of illegally domiciled immigrants and directing government agencies not to act on those.. obviously ultimately a congress decision / supreme court argument.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:06 am to GetCocky11
quote:
What do we do when a child of an illegal immigrant robs a gas station or breaks a traffic law? Do we not send them to jail or issue them a ticket?
We should deport their arse. And once the federal authorities are ordered to - they can and will.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 8:08 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if they weren't subject to our jurisdiction, then we couldn't do shite to them while they were here
You're always subject to your local jurisdiction. In japan or afghanistan.
Jurisdiction THEREOF is different
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:09 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
The irony on both sides, is that the left wants to “adjust” the 2A, but doesn’t want to budge on this and we don’t want to doing anything to the 2A, but want to adjust 14A, section 1.
This cannot be emphasized enough, but it won't go over well here.
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News