- 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
re: MY MAN!!! MAGA comments on birthright citizenship and 14th Amendment
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:16 pm to CommoDawg
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:16 pm to CommoDawg
quote:Reading the text of the 14th, I noticed something interesting
"14th Amendment is pretty clear."
quote:
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Sounds like good reasoning for the citizenship question on the census
0
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:16 pm to TheHumanTornado
quote:
So Constitutional infringement is ok when it is beneficial I guess.
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Who's jurisdiction are these non-citizens under?
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:29 pm to GumboPot
The “it’s never been challenged in court before” narrative is not correct. See United States vs Wong Kim Ark (1898)
This post was edited on 8/21/19 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:31 pm to TheHumanTornado
quote:
you could use the same justification for the 2nd amendment
Can you elaborate?
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:31 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
Birthright citizenship is fine if it is for a child born here to parents that are here legally and not on a visit or business (B1/2) visas.
When it is allowed for people who enter illegally or come here simply to have a child to gain citizenship, it is contrary to the spirit of the right.
And just to emphasize the stupidity of the law. For any diplomats that have a child in the US, that child is not given US citizenship.
So basically the only ones the rule benefits are illegal immigrants.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:31 pm to Covingtontiger77
Birthright citizenship should be defined of having at least one parent who is an American citizen at your birth.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:31 pm to Covingtontiger77
I can’t take anymore winning
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:31 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
I can’t take anymore winning
100% chance nothing will change.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:33 pm to Covingtontiger77
Birthright citizenship at this point in our country is the dumbest thing imaginable. It makes absolutely no sense
Trump would be the greatest president ever no question if he could get this done. But it really isn't something that I see ever happening
Trump would be the greatest president ever no question if he could get this done. But it really isn't something that I see ever happening
This post was edited on 8/21/19 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:35 pm to Covingtontiger77
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.
If the Founding Fathers wanted birthright citizenship, then they would not have included that pesky little phrase that I put in bold.
Without it, it's pretty clear that if you are born within the U. S. border, then you are a citizen.
By adding that, the Founding Fathers were making sure that people who happen to be born within our borders were not citizens unless at least one parent is already a citizen. That's what "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...," means.
Unfortunately, that phrase has been bastardized over the years or completely ignored.
Again, if simply being born here was enough, then the Founding Fathers would have left that phrase out of the 14th Amendment.
quote:
and of the state wherein they reside.
This little nugget is also being ignored. If someone does not even reside in the country (i.e., just crossed the border to have a baby in the U. S.), then that child should not be considered a citizen, since the parent(s) does not reside in this country.
You gotta go back.
This post was edited on 8/21/19 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:37 pm to Covingtontiger77
Mother.
fricking.
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS.
fricking.
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:41 pm to IrishTiger89
The 1898 case addressed the birthright of children of immigrants who were here legally not illegally.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:41 pm to IrishTiger89
This issue would be if the parent is here illegally. Would the jurisdiction phrase apply?
If not, what is the meaning of the jurisdiction phrase or does the court just moot it out?
If not, what is the meaning of the jurisdiction phrase or does the court just moot it out?
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:41 pm to TheHumanTornado
The people who wrote it disagree with you....but what do they know??
quote:
Howard wrote “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:42 pm to TheHumanTornado
quote:
So Constitutional infringement is ok when it is beneficial I guess.
For starters, the 14th Amendment initially applied to newly freed slaves. Secondly, there is still an issue regarding "any person within its jurisdiction." Some say illegals don't fit this description, and the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898 applied to children of non-citizens here legally.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:43 pm to mtntiger
The Founding Fathers didn’t write the 14th amendment
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:44 pm to mtntiger
quote:
If the Founding Fathers wanted birthright citizenship, then they would not have included that pesky little phrase that I put in bold.
The Founding Fathers were long gone by the time the 14th Amendment (known as one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments) was ratified in 1868.
This post was edited on 8/21/19 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:48 pm to Hester Carries
Can we sell the US to Greenland?? 
Posted on 8/21/19 at 3:01 pm to CommoDawg
quote:
"14th Amendment is pretty clear."
Is it?
quote:Messican babies born in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They are Messican citizens.
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.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 3:27 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
I can’t take anymore winning
100% chance nothing will change.
Bone Spurs talked about this same nonsense about ending the 14th amendment with an executive order before the 2018 mid terms. Now he's ramping it up for the 2020 election.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News