- 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: ACLU sues Trump administration over birthright citizenship executive order
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:39 am to scrooster
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:39 am to scrooster
You know where this is going, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 needs to be amended, and everywhere race or religion is mentioned citizen needs to be put in its place.
0
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:45 am to scrooster
Start by looking into Anthony Romero's background.
And then find ways to defund this arm of the commie party. There is nothing American about the 'American' Civil Liberties Union.
And then find ways to defund this arm of the commie party. There is nothing American about the 'American' Civil Liberties Union.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In this instance it certainly is. Illegal entry into the US is a crime. Claiming those guilty of illegal entry are not criminals IAW US Law implies they were never subject to US Law.
I agree to some extent. It is important to note that the SCOTUS has never ruled on whether someone bon here to a person here illegally is a citizen at birth.
What is has ruled is that someone born here to parents who are here with the consent of the U.S. government are citizens at birth.
Depending on who the plaintiffs are in this lawsuit and others becomes important. So, what about a person here who has said the "magic words" for asylum - are they here with the consent of the U.S.? Here on TPS? Overstayed a visa? Etc.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:49 am to scrooster
The ACLU fought for NAMBLA to have rights in this country. The ACLU defends the rights for men to have sexual relations with children, that's what this organization is all about. FVCK THEM!!!
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Irrelevant.
I haven't committed any crimes recently and I presume you haven't either.
If you did commit a known crime but the political class, media, etc. said "Nope! No crime! Yes SFP did it, but he's not subject to the law," that would be the comparator.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:51 am to Salviati
quote:
The fourteenth amendment, the jurisprudence interpreting it, and the common law supporting that jurisprudence are clear.
After the 14th Amendment was ratified an Indian could be born on US soil and not considered a citizen due to their allegiance to their own country/tribes.
If you interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean that they were subject to our laws, then Indians born in US territories would have been citizens. Indians were prosecuted for crimes committed off reservations at the time.
So at the time and after of the ratification an Indian could be born here and subject to our laws and not be considered a citizen. They would be granted citizenship later by an act of Congress.
Meaning Congress didn't interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean subject to our laws but rather, in their own words, not owing allegiance to another country.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:53 am to JoeHackett
quote:Correct.
After the 14th Amendment was ratified an Indian could be born on US soil and not considered a citizen due to their allegiance to their own country/tribes.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Come on. Really?!?!
In this instance it certainly is. Illegal entry into the US is a crime. Claiming those guilty of illegal entry are not criminals IAW US Law implies they were never subject to US Law.
Criminal defendants who plead "not guilty" are claiming they have not committed the crime. Very few, however, claim they are not subject to the laws of the government. Sovereign citizens are the few that come to mind who claim they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the government. I've not heard of any immigrants claiming they are not subject to the laws of the United States. Indeed, such a defense would be laughed out of court.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:00 am to scrooster
I am hoping that "chain migration" falls by the wayside as well....
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:02 am to Salviati
quote:Irrelevant.
Criminal defendants who plead "not guilty" are claiming they have not committed the crime.
These are not folks "claiming they have not committed the crime." These are folks who by their undocumented presence de facto committed a crime IAW US law. The conduct is not a point even in question.
The point is political leftists, and the media claim the entire group has committed no crime in illegally migrating.
The law is crystal clear. If the claim is the migrants in question have not broken the law, the only possible conclusion is they were never subject to it in the first place.
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 10:04 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:02 am to JoeHackett
Have you analyzed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)?
Ark's father and mother were Chinese, and subjects of the Emperor of China.
Ark's father and mother were Chinese, and subjects of the Emperor of China.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:04 am to Salviati
quote:
Have you analyzed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)?
Ark's father and mother were Chinese, and subjects of the Emperor of China.
And the parents were here legally - meaning with the consent of the United States.
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 10:05 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:05 am to Salviati
quote:and were documented, and fully compliant with US law.
Ark's father and mother were Chinese, and subjects of the Emperor of China.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:08 am to scrooster
The 14th was to grant the children of slaves, not a bunch of illegal border jumpers, US citizenship. Don't worry, though. ACB and John Roberts will disappoint when this gets to the USSC.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:09 am to scrooster
Now is when the Trump administration needs to go on the offensive.
Announce lawsuits against the ACLU for helping to shield criminals from federal authorities.
While you are at it, announce they are being labeled a political organization, an extension of the Democratic party [which they are]. They should lose their non-profit status.
Finally, the Trump administration should announce in following with Obama/Biden's final acts, Trump has requested the ACLU be referred to the IRS for audit.
Make them so radioactive, no one will touch them.
Announce lawsuits against the ACLU for helping to shield criminals from federal authorities.
While you are at it, announce they are being labeled a political organization, an extension of the Democratic party [which they are]. They should lose their non-profit status.
Finally, the Trump administration should announce in following with Obama/Biden's final acts, Trump has requested the ACLU be referred to the IRS for audit.
Make them so radioactive, no one will touch them.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:10 am to Salviati
quote:
by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America
We don't establish citizenship in the way a monarchy does. A monarchy establishes a claim to you via your presence within its borders. A republic grants consent for your citizenship. We don't consent to the idea of anchor babies, the American People have never expressed that desire, and the 14th Amendment was never written for that purpose. Wong Kim has always been garbage and it's wrong.
Our Founders never intended for the courts to be the final arbiter on issues like this - the People are the final arbiter and the People have never supported birthright citizenship for babies born to those that invade our nation and disregard our sovereignty in getting here.
Trump should tell the ACLU and the courts to pound sand for eternity on this issue. If there is only one issue for which Trump can be seen as having a mandate from the People, it's this one. Americans are done with their nation being the free and endless ATM for the rest of the world where our sovereignty is ignored for the sake of others with no affection or sense of loyalty to this nation, our borders, our laws, our People, or our future.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:11 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
And the parents were here legally - meaning with the consent of the United States.
quote:But the legal issue is not what they were. The legal issue is what they were not.
and were documented, and fully compliant with US law.
They were not "alien enemies in hostile occupation," and they were not "diplomatic representatives of a foreign state."
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:14 am to Smokeyone
quote:
And if someone was harmed how does the ACLU have standing
They represent the person having been harmed.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:15 am to Salviati
quote:
But the legal issue is not what they were. The legal issue is what they were not.
They were not "alien enemies in hostile occupation," and they were not "diplomatic representatives of a foreign state."
All of this is bullshite.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:17 am to Salviati
quote:
But the legal issue is not what they were. The legal issue is what they were not.
They were not "alien enemies in hostile occupation," and they were not "diplomatic representatives of a foreign state."
No reason to get complicated - the legal issue is written in the case
quote:
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
So right off the bat it seems clear that this case does not apply to people here legally but do not have a permanent domicil. Say, those on a tourist visa amongst others.
It also seems clear that the case does not apply to those who are here without the consent of the United States - although I guess that is a little less clear. But the carrying on of business seems to me to imply a certain legality to their presence.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News