- 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
re: ACLU sues Trump administration over birthright citizenship executive order
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:20 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:20 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I find it hard to believe you can be this dense.
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.
There are many legal defenses a person charged with a crime can claim. You may be perfectly correct that immigrants' have committed a crime merely by their undocumented presence. But that does not mean that their claims of innocence can be conflated with a claim that they are not subject to the laws of the United States.
They are merely saying that they did not break the law, they are not saying that the law does not apply to them.
1
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:21 am to JimEverett
quote:
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.
You're 100% correct that there is a factual distinction, but within the context of WKA, it's nota relevant one.
This is akin to when Leftists argue "the 2A was written when muskets were arms and now we have assault rifles so it's not applicable".
quote:
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.
Yes it gets real messy. The "birth tourism" stuff would be hard to make illegal, since they're here legally on visas.
Does anyone have the exact wording of the EO?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:22 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Irrelevant.
It's relevant to your argument
quote:
Anyone who claims they've committed no crime.
Because your comment above is irrelevant.
quote:
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,"
Nobody is arguing "he's not subject to the law", though. That's your rhetorical flaw.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:22 am to Salviati
quote:
Have you analyzed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)?
The question is what did Congress believe they were doing, what were they intending to do when they ratified the 14th Amendment.
A later Court would rule that the 14th Amendment gave a Constitutional right to abortion. That's an absurd opinion. There's zero chance that Congress was intending to do that.
So then were there any groups of people born here AND subject to our laws who weren't granted citizenship? Yes, Indians. So it seems very clear that Congress never intended to give citizenship to everyone who met those two criteria.
The criteria that needed to be met was being born here (or naturalized) and not owing allegiance to any other country.
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 10:24 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:22 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Please provide the link where anyone has said that immigrants are not subject to the law of the land.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 10:23 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
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.
And this isn't relevant to the discussion.
quote:
The point is political leftists, and the media claim the entire group has committed no crime in illegally migrating.
Only when those people come via certain channels (like asylum)
But that's still irrelevant.
quote:
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.
No. Tell that to Laken Riley's killer.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:23 am to JimEverett
quote:
And the parents were here legally - meaning with the consent of the United States.
An anachronism without a legal distinction.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:25 am to POTUS2024
quote:
All of this is bullshite.
Only bullshite if you ignore the law of the land
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:26 am to JimEverett
quote:
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.
Read the case. This is all irrelevant.
The question is if they're one of the 2 classes of person he listed. The case goes into great detail on this.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:28 am to Salviati
quote:Back atcha, Einstein.
I find it hard to believe you can be this dense.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with claims of innocence, or personal individual defense in our system.
The issue is people insisting illegal immigrants, as a broad class, have committed no crime in their illegal border crossing.
¿comprende?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:32 am to JimEverett
quote:The question presented does not control the precedential value of a case. Rather, it is how the court applies the law to the facts of the case that controls.
No reason to get complicated - the legal issue is written in the case.quote: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.
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,
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.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP
Does anyone have the exact wording of the EO?
Good luck.
It appears that the Executive Order takes the creative step of excluding persons born in the United States from the jurisdiction of the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You have this backwards.
MAGA types melting over children of illegal immigrants being citizens = "the Founders couldn't predict modern technology"
Just as MAGA types allegedly dislike the Constitution being a living document and want originalism and textualism, but in this case want to make the Constitution a living document and ignore those analyses.
I think most people (MAGA people in your case) believe that the child is a US citizen if the parents are in the country legally.
If they are illegal why would their offspring be rewarded with citizenship?
As one of the boards "legal experts" do the families of persons who are guilty of being a drug kingpin get to keep the money and possessions that they acquired illegally? I would assume that is usually not allowed.
Do you see the correlation between that situation and the refusal of allowing children of illegals to be rewarded with the greatest gift in the world, citizenship into the United States?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Does anyone have the exact wording of the EO?
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “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.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.
But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.
(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.
Sec. 3. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order.
(b) The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order’s implementation with respect to their operations and activities.
Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) “Mother” means the immediate female biological progenitor.
(b) “Father” means the immediate male biological progenitor.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 20, 2025.
LINK
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:44 am to Salviati
No, the issue means everything for stare decisis.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:44 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Nobody in this thread is claiming that the law does not apply to immigrants. Indeed, I am not aware of anybody anywhere claiming that the law does not apply to immigrants.
The issue is people insisting illegal immigrants, as a broad class, have committed no crime in their illegal border crossing.
Do you comprehend the difference between a person who claims that they did not commit a crime and a person who claims that the law does not apply to them?
Any person can claim that they did not commit a crime.
Very few persons can claim that the law does not apply to them. Blue list diplomats are among them. Immigrants are not.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The migrant never "circumvents US jurisdiction" and the illegals are always under US jurisdiction. Otherwise, we couldn't prosecute them for crimes.
You tried this terrible argument last night. "If illegals don't have birthright citizenship, then they can't be prosecuted for crimes, just like diplomats."
Diplomats can be prosecuted for certain crimes, so your argument is flawed in its most basic assertion.
Diplomatic immunity is also not even a constitutional principle. It comes from the Vienna Convention. Therefore, claiming that illegals can't be prosecuted like diplomats simply because neither have the constitutional right of birthright citizenship is simply retarded.
Why would you ever think that a treaty covering the treatment of diplomats would extend to illegal aliens? It's such an embarrassingly stupid concept.
You're conflating two completely different scenarios just because they have a single point of overlap. I guess they don't teach basic logic in law school.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:46 am to alphaandomega
quote:
If they are illegal why would their offspring be rewarded with citizenship?
The concept of illegality arose years after the Amendment was written and the court ruled in Wong Kim Ark, just as assault rifles were created years after the 2A was written.
You're trying to change a Constitutional Amendment based on Congress creating a new class of person (illegal immigrants). Congress doesn't have that power.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:49 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
You tried this terrible argument last night. "If illegals don't have birthright citizenship, then they can't be prosecuted for crimes, just like diplomats."
I'm exposing how the alternative argument is terrible. You agree.
quote:
Diplomats can be prosecuted for certain crimes
Already proved you wrong on this
quote:
Diplomatic and Consular Immunity:
quote:
Diplomatic agents enjoy the highest degree of privileges and immunities. They enjoy complete personal inviolability, which means that they may not be handcuffed (except in extraordinary circumstances), arrested, or detained; and neither their property (including vehicles) nor residences may be entered or searched. Diplomatic agents also enjoy complete immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country’s courts and thus cannot be prosecuted no matter how serious the offense unless their immunity is waived by the sending state (see the following discussion). While it is not ordinarily of concern to police authorities, they also have immunity from civil suits except in four very limited circumstances: (a) in connection with real property transactions not conducted on behalf of the mission; (b) in connection with any role they may play as executor for or heir to an estate being distributed in the host country; (c) in connection with the performance of professional or commercial activities outside the scope of their official duties; or (d) in respect of counterclaims on the same subject matter when they have been the initiating party in a suit. Finally, they enjoy complete immunity from the obligation to provide evidence as witnesses and cannot be required to testify even, for example, if they have been the victim of a crime.
If these people have children on US soil, those children are not US citizens because the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (see above).
For those who are not the above and only enjoy limited immunity, their children born in the US are US citizens.
quote:
Diplomatic immunity is also not even a constitutional principle. It comes from the Vienna Convention.
How did a court in the 1890s discuss the historical significance of it if it was created half a century later?
quote:
Therefore, claiming that illegals can't be prosecuted like diplomats simply because neither have the constitutional right of birthright citizenship is simply retarded.
You're creating a strawman based on a bad assumption.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The issue is people insisting illegal immigrants, as a broad class, have committed no crime in their illegal border crossing.
¿comprende?
That issue has no relevance to this discussion.
They can be prosecuted for those crimes. The fact that they haven't been is a decision based on prosecutorial discretion and a different discussion altogether.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News