- 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 11:17 am to Salviati
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:17 am to Salviati
quote:Again, irrelevant.
Nobody in this thread is claiming that the law
The post addresses leftist politicians e.g., AOC, Schiff, Swalwell, Schumer, etc. and virtually any member of the MSM/PPP.
quote:Yes.
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?
What you don't seem to comprehend is the difference between your rhetorical, and the fact that my observations have zero to do with it.
Again, my observations have zero to do with an individual's claims in his own defense.
My observations have to do with the American left who claim an entire class of immigrants have committed no crime in illegally crossing the border.
quote:Yes, but irrelevant.
Any person can claim that they did not commit a crime.
0
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:25 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Diplomatic immunity is also not even a constitutional principle.
In order to believe that diplomatic immunity is a constitutionally enshrined right, you have to believe that the founders wrote the constitution and then for no reason two years later passed a law that granted immunity to diplomats.
The Constitution was ratified in 1788
Diplomats were granted immunity in 1790
All immunity is granted by an act of congress. Arguing otherwise doesn't make sense.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:30 am to JoeHackett
quote:Back up. Who is arguing that diplomatic immunity is a constitutionally enshrined right?
In order to believe that diplomatic immunity is a constitutionally enshrined right, you have to believe that the founders wrote the constitution and then for no reason two years later passed a law that granted immunity to diplomats.
The Constitution was ratified in 1788
Diplomats were granted immunity in 1790
All immunity is granted by an act of congress. Arguing otherwise doesn't make sense.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:32 am to scrooster
Just my opinion but if the administration wants to be successful with this EO they need to take a "national security" tract. The courts give MAJOR deference to the executive branch under the guise of "national security".
Anchor babies are a national security threat.
Anchor babies are a national security threat.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Obviously not true.
That issue has no relevance to this discussion.
quote:Probably so. It would be interesting to read internal DOJ/HS memos on the topic though.
They can be prosecuted for those crimes. The fact that they haven't been is a decision based on prosecutorial discretion
The real answer is Progs were constantly yammering politically correct crap on the topic, instead of issuing statements abiding/respecting the law.
How much draw that might have, coupled with the post-Ark need for an Indian Citizenship Act, is anybody's guess. As we've discussed, it's a long-shot.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:35 am to Salviati
quote:
Back up. Who is arguing that diplomatic immunity is a constitutionally enshrined right?
The argument is getting confusing.
Children of diplomats with immunity aren't citizens due to them not being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Therefore claiming that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" doesn't mean subject to our laws.
Then illegals are suddenly immune due to the EO's alternate interpretation. And pointing out that immunity is only granted by congress and congress hasn't given immunity to anyone other than diplomats doesn't seem to resolve the dispute.
Edit to add that part of the discussion was had yesterday. When I pointed out that immunity was granted by congress I was told that only the limited immunity of blue list diplomats was granted by congress. Implying that white list diplomats enjoyed full immunity by some other source.
Me - Exactly, so if immunity is granted by Congress
SFP - Limited immunity for a specific group not discussed in WKA is granted by Congress
LINK
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 11:42 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:35 am to GumboPot
Good point.
Perhaps there is an argument to be made that at least some of these people coming across the border are an invading force, enemies of the country.
Perhaps there is an argument to be made that at least some of these people coming across the border are an invading force, enemies of the country.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:41 am to JoeHackett
quote:Let's try to clarify.
The argument is getting confusing.
quote:True.
Children of diplomats with immunity aren't citizens due to them not being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
quote:A part of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "subject to our laws."
Therefore claiming that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" doesn't mean subject to our laws.
quote:Immigrants do not have diplomatic immunity. Immigrants, regardless of status, are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; hence, "subject to our laws."
Then illegals are suddenly immune due to the EO's alternate interpretation. And pointing out that immunity is only granted by congress and congress hasn't given immunity to anyone other than diplomats doesn't seem to resolve the dispute.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:45 am to JimEverett
quote:It would be factually inaccurate to say that immigrants coming across the border are an invading force, enemies of the country. Moreover, it's irrelevant. They would not only have to be enemies of the country coming across the border as an invading force, they would have to be enemies in hostile occupation.
Good point.
Perhaps there is an argument to be made that at least some of these people coming across the border are an invading force, enemies of the country.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:46 am to Salviati
quote:
A part of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "subject to our laws."
What do you mean "a part of"? It seems that the argument on both sides is that it means subject to our laws or means something else.
quote:
Immigrants, regardless of status, are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; hence, "subject to our laws."
I pointed this out earlier but at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, Indians were subject to our laws but not considered to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Clearly congress didn't think the two phrases were interchangeable.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:48 am to Salviati
quote:
It would be factually inaccurate to say that immigrants coming across the border are an invading force, enemies of the country.
It would not be factually inaccurate if the President declared them as such.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:54 am to JimEverett
quote:While the Court might give deference to the President, the Court does not have to ignore the facts.
Iquote:t would not be factually inaccurate if the President declared them as such.
It would be factually inaccurate to say that immigrants coming across the border are an invading force, enemies of the country.
And in any event, they would still have to be enemies in hostile occupation.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:59 am to GumboPot
quote:Right.
Anchor babies are a national security threat.
E.g., Birth tourism babies, allowed because birthright trumps any visa preclusion to it, are a risk.
Hypothetical: A Chinese woman, selected by the CCP, is impregnated. She comes to the US on a visa, drops her baby, and immediately returns to China. The kid grows up thoroughly CCP indoctrinated, is heavily funded, and and in his late-20's is dropped into a politically favorable US district where he flourishes politically, eventually running for POTUS.
We attach tremendous import to birthright, to the extent we exclude otherwise extremely capable people from the Presidency based on it. Birthright as it's currently implemented is illogical.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:59 am to JoeHackett
quote:"Subject to the jurisdiction of" certainly includes "subject to the laws of," but "subject to the jurisdiction of" can mean more than just "subject to the laws of."
What do you mean "a part of"? It seems that the argument on both sides is that it means subject to our laws or means something else.
quote:Indians are treated separately under United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
I pointed this out earlier but at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, Indians were subject to our laws but not considered to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Clearly congress didn't think the two phrases were interchangeable.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 12:08 pm to Salviati
quote:
While the Court might give deference to the President, the Court does not have to ignore the facts.
I am not sure what you are saying here.
I am just thinking out loud, but if the President has more than a few tools at his disposal. One of the strongest being to tie in the "invasion" at the border to the Congressionally authorized War on Terror. No court in the US is going to overrule such a designation by the President under Congressionally approved action.
quote:
And in any event, they would still have to be enemies in hostile occupation.
I don't know why that is necessary.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 12:09 pm to Salviati
quote:
It would be factually inaccurate
Like said the courts give the Executive Branch massive deference to what the Executive Branch says is a national security threat and what is not. The courts can even request the specifics of that threat and the Executive can respond by saying the judicial branch is not legally privy to that information because it is classified and judges, or most judge do not have proper security clearance.
“National security” is the trump card to get past all law. In fact Jack Smith just used the “national security” issue in the MAL Judge Cannon case to limit discovery overriding Trump’s due process rights and the 11 Circuit ruled in favor of Jack’s national security argument.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 12:10 pm to Salviati
quote:
Indians are treated separately under United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
Certainly but the argument is whether the Fuller court was correct in their opinion. I believe that the court can sometimes get it wrong, something we might disagree on.
So my point from earlier still stands.
quote:
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.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 12:11 pm to scrooster
quote:
ACLU sues Trump administration over birthright citizenship executive order
There was probably hundreds of organizations lining up to sue and the ACLU must have been quickest on the draw.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 12:12 pm to scrooster
Good. Get this over with. Let SCOTUS decide once and for all. Shooters shoot.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 12:33 pm to GumboPot
quote:
It would be factually inaccurate to say that immigrants coming across the border are an invading force, enemies of the country.It would not be factually inaccurate if the President declared them as such.
quote:“National security” is NOT the trump card to get past all law. There are areas where it is appropriate to consider, and there are areas where it is not pertinent. Discovery limitations on documents in a President's possession is not remotely in the same scope as a critical issue concerning constitutional rights.
Like said the courts give the Executive Branch massive deference to what the Executive Branch says is a national security threat and what is not. The courts can even request the specifics of that threat and the Executive can respond by saying the judicial branch is not legally privy to that information because it is classified and judges, or most judge do not have proper security clearance.
“National security” is the trump card to get past all law. In fact Jack Smith just used the “national security” issue in the MAL Judge Cannon case to limit discovery overriding Trump’s due process rights and the 11 Circuit ruled in favor of Jack’s national security argument.
The Supreme Court is not going to defer solely to the President on the issue of whether immigrants are alien enemies in hostile occupation.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News