- 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 12:34 pm to JoeHackett
Posted on 1/21/25 at 12:34 pm to JoeHackett
No one is convincing SFP or his alter… MAGA is for it, so they’re against it.
Conflating the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to only mean “non-diplomats” is disingenuous. There’s a whole other perspective of the phrase: “not owing allegiance to another country.”
Sure the “non-diplomat” idea is partially supported through a court case. Some that many would say is “legislating from the bench.” That is why the issue of birthright citizenship needs attention: to overturn or clarify that US vs Wong Kim Ark case.
Leftists keep using this same case as the argument to “why,” but the point is to challenge it as wrongly applied and interpreted.
Conflating the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to only mean “non-diplomats” is disingenuous. There’s a whole other perspective of the phrase: “not owing allegiance to another country.”
Sure the “non-diplomat” idea is partially supported through a court case. Some that many would say is “legislating from the bench.” That is why the issue of birthright citizenship needs attention: to overturn or clarify that US vs Wong Kim Ark case.
Leftists keep using this same case as the argument to “why,” but the point is to challenge it as wrongly applied and interpreted.
2
Posted on 1/21/25 at 12:36 pm to scrooster
Good. Bankrupt those assholes.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 12:39 pm to Tigershatebama
quote:
Leftists keep using this same case as the argument to “why,” but the point is to challenge it as wrongly applied and interpreted.
Yeah, but you do not necessarily even need to make the claim that the case was wrong. It dealt with a person born here to parents who were present in the U.S. with the government's consent.
No need to say that the world has changed due to Congress creating the "illegal alien" - the Wong Kim Ark case is one that dealt strictly with a person born to a parent present in the US with the consent of the government.
Whether those born here to parents who lack that mutual consent is an open question.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 12:56 pm to JimEverett
quote:
you do not necessarily even need to make the claim that the case was wrong.
I don’t personally agree that the US vs Wong Kim Ark case gives birthright citizenship to all non diplomats. I think the Indian issue resolves that. I chose my phrases for a little brevity. I also said “clarify.”
I do think it does add language/ideas to the amendment that was never there and never intended to be there.
The so-called precedent of this case needs to be scrapped and overruled, or clarified to address children of illegals.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 2:34 pm to Tigershatebama
quote:The Indian issue, specifically for Indians born outside the reservation on US soil and therefore completely "under US jurisdiction," makes it clear the "under US jurisdiction" clause was never all encompassing.
the Indian issue
SCOTUS could absolutely use that line as a basis for exclusionary allowance, with the caveat that Congress could elect to include a birthright group as it did with Indians in 1924. Pragmatically, it would be a GREAT solution. I just don't see the Robert's Court going there.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:47 pm to ManWithNoNsme
quote:
Good. Bankrupt those assholes.
Them and the SPLC need to have smoke brought on them.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:55 pm to scrooster
As great as it would be, it won’t hold up. It just won’t. There is no world where this EO hold ups to courts
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:05 pm to scrooster
And so it begins…as if the Trump admin and the court didn’t expect that response.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:12 pm to Richleau
quote:
And so it begins…as if the Trump admin and the court didn’t expect that response.
Meh....of course they knew it would be challenged immediately.
I guess Trump and his team feel good about their chances as it will head to SCOTUS
Posted on 1/22/25 at 7:39 am to Tigershatebama
quote:
Conflating the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to only mean “non-diplomats” is disingenuous.
It's literally the law of the land per USSC ruling approximately 130 years old.
I'm only telling people like you what the law is.
quote:
Sure the “non-diplomat” idea is partially supported through a court case.
It's not "partially" supported. WKA goes into excruciating textual and historical analysis (the type preferred by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, FWIW).
quote:
Some that many would say is “legislating from the bench.”
No. That phrase specifically does not apply to the reasoning in WKA.
That would apply to a case like Roe or Miranda, cases without any textual or historical support, where they just invented a right.
quote:
to overturn or clarify that US vs Wong Kim Ark case.
It's not to clarify. It's to overturn.
quote:
but the point is to challenge it as wrongly applied and interpreted.
To come to this conclusion, Thomas, Alito, and Gorusch would have to engage in extreme hypocrisy regarding their preferred judicial interpretation style.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 7:43 am to JimEverett
quote:
Yeah, but you do not necessarily even need to make the claim that the case was wrong. It dealt with a person born here to parents who were present in the U.S. with the government's consent.
Again, that's a factual distinction that is irrelevant to the legal analysis.
Again, you're making the equivalent argument that an assault weapon isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment because they didn't exist in 1789.
quote:
the Wong Kim Ark case is one that dealt strictly with a person born to a parent present in the US with the consent of the government.
And we have the legal analysis (and this ignores all the USSC cases that confirm and expand this ruling) of the decision.
Changing the facts slightly to add an anachronism doesn't alter the legal analysis and the specific designation of 2 tiers of people that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Illegal aliens do not fall within either tier, so changing the facts in that manner doesn't work within the analysis of WKA. You still have to overturn that analysis to make it fit.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 7:49 am to scrooster
Posted on 1/22/25 at 7:56 am to Night Vision
WKA specifically excludes the children of ambassadors, as that is what the language specifically refers to.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:18 am to GumboPot
quote:Same agument coud be used to repeal the 2A by executive order. "Clearly, an armed citizenry is a threat to the security of the government. It even says so in the in the amendment!".
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.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:31 am to Houag80
This has a snowball chance in hell to pass a waste of time for the ignorant.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:50 am to Night Vision
That's the bottom line, circled in red.
The ACLU will lose this one, thankfully.
The ACLU will lose this one, thankfully.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News