- 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: Birthright citizenship - Library of congress deleted history!
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
You've promoted yourself having no life and thinking highly of yourself for the past 20 years. That's about it.
Congrats. You've totally derailed yet another thread to make it all about you. Asshat
Congrats. You've totally derailed yet another thread to make it all about you. Asshat
1
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Are you defining "communicative context" to mean "legislative intent"?
If not, define that for us.
What would "Here is the thing" mean as posted on 1/21/26 at 2:44 PM on TD's Poli Board?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:36 pm to Cromulent
quote:
You've promoted yourself having no life and thinking highly of yourself for the past 20 years. That's about it.
Congrats. You've totally derailed yet another thread to make it all about you. Asshat
Dog you just tried to derail this into a discussion about me.
I'll continue to post on topic about the subject at hand.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:39 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
What would "Here is the thing" mean as posted on 1/21/26 at 2:44 PM on TD's Poli Board?
Uh, that has nothing to do with your comment.
quote:
Here’s something to consider. If your default position is that every single person born within the United States is a citizen, then you must protect the sovereignty of those citizens. That means strict control of the border and who is let it. You cannot exist as a country if both everyone born here is a citizen and anyone can simple walk across the border.. if you want open borders that allow aliens to come and go as they please, then you cannot bestow upon them or their offspring citizenship. You can’t grant them voting rights and you can’t grant them access to the public coffers that are for the benefit of the citizenry.
quote:
Here is the thing. That statement may be applicable now, but it wasn't really true when the Amendment was passed, and no subsequent Amendment has been passed as society changed. This is why the living document analysis has become so popular with MAGA with this particular case. They want the Constitution to change with society, ignoring the text and amendment process.
This was a discussion about overall policy, history, and the philosophy behind that interaction.
You responded to a comment about Thomas's potentially rejecting his previously-professed preferred interpretive method, referencing "The communicative context" as some way for him to avoid the hypocrisy.
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"I don't care what the legislators intended. I care what the fair meaning of [a] word is".
This is utterly stupid. It's simply not feasible to write every single possibility into a law. That's why the intent matters. This is simply putting the system itself above the purpose of the system. In every other industry outside of the legal profession, you would be mocked and fired for focusing on the system instead of its purpose.
quote:
"The more you use [legislative history], the phonier it will become. Downtown Washington law firms make it their business to create legislative history; that is a regular part of their practice".
If only Congress had somewhere they could speak and have it preserved in an official record, then maybe we wouldn't have to rely on the words of lawyers.
quote:
"Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision. Not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that but the text of the statute".
If I hated thinking, this is how I would approach life. Just doing what the words on the page say instead of analyzing their meaning and effects.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He's going to have a really difficult time doing that
Nah.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:48 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
This is utterly stupid. It's simply not feasible to write every single possibility into a law.
You don't have to. You just have to use language well enough to enact the intended legislation.
quote:
That's why the intent matters.
The intent of which legislator who voted on the bill?
How do we get the intent of them all?
How do we decide the total intent among the different views? Another vote?
quote:
In every other industry outside of the legal profession, you would be mocked and fired for focusing on the system instead of its purpose.
No if you intend to write a program and your code is shitty and doesn't create the intended program, you fail as a coder.
If you intend to grow crops and your farming is shitty and you don't grow crops, you fail as a farmer.
etc.
quote:
If only Congress had somewhere they could speak and have it preserved in an official record, then maybe we wouldn't have to rely on the words of lawyers.
Why look at this when we have the words of the statutes they pass?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 5:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
I do not admit to know how this goes but I know it weighs heavily on illegals coming here to birth kids and then get welfare, etc
It all comes down to "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and it is not outside the realm of possibility that a court could determine that a person illegally in this country is not actually "subject to" and therefore the kids are not citizens.
Overall, however, I think it is less than 50% of being interpreted that way and the pure madhouse effect would be crazy on this country.
It all comes down to "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and it is not outside the realm of possibility that a court could determine that a person illegally in this country is not actually "subject to" and therefore the kids are not citizens.
Overall, however, I think it is less than 50% of being interpreted that way and the pure madhouse effect would be crazy on this country.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 6:05 pm to dafif
quote:
I do not admit to know how this goes but I know it weighs heavily on illegals coming here to birth kids and then get welfare, etc
Those are policy concerns that should have no bearing on a legal analysis
quote:
It all comes down to "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and it is not outside the realm of possibility that a court could determine that a person illegally in this country is not actually "subject to" and therefore the kids are not citizens.
That would require a bad ruling or overruling WKA, which would then lead to the "how"?
Illegal presence is a Congressional act and Congress can't usurp or overrule the Constitution.
Imagine Congress carving out a class of citizens who no longer had 1st Amendment rights
Posted on 1/21/26 at 6:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
Those are all arguments that are being made.
Despite dicta, the singular holding in WKA is that a person here legally and giving birth makes that baby a US citizen.
Despite dicta, the singular holding in WKA is that a person here legally and giving birth makes that baby a US citizen.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 6:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
This is a constitutional amendment not an ordinary piece of statutory legislation. It’s proper under Scalia’s textualist method to interpret the constitutional amendment within its historical context and to consult the history of the amendment’s drafters. This is why Scalia frequently cited the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders in his opinions on the Bill of Rights.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 6:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
You clearly haven’t read Reading Law.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This ruling is going to be a test to see whether Clarence Thomas rejects his textual roots and adopts the living document method.
Point me to the part of the text that says birth right citizenship is a constitutional right
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:05 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:
Point me to the part of the text that says birth right citizenship is a constitutional right
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:07 pm to Ailsa
It is pretty obvious that people are purposely coming to the USA through illegal immigration, H1B visas and multiple other avenues with intentions having babies here so they can be US citizens.
Our government, specifically democrats are exploiting this which is obvious by their open border policy and the news of over 700K fraudulent H1B visas in Texas.
There’s no way that’s what was intended and if Trump can fight this and win it would be his greatest accomplishment by far.
Our government, specifically democrats are exploiting this which is obvious by their open border policy and the news of over 700K fraudulent H1B visas in Texas.
There’s no way that’s what was intended and if Trump can fight this and win it would be his greatest accomplishment by far.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:32 pm to TiderTom
In the 12 minute video the most important thing said is this:
"It is our parents status that is most important"
I hope SCOTUS follows that.
"It is our parents status that is most important"
I hope SCOTUS follows that.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:35 pm to TiderTom
Just bumping so we all can laugh at slowmo
Posted on 1/21/26 at 11:44 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
1866 is not just some random point in our history that they chose to tackle this question
Nearly 100 years later Congress tackled the question again and didn’t think to define jurisdiction as this concept of loyalty to the US that people argue or state that citizenship was only granted to the children of those that the INA deemed to be in the US legally. It’s not like illegal immigration and mass deportations were an unheard of thing at the time (see Operation Wetback).
Should we have birthright citizenship, probably not, but it’s unequivocal that it’s what the 14th Amendment says is the law.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 6:43 am to BCreed1
quote:
Just bumping so we all can laugh at slowmo
Why laugh?
This is one of those situations where I'm likely to be proven right (again) and when I spike the footbal about it people will shift to some melt similar to "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!?!?!" or some black pill nonsense.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News