- 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: BOOOO…Birthright Decision Coming Out Today
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:42 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That simply is not true.
There were different commentors and there were different intents communicated.
The two key figures are Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the citizenship clause language, and Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and principal architect of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Trumbull stated that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States meant subject to its complete jurisdiction — "not owing allegiance to anybody else."
Howard, stated that jurisdiction should be construed to mean "a full and complete jurisdiction… the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States."
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, widely credited as "the father of the 14th Amendment," said in an earlier debate that the citizenship clause was "declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is… a natural born citizen."
3
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Though I find little eloquence in the Ark ruling, I'd nonetheless point out that privacy was discussed eloquently in Roe v. Wade
This power is discussed eloquently in Wong Kim Ark
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:55 am to NC_Tigah
It’s very clear from the discussion on the floor that they were wanting to thread the needle to make sure former slaves became citizens and really no one else.
There was a huge worry that people who weren’t culturally American would be granted the rights of citizenship. And that was explicitly stated of groups such as “gypsies” and the Chinese.
There was a huge worry that people who weren’t culturally American would be granted the rights of citizenship. And that was explicitly stated of groups such as “gypsies” and the Chinese.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I have entirely too much time sensitive work for this to happen today
Nah..you'll be here to catch the melts I'm sure
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:18 am to the808bass
quote:
There was a huge worry that people who weren’t culturally American would be granted the rights of citizenship. And that was explicitly stated of groups such as “gypsies” and the Chinese.
And the Senate discussion on the floor was clear that they DID intend Chinese, gypsies, and the children of any other immigrant to be included as citizens. They considered that the law of the land.
However, there was some discussion that the Chinese of that time tended to come to California to work, but then returned home to raise their families.
I really could see SCOTUS carving out an exception that eliminates the children of parents who had no intention of remaining in the US. I'm not sure that could extend to all illegal immigrants, though, simply because Congress can change the status of illegals at any time.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:21 am to HagaDaga
I don’t see this going in our favor. I think this one was always a longshot, but worth a try.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:24 am to HagaDaga
quote:
Please Lord save the Republic...In Manibus Dei!
But not our will be done, but your will Lord be done. My our will always conform to yours Lord.
It should be obvious to all who pay attention that this countries government ( all three branched) no longer work for the citizens of this nation.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:32 am to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
I'm not sure that could extend to all illegal immigrants, though, simply because Congress can change the status of illegals at any time.
Alito had a line of questioning about that in oral arguments. His questioning was centered on if someone can establish a permanent domicile while being illegal given that you can be subject to removal at any time. He clearly buys into the concept that jurisdiction in the 14th is synonymous with domicile.
My final prediction for tomorrow is 7-2. Alito write a dissent that basically supports the arguments people have made against birthright citizenship, and Thomas writes a dissent that is essentially just a rant. I can see Kavanaugh joining into Alito's dissent instead of the majority.
ETA: Alito did write two very strict textualist opinions last week that gave Trump two big wins, if he was consistent he strikes down the EO.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 10:35 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:35 am to HagaDaga
I already know Roberts and ACB are going to frick us.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:05 am to lionward2014
quote:
and Thomas writes a dissent that is essentially just a rant.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:13 am to jimmy the leg
Even when I agree with Thomas I don't like his writing style.
My favorite thing Thomas has written was the dissent in Brumfield v. Cain, which was essentially just a rant about why Brumfield should be executed (he should). Alito filed a concurring dissent saying as much.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 11:14 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:16 am to BTROleMisser
quote:
I already know Roberts and ACB are going to frick us.
They did on the late ballot ruling - LINK
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:16 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
"declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is… a natural born citizen."
The times were very different. Millions of legal immigrants were coming through Ellis Island and other points of entry and had been since colonial days. If those immigrants showed any sign of disease or mental illness, they were sent back.
Today we had millions of illegal aliens flooding in. The situation is very different.
quote:
Broader Context on U.S. Immigration Through Ports of EntryPre-Ellis Island (before 1892): Millions arrived, especially through New York (Castle Garden era) and other ports like Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and San Francisco. For example, New York was the dominant port in the mid-19th century.
Total documented immigration (1820–1957): Roughly 41 million people.
statista.com
Overall historical total: Since 1820, the U.S. has admitted well over 80–100+ million legal immigrants (depending on exact definitions and time frame), with annual lawful permanent resident (LPR/"green card") admissions often exceeding 1 million in recent decades.
migrationpolicy.org +1
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:24 am to HagaDaga
I don’t trust ACB
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:24 am to tigerpimpbot
I trust her to frick it up.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:43 am to Auburn1968
quote:
The times were very different. Millions of legal immigrants were coming through Ellis Island and other points of entry and had been since colonial days. If those immigrants showed any sign of disease or mental illness, they were sent back.
And that was about the extent of it. Hard to make the argument there were no illegals when the US essentially had an open border. Until the INA was passed if you had a pulse, weren't Chinese, and didn't have tuberculosis you were allowed into the US.
quote:
Today we had millions of illegal aliens flooding in.
Border has been locked up tight for about 18 months now. Congress has the ability to keep the procedures in place for that to extend forward, and Alito gave them an extremely strong tool to do it last week as well.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:48 am to lionward2014
quote:
And that was about the extent of it. Hard to make the argument there were no illegals when the US essentially had an open border. Until the INA was passed if you had a pulse, wasn't Chinese, and didn't have tuberculosis you were allowed into the US.
I've explained this at least 100 times.
Those who look to 1 or 2 quotes from 1 or 2 participants in the process to define the amendment ignore that they can't transpose the "illegal" standard to that process, at the same time.
It also would create a scenario where Congress can usurp the Constitution by defining classes of people to which the Constitution no longer applies.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:50 am to BTROleMisser
quote:
I already know Roberts and ACB are going to frick us.
This
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The intent of the language was made clear by the authors.
quote:
Those who look to 1 or 2 quotes from 1 or 2 participants
You do you
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News