- 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: Did the concept of an illegal immigrant exist in the US when the 14th Amendment was
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:03 pm to TigerAxeOK
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:03 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
quote:
You are complaining about a problem that was not even in the back of the minds of the amendment makers at the time.
Our borders looked quite a bit different at that time, with our Southwestern to northwestern states were mostly territories.
The 14th amendment is about former slaves.
Not borders.
1
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:03 pm to baybeefeetz
Granting U.S. Citizenship to the children born during the mother's illegal presence in the U.S.- unauthorized for the purpose of permanent residence-is akin to allowing a bank robber to pass title of the stolen cash and goods to their children and then forcing the bank to open an account for the children and provide services.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
those deportations wouldn't have been "wrong".
Dumbass the "wrongly" part was written by dumbass Democrats in the past decade.
The fact that the illegals and their children were deported from all across America and by agencies at every level of law enforcement shows that birthright citizenship was at that time NOT recognized.
Dumbass.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:06 pm to Bass Tiger
Its an interesting question. The answer is yes - there was always some form of legal entry status. Likely very few were turned away, and the policies were much looser based on population needs, but you couldn't just arrive here undocumented. For example, stowaways were frequent during those years. That was considered illegal. My wife's great grandfather was a stowaway from Sicily in the early 1900's and hid from census takers his entire life.
I believe the court would be right and just to interpret the "under the jurisdiction thereof" statement from the citizenship clause to include only individuals who have entered the country "under the legal jurisdiction" of the United States.
I believe the court would be right and just to interpret the "under the jurisdiction thereof" statement from the citizenship clause to include only individuals who have entered the country "under the legal jurisdiction" of the United States.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:06 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
And who were the people NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US at that time?
Federal law was already established which provided an overlapping framework for state courts to deal with citizenship. Jurisdiction became a tricky process before several states were reconstructed.
The current Supreme Court is ignoring 1862 case law from the DC courts. The Supreme Court had original jurisdiction in those cases. Those involved could chose between citizenship or free passage back to Africa. (Liberia)
But I'm expecting this SC to simply rubber stamp this.
This is simply too much of a Globalist Bailiwick to expect much intellect from this court.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:08 pm to LSUbest
quote:
The fact that the illegals and their children were deported from all across America and by agencies at every level of law enforcement shows that birthright citizenship was at that time NOT recognized.
No, it doesn't.
Citizens were "deported" and this was illegal.
They're still citizens.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:10 pm to Chip82
quote:
Federal law was already established which provided an overlapping framework for state courts to deal with citizenship. Jurisdiction became a tricky process before several states were reconstructed.
The current Supreme Court is ignoring 1862 case law from the DC courts.
The 14A changed the constitution and created mandatory, constitutional federal citizenship.
An 1862 case adjudged under a completely different constitution without mandatory, constitutional federal citizenship has no real bearing on this conversation.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:11 pm to baybeefeetz
We should also consider what else did not exist at the time. A bunch of US government support (Medicaid, Medicaid, Soc Sec, etc) that you could claim if you were a citizen.
That changes things, a lot. Motivation.
That changes things, a lot. Motivation.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:13 pm to baybeefeetz
California got tired of the Chinese. Wong Kim Ark is the judicial overreaction to the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
citizens were "deported" and this was illegal
They had no papers and they had no proof, because no one recognized birthright citizenship.
I know it breaks your little heart, but you lost this one.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:14 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
I believe the court would be right and just to interpret the "under the jurisdiction thereof" statement from the citizenship clause to include only individuals who have entered the country "under the legal jurisdiction" of the United States.
That would be a disjointed interpretation. The "under the jurisdiction" clause does not refer to the parents. It refers to the person born or naturalized.
quote:
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.
There is no reference to the citizenship status of the parents.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:15 pm to LSUbest
quote:
They had no papers and they had no proof, because no one recognized birthright citizenship.
But they did, hence "wrongly"
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:17 pm to TBoy
So the Indians were citizens, right?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:18 pm to the808bass
Indians were an idiosyncratic problem with its own USSC ruling over the issue, and the subject became moot with later action by Congress.
That's why WKA reference Elk v. Wilkins and included Indians as the 3rd exception, noting the idiosyncrasies and legal issues with Indians due to how we dealt with them.
That's why WKA reference Elk v. Wilkins and included Indians as the 3rd exception, noting the idiosyncrasies and legal issues with Indians due to how we dealt with them.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But they did, hence "wrongly"
No dumbass, they were never issued proof of citizenship.
Even your co-pervert leftist rags admit that.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:20 pm to LSUbest
quote:
No dumbass, they were never issued proof of citizenship.
Even your co-pervert leftist rags admit that.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:21 pm to TBoy
quote:
TBoy
He stipulated “intellectually honest”. That excludes you.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:22 pm to the808bass
quote:
So the Indians were citizens, right?
To quote the administration on this issue:
quote:
“I think so? I mean, obviously, they’re granted citizenship by statute,” Sauer said before Gorsuch interrupted him.
“Put aside the statute,” the justice said. “You think they’re birthright citizens?”
Sauer said, “No, I think the clear understanding that everybody agrees in the congressional debates is that the children of tribal Indians are not birthright,” before Gorsuch cut him off again.
“I understand that’s what they said, but your test is the domicile of the parents, and that would be the test you’d have us apply today, right?” the justice asked.
“Yes, yes,” Sauer said.
“So if a tribal Indian, for example, if a tribal Indian gives up allegiance to,” the solicitor general continued as Gorsuch again asked the question.
The solicitor general was unsure.
“Ah, I think so, on our test,” Sauer responded. “They’re lawfully domiciled here. I have to think that through, but that’s my reaction.”
“I’ll take the ‘yes,’” Gorsuch replied. “That’s all right.”
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:24 pm to TBoy
quote:
But that was exactly the situation when the 14th Amendment was ratified. We as a nation had open borders. Anyone could come in. That is how my ancestors came in. And every child born here became a citizen. How you got here did not matter.
No.
Not only did we restrict who became citizens, and how they could come in, the Congress mandated that only “White men of good character “ could come here. The only open flow of immigration was from Europe, via New York, mainly to press Irishmen into military and labor service, often in ways that outright resembled slavery (impressment to Naval and commercial ships, in but one example ). The Irish tolerated it because the alternative was starvation . And post-civil war, the US turned off the spigot on even Legal immigration after every large wave, because each wave brought poverty and crime. Between the world wars, half the Italian immigrant population went back to Italy. Thats the way it stayed until The Swimmer led the change, cursed be his name.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:25 pm to TBoy
So the 14th amendment applied to them.
Lol.
Chode.
Lol.
Chode.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News