- 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 3:25 pm to TBoy
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:25 pm to TBoy
It counts if you are a "heritage" American.....then God gives you those rights. So if your rights come from God, is God necessarily an American? So if you are an American God gives you freedom of speech. Freedom of Religion, freedom to defend yourself, etc. But if you are Canadian or from Mexico, God says....."you're shite out of luck" ?
0
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Indians were an idiosyncratic problem
You’re getting close.
They were the “problem” that necessitated the use of “subject to the jurisdiction.”
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:28 pm to kingbob
quote:
were inspected at the port to ensure that were free of obvious diseases and could support themselves and then let in
Which they don’t do now. 95% come here WITHOUT being able to support. And 95% is being generous it’s probably 99.9%
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:29 pm to TBoy
quote:Not really. WKA, Hintopoulos, ands many others analyzed the status of the parents - and you can't simultaneously dismiss this statement as an exclusion for diplomats and invading forces having children here and say its not about parents. Theoretically, the parent (and child by extension), is not here under the jurisdiction of federal law, and therfore the child doesnt meet the second condition.
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.
Do parents need to be US Citizens? No. That's clear. Do they need to be here legally? Less clear.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:32 pm to baybeefeetz
The shout answer to the OP is “no.” There were laws having to do with a non-native born person becoming a citizen, but nothing that regulated immigration, ie, the ability to enter. This is one of the reasons why the case before the Court today is so fascinating to observers. My personal opinion is that the court should find in favor of birthright citizenship but with the door open for Congress to change that by legislating on what it means to be within the jurisdiction of the US. I don’t see how the 14th Amendment forecloses such legislation (although many do).
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
I think it is interesting that this revolves around the 14th amendment. Which predates the 15th by what two years? Meaning when the 14th was passed, every citizen didn't have the right to vote. That didn't happen until two years later. Which means the justices were not as concerned about the people affected getting a vote when they made their ruling.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:38 pm to the808bass
quote:
They were the “problem” that necessitated the use of “subject to the jurisdiction.”
Yes, the issue was whether the native population were members of sovereign nations within our borders. Absolutely correct.
That issue would not apply to immigrants, however. Immigrants do not become sovereign populations, not subject to our laws.
And as the administration kind of acknowledged today, that no longer applies to the indian nations either.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:41 pm to TBoy
And your constant display of ignorance is always on display
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:42 pm to Sweep Da Leg
quote:
And your constant display of ignorance is always on display
How so? what cha got?
Show it. Come on little kid. Show it.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:42 pm to meansonny
quote:
But "immigration" was not on the minds of the politicians who passed the 14th amendment. It was about post-slavery America.
Immigration WAS on their minds. The primary intent was to address people born as slaves, but the language intentionally includes the children of immigrants. This was fully debated on the Senate floor during adoption of the 14th Amendment.
And most Senators believed they were just stating the common law as everyone understood it.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:45 pm to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
I think it is interesting that this revolves around the 14th amendment. Which predates the 15th by what two years? Meaning when the 14th was passed, every citizen didn't have the right to vote. That didn't happen until two years later. Which means the justices were not as concerned about the people affected getting a vote when they made their ruling.
Women didn't get the right to vote for like 50 more years
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:51 pm to TBoy
quote:
And as the administration kind of acknowledged today, that no longer applies to the indian nations either.
Did Indians get prosecuted for federal crimes before they were “subject to the jurisdiction” with respect to citizenship?
The answer is yes.
The 1885 Major Crimes Act made seven serious crimes under federal jurisdiction even if committed on reservation land.
That was expanded even further early in the early 20th century, before Indians became citizens in 1924.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:12 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
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.
If an immigrant couple is in the US legally and in process of becoming US citizens and they have a child......that child will be granted birthright citizenship when one of the parents becomes a US citizen. Period!!!
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:25 pm to Vacherie Saint
I ent think that’s what under the jurisdiction means at all, so the court really cannot do that. Or they won’t.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Women didn't get the right to vote for like 50 more years
It's interesting because intent of the law is prescriptive to application. But the writers of the 14th were writing with a completely different set of circumstances in mind and at play then what we have today.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:34 pm to TBoy
quote:
That is how my ancestors came in
Did they go on welfare?
Did they support themselves??
Did they send money back to their country of birth?
Did they protest for 'more rights'
Did they follow the laws in effect at the time?
All my ancestry became loyal Americans and world their asses off and left us with a nation so strong and moral that they could fund the rest of the free world and protect their interests.
We are now being strangled by that acdumulated debt there is one party that wants to proactively bring in more hordes of aliens with no thought of becoming American - just here to bask in the benefits - and protest for more
There IS a LEGAL process by which any person of good moral character can become a genuine US citizen. It is not a mystery - anyone can apply. True Americans WELCOME those people - they know the difference between a shithole and an honorable country.
The illegal aliens we are hunting down are not genuinely wanting to participate in making America stronger - they only want the feather bed option.
'f em
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:35 pm to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
But the writers of the 14th were writing with a completely different set of circumstances in mind and at play then what we have today.
This is why we have the amendment process.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is why we have the amendment process.
For some POVs.
For others SCOTUS can bypass the amendment process and just declare whatever they like. There's a reason the left uses courts to advance their agenda when they can't win at the ballot box.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:11 pm to TBoy
quote:
That is how my ancestors came in.
And did a dimocrat meet them at the pier promising them free welfare, free healthcare, free education, and free Section 8 housing for life? Did your ancestors have their trips here subsidized like so many of this last Biden bunch of illegals?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The 14A changed the constitution and created mandatory, constitutional federal citizenship.
Wrong and Wrong
Jurisdiction to adjudicate citizenship was never taken away from the courts.
Our current judicial system is set up to accommodate both birth and naturalization citizenship.
A person who comes to this country via our legal immigration protocols can claim to hold standing within proper jurisdiction.
An illegal is a criminal intruder who has no standing to claim any constitutional privileges of immunities. There is no mandatory declaration of citizenship.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News