- 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 5:39 pm to Bass Tiger
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:39 pm to Bass Tiger
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!!!
That is exactly how Kamala Harris was slipped into the election.
She was not a natural born citizen according to the term "natural born" when the Constitution was adopted in 1790.
That is exactly how Kamala Harris was slipped into the election.
She was not a natural born citizen according to the term "natural born" when the Constitution was adopted in 1790.
0
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:19 pm to baybeefeetz
We weren't a post modern society so the Neanderthals had no reason to come here and leech back then.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:30 pm to meansonny
quote:
There was a legal path to citizenship at that time. That path involved assimilation.
That is the only line in the sand that I am aware of.
But "immigration" was not on the minds of the politicians who passed the 14th amendment. It was about post-slavery America.
You are complaining about a problem that was not even in the back of the minds of the amendment makers at the time.
Oh no, you're wrong according to a buncha constitutional lawyers on this forum.
They say the 14th amendment was drafted to give a Chinese person their citizenship. They claim the original intent of the 14th American was not to give freed black Americans their citizenship.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:23 pm to meansonny
quote:
The 14th amendment is about former slaves.
Not borders.
Those former slaves had ancestors that had been brought here against their will, and they had lived here their whole lives. It was different than people crossing our borders (what we see today) illegally, just to give birth and have an anchor baby that keeps them here.
Borders definitely have relevancy here, whether they're in the periphery of the topic or not.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:32 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
They say the 14th amendment was drafted to give a Chinese person their citizenship. They claim the original intent of the 14th American was not to give freed black Americans their citizenship.
You can’t disregard the text of the constitution and replace it with a theory of what was intended. Constitutional amendments are written by one group of people, voted on initially by another, and then voted on by state legislatures all over the country. Whose individual opinion about what was intended is supreme?
It is impossible to assign one person as the supreme commenter on a constitutional amendment, especially when the provision was considered by thousands and possibly millions of people prior to its ratification.
The text is what is important, not some dude’s agenda of what the text means, even though it doesn’t say what he wants it to mean.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:54 pm to TBoy
quote:
We as a nation had open borders.
Negative. We had legal points of entry.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:07 pm to TBoy
quote:
You can’t disregard the text of the constitution and replace it with a theory of what was intended.
Do you think every word, idiom, and metaphor has the exact same meaning and semantic domain today as then?
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 8:08 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:11 pm to CDawson
quote:The US only had 13 colonies at the time, all east of the Mississippi River. The US constitution was meant to govern adults who want to be free and independent, not children who want to be coddled and dependent.
No intellectually honest person could believe or argue that the Constitutional intent was to have a woman hop the fence, have a kid and that kid be granted citizenship.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:13 pm to baybeefeetz
China ships them over here for the express purpose of have "US citizens".
I know the folks back then never thought there would be "childbirth tourism."
Let's destroy the country over our sacred document.
Whenever this government falls the constitution won't be worth anything.
EVERY breath Justice Jummanji breathes shows what a farce it is. It is a tool being used to destroy the country.
I know the folks back then never thought there would be "childbirth tourism."
Let's destroy the country over our sacred document.
Whenever this government falls the constitution won't be worth anything.
EVERY breath Justice Jummanji breathes shows what a farce it is. It is a tool being used to destroy the country.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:15 pm to baybeefeetz
Tell me how many federally funded programs were available at that time.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:54 pm to CDawson
quote:
Negative. We had legal points of entry.
And the states governing the point of entry could say “get fricked” and you got fricked.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News