- 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
0
Posted on 4/23/25 at 1:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:No you are not. Not even the courts are in complete agreement with you and it doesn't matter because it falls under the purview of the executive anyway. Are you denying that court rulings are overturned?
I'm explaining the law to you to correct you
quote:I have quoted the language verbatim
You can make up anything you want in your head
quote:SCOTUS rulings have been overturned. Which specific ruling are you referring to?
The Supreme Court just unanimously affirmed my position a few weeks ago
quote:It's in the plain language of the first sentence. I can read the english words to you but I can't understand them for you
There is that conflation
quote:I'm not conflating them but I do understand the connection made between jurisdiction, citizenship and rights that are NOT afforded to illegals as clearly stated in the 14th
Jurisdiction and due process
quote:Your first backtrack. Thank you. Even your mental illness couldn't overcome the reality of that brute fact
The question is how often they arrest illegals on US soil. It's not that common
quote:Every single person ever detained by CBP or ICE. You realize that when CBP detains someone, it's on our side, not the foreign side, right?
Within our borders? Who, exactly?
quote:For the third time, are you denying that diplomats have been detained and even jailed/executed at times in history?
Here you go doing this again
quote:I didn't say anything to contradict this. But WRT the application of jurisdiction, the first sentence is clear. You think the last sentence contravenes this one by affording legal protection to non-citizens that is limited to citizens in the first sentence. It's not a sane interpretation and it's based on your manufactured "independent" ideas that happen to be in the same section of the amendment when they could be in separate sections to denote different ideas
The first sentence is only describing who gets birthright citizenship, and that's anyone born in the US to a parent who is subject to the jurisdiction of the US
quote:You are changing the subject. First, any one of your 3 exceptions can be detained, imprisoned or deported as the gov sees fit. It has happened. You can cry "illegal" all you want but it is a fact that these agreements are not ineluctable. So you are artificially narrowing what "arrest" means and stretching the spirit of "jurisdiction." Second, the 14th is clear the rights due to jurisdiction are afforded to citizens and plainly spells out who that is. To extend that to any non-citizens negates the first stipulation which is absurd and there's no reason to make that interpretation. Any person should be able to see what that does both constitutionally and logistically.
Wong Kim Ark is our precedential case explaining what "subject to the jurisdiction" means, and it's EVERYONE (here legally or not) who is not one of the 3 groups:
If you are correct, any illegal has to be afforded "property" or possessions (second sentence). Where does that stop? We have to let illegals enter, acquire whatever they want and be afforded legal protection? What is the point in being a citizen? That completely distorts what it means to be a citizen because in your world, "any person" can retain the same things afforded to citizens.
As for the WKA, first, it was mainly about newly emancipated slaves. "The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question....the citizenship of free negroes." Not about illegal aliens who crossed in an adversarial manner.
Second, WKA was about the juridical status of people who were born here but were the children of parents who either held allegiance to a foreign power or didn't. Again, not about people who crossed the border illegally.
Third, there was disagreement amongst the justices
Fourth, it acknowledged the 14th was to not "impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States" not about illegals being granted rights like citizens
Fifth, there doesn't appear to be any language that clearly addresses someone who crossed illegally, particularly WRT them getting rights
Sixth, "so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here" and "to exclude or to expel from the country persons of" foreign citizenry
Posted on 4/23/25 at 1:42 pm to GamecockUltimate
quote:I knew someone would make this comment when I posted.
Yikes...you realize that was what the SS did.
Well, with the MAJOR fricking distinction that they weren't enforcing immigration laws, and were instead targeting their own citizens on the basis of race, religion, and sexual preferences.
The nazi's paved roads, ran schools, and famously made the trains run on time as well. That they did some evil horrible shite doesn't make every action ever taken by a Nazi evil by default. although I understand that it's easy to feel like you made a great point by attempting to associate people with whom you disagree with them.
Your employer requested your 'papers' when they hired you. Do you work for the Nazi party?
Riddle me this: if we aren't allowed to check for official documentation because "OMG NAZIS" then why do we spend time and money providing it? And if we aren't allowed to check for official documentation because "OMG NAZIS" than how do you propose we verify immigration status?
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 4/23/25 at 1:56 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
When you don't have anything to add just don't post jfc
I added 3 paragraphs, but thanks for adding your arse to the mix
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 4/23/25 at 2:15 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
Not even the courts are in complete agreement with you
I'm literally quoting Supreme Court cases for you
quote:
and it doesn't matter because it falls under the purview of the executive anyway.
No
quote:
Are you denying that court rulings are overturned?
No, but that's a pivot, as I discussed previously.
quote:
SCOTUS rulings have been overturned. Which specific ruling are you referring to?
The recent TDA case.
quote:
“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.”
LINK
I believe that portion was unanimous.
quote:
I'm not conflating them but I do understand the connection made between jurisdiction, citizenship and rights that are NOT afforded to illegals as clearly stated in the 14th
You clearly are having issues with these concepts.
quote:
Every single person ever detained by CBP or ICE.
Wrong. They are subject to our jurisdiction.
quote:
Your first backtrack. Thank you. Even your mental illness couldn't overcome the reality of that brute fact
No backtrack. You even quoted this language
quote:
This isn't true. ("all the time" is wrong)
quote:
are you denying that diplomats have been detained and even jailed/executed at times in history?
When was the last time the US arrested/detained a foreign diplomat within US borders acting in an official capacity?
quote:
You are changing the subject.
I am not. You keep misrepresenting what "subject to the jurisdiction" means and then conflating THAT mistake with other variables (like due process, rights, etc.)
quote:
Second, the 14th is clear the rights due to jurisdiction are afforded to citizens and plainly spells out who that is. To extend that to any non-citizens negates the first stipulation
It does not. Only in your improper definition of "jurisdiction" does this work.
That is not the law , nor what Jurisdiction has ever meant in the US.
There are no rights "due to jurisdiction". Citizenship is granted to persons born in our borders whose parents are subject to jurisdiction of the US. That is not granting any rights due to jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction analysis is on the parents, not the parties receiving citizenship. You're even conflating the party being analyzed.
quote:
If you are correct, any illegal has to be afforded "property" or possessions (second sentence).
No. Learn how to read.
quote:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
The Amendment is clear that a state cannot DEPRIVE an illegal of property without due process, which is true.
Nowhere does that claim the state must "afford" property to anyone.
You're making shite up again.
quote:
What is the point in being a citizen?
If you read the 14A alone, you'll see citizens get more rights (privileges an immunities in that one example) than non-citizens.
The 2nd Amendment is one of those rights being litigated, and courts are coming down on the historical interpretation that "the people" means citizens, which means the right is not afforded to any "person" (which means non-citizen).
Posted on 4/23/25 at 2:15 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
As for the WKA, first, it was mainly about newly emancipated slaves. "The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question....the citizenship of free negroes." Not about illegal aliens who crossed in an adversarial manner.
You need to read WKA.
quote:
WKA was about the juridical status of people who were born here but were the children of parents who either held allegiance to a foreign power or didn't.
You're making shite up again.
quote:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
The 3 exceptions I already told you. Now read this:
quote:
The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory
quote:
Fourth, it acknowledged the 14th was to not "impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States"
Selective quote. You left out, "who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
And this:
quote:
It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Tae y in Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393; and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States. Slaughter House Cases (1873) 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia (1879) 100 U. S. 303, 306; Ex parte Virginia (1879) Id. 339, 345; Neal v. Delaware (1880) 103 U. S. 370, 386; Elk v. Wilkins (1884) 112 U. S. 94, 101, 5 Sup. Ct. 41. But the opening words, 'All persons born,' are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race, as was clearly recognized in all the opinions delivered in the Slaughter House Cases, above cited.
quote:
Fifth, there doesn't appear to be any language that clearly addresses someone who crossed illegally, particularly WRT them getting rights
Because there was no such thing, at the time. The ruling makes clear this distinction is completely irrelevant. Additionally, the status of being "illegal" is a due to Congressional action, and Congress cannot override the Constitution. That dog won't hunt.
quote:
Sixth, "so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here" and "to exclude or to expel from the country persons of" foreign citizenry
Don't selectively quote.
Not only does it agree with me above
quote:
The acts of congress, known as the 'Chinese Exclusion Acts,' the earliest of which was passed some 14 years after the adoption of the constitutional amendment, cannot control its meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions.
But it's merely a statement of deportation, which nobody argues Congress can do.
quote:
Ad the right of the United States, as exercised by and under those acts, to exclude or to expel from the country persons of the Chinese race, born in China, and continuing to be subjects of the emperor of China, though having acquired a commercial domicile in the United States, has been upheld by this court, for reasons applicable to all aliens alike, and inapplicable to citizens, of whatever race or color.
And it's not applicable to a discussion of birthright citizenship, as the acts only apply to persons born in China. Nobody is arguing children born in China to Chinese subjects get birthright citizenship.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:No. I said "with respect to." I do note that you are missing one thing being entailed by the other
You're conflating jurisdiction and rights.
quote:citizenship is not the only thing that is granted by jurisdiction
The first sentence establishes who gets birthright citizenship. Jurisdiction is used to determine whose children do not get it
quote:By your own admission, if children who receive jurisdiction is based on birthright, that would entail that non birthright people do not get rights granted by citizenship, i.e. illegal aliens. It's incredible you can't understand this. People who illegally cross the border do not get the same rights as citizens no matter how much liberals whine about it. The 14th lays this out clearly
Again, this is based on your conflation above
quote:What I said was a matter of fact and I have substantiated it multiple times
You're incorrectly stating what "outside of our jurisdiction" means
quote:Just google it Einstein. There are plenty of examples in history when the home country has waived the immunity, among other things. It completely pulls the rug out from underneath your argument. You said those people were exceptions to the jurisdiction and therefore couldn't be arrested. It's easily proven wrong. You tried to advance this idea showing that other than those exceptions, everyone else is under the jurisdiction of US law as if that grants them some sort of rights. The 14th does not agree and I asked where you find language in the WKA that refers to people crossing the border illegally
Show me your examples of this
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Exactly. A person with a visa is a different situation than was described in the WKA.
None of these distinctions matter within the ruling of Wong Kim Ark
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:22 pm to GamecockUltimate
quote:I did not say that. I said it's a carve out and that's correct. It's a special situation that's completely different than someone crossing the border illegally
even though they are here legally your argument is that they have no rights under the constitution
quote:No, the 14th amendment says this. I quoted the language and even bolded certain words
Youre making a hard argument that only citizens have rights under the constitution
quote:That's absolutely correct
only citizens have a right to due process
quote:No, visas are an exception. You're arguing against a strawman.
non citizens here legally would not be entitled to due process
If you're going to introduce visas, you are proving that the person has gone to the trouble of attending legal procedings and completing the requisite documentation to receive SOME temporary rights.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:That include dissents which I have quoted to you. Moreover, are you denying that court rulings get overturned? Yes or no
I'm literally quoting Supreme Court cases for you
quote:What world are you living in. POTUS is literally doing this as we speak. Liberals are skyscreaming about it. US politicians have flown to the deportation country to try to bring the perp back. The same perp who admitted he was guilty, the same perp who admitted he was a part of a terrorist organization.
No
quote:Your 2nd backtrack. Thank you. Since court rulings can be overturned, you quoting them without the dissents and the current state of deportations means you're arguing a losing case
No
quote:That was specifically about removals in reference to the AEA, not the general guidelines of the 14th. "The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies." It also says "Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review.’” You're being disingenuous about it agreeing with your overall perspective on the 14th.
The recent TDA case
quote:I quoted the language verbatim. You invented a "separation of ideas" between clearly connected sentences in the same section of the rule
You clearly are having issues with these concepts
quote:NOT in terms of them getting rights afforded to citizens, i.e. "due process." The 14th is crystal clear on this. I even quoted your citation of the WKA.
Wrong. They are subject to our jurisdiction
quote:You absolutely went from "beyond jurisdiction" to "doesn't happen all the time." Clear backtrack and it matters because it undermines your point about jurisdiction WRT legal rights
No backtrack
quote:2022, Jaliya Wickramasuriya.
When was the last time the US arrested/detained a foreign diplomat within US borders acting in an official capacity?
That didn't work out the way you wanted, did it? Also, I noticed that in order to rescue your point, you had to add modifiers, which are completely unnecessary. You know full well any country reserves the right to waive diplomatic immunity and that doesn't even address the military point. This is all distraction because you have a losing point. The US can detain and expel any illegal at any time for any reason without a trial, as supported by the 14th. quote:SFP: "There are no rights "due to jurisdiction"
It does not
Also SFP: "Citizenship is granted to persons born in our borders whose parents are subject to jurisdiction of the US"
quote:
the jurisdiction analysis is on the parents, not the parties receiving citizenship
children of those under the jurisdiction receive rights granted via citizenship. You are twisting yourself into pretzels I don't even care about this silly jurisdiction squabble. I have already quoted the language showing the US (civil or military) can detain and deport anyone at any time for any reason without due process or legal proceeding except for citizens and maybe special exceptions such as visas, etc, which contains people who have gone through legal proceedings to gain that exceptional status.
quote:
The Amendment is clear that a state cannot DEPRIVE an illegal of property without due process, which is true
There's no way you don't think that's nonsense. An illegal surrenders all rights when they cross illegally, including their property, just like a country can waive diplomatic immunity or the military can detain pretty much anyone at any time. You are conflating "person" with non citizen which the 14th does not do. There is no invisible divider between citizen and non citizen "person." That leads to ridiculous consequences that any sane person can see. There's no reason why your characterization can't be applied to some of these cases where the gov is deporting people who have been in the country illegally for years and have acquired property. They knew the risk when they crossed illegally. If you are right, there could be immigration cases from now to eternity. quote:I never stated that. I stated you would have the state being required to respect the property that an illegal acquired. That is beyond stupid. The US can revoke chinese ownership of land near military bases. The US has pursued legal action against huawei and Chinese nationals.
Nowhere does that claim the state must "afford" property to anyone
quote:You must have missed that "equal protection" phrase. Your characterization puts illegals on par with citizens. It's nonsense. These distinctions are crossed all the time in the real world. People all over the world have property confiscated by the government all the time. It's like you're living under a rock
you'll see citizens get more rights than non-citizens
SFP, take the L. I quoted the plain language. I quoted legal precedent. I responded to every point you made. I explained the legal outworking of your position. The US does not have to grant a trial to an illegal prior to deporting them.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I just quoted it to you!
You need to read WKA
You even cited my quotation. Get help quote:You left out the sections I quoted.
You're making shite up again
quote:Which doesn't refute what I said about the WKA's purpose
The 3 exceptions I already told you
quote:Now, add the context that I quoted
subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States
"so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here" and "to exclude or to expel from the country persons of" foreign citizenry
quote:because it's not germane. "By birth." It's not referring to illegals. It's amazing you can't get this through your head
You left out, "who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
quote:So I am right. The language you say exists, doesn't exist. Thank you
Because there was no such thing
quote:It most certainly does not. That is invented in your head. How can language that doesn't exist make something irrelevant? You need help
The ruling makes clear this distinction is completely irrelevant
quote:
the status of being "illegal" is a due to Congressional action
The status of being illegal is incurred by breaking the law. quote:I quoted the relevant part and it's meaning is plain
Don't selectively quote
quote:based on citizenship, which illegals aren't. YOU are the one who cited WKA and now it's unravelling your point
Not only does it agree with me above, but it's merely a statement of deportation
quote:
as the acts only apply to persons born in China
Yeah, it certainly can't be construed to a person born in a foreign country. Only China. SFP bizarro world. It's hilarious you cited the WKA and you're twisting yourself into pretzels to show it doesn't really say what it says
Page 11 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News