- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Ending anchor babies and birthright citizenship.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 2:28 pm to BarberitosDawg
Posted on 1/12/25 at 2:28 pm to BarberitosDawg
I feel like Trump will have to make this a major priority to have any chance of passing Congress. He would really have to go out and sell it and pressure the hell out of a few members of Congress.
i guess he could try the EO route simply to see if it would end up in front of SCOTUS, but the probability of the EO being thrown out without a ruling on the merits or perhaps dying in Circuit Court that overturns it seems likely if that happens.
i guess he could try the EO route simply to see if it would end up in front of SCOTUS, but the probability of the EO being thrown out without a ruling on the merits or perhaps dying in Circuit Court that overturns it seems likely if that happens.
0
Posted on 1/12/25 at 2:34 pm to BarberitosDawg
I’d say he can and should work towards ending anchor babies specifically for anyone here illegally.. if you’re here legally then birthright citizenship is/should be protected IMO
Posted on 1/12/25 at 2:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Will need an amendment,
An EO that was challenged and caused the Supreme Court to give a different interpretation would work.
The issue hasn’t been addressed by the supreme court in a long time.
Many issues that were “settled law” have been unsettled.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 2:39 pm to Wolfwireless
True, but you simply start with an EO.
Let the moonbats bitch about it going through Congress. In the meantime, we get to ship these swirthy leaches out of here.
Let the moonbats bitch about it going through Congress. In the meantime, we get to ship these swirthy leaches out of here.
This post was edited on 1/12/25 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 1/12/25 at 2:40 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
An EO that was challenged and caused the Supreme Court to give a different interpretation would work.
The issue hasn’t been addressed by the supreme court in a long time.
Many issues that were “settled law” have been unsettled.
And SCOTUS has never held that birthright citizenship applies to a child born on U.S. soil to an illegal alien. It would not be that big of an overturning of "settled law" that some claim.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 2:46 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
An EO that was challenged and caused the Supreme Court to give a different interpretation would work.
It would work and destabilize our common law system to an extent.
quote:
Many issues that were “settled law” have been unsettled.
The timeline here would be almost 3x as long as between Plessy and Brown or Roe and Dobbs
This post was edited on 1/12/25 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 1/12/25 at 2:48 pm to TROLA
quote:
I’d say he can and should work towards ending anchor babies specifically for anyone here illegally.. if you’re here legally then birthright citizenship is/should be protected IMO
Actually from the above it sounds like they can already take away children of illegal immigrants because those immigrants have already committed a crime.
So the kids would stay here and be US citizens, but the Parents would lose all legal right.
No anchor.
Would be really bad publicity though.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 2:48 pm to JimEverett
quote:
And SCOTUS has never held that birthright citizenship applies to a child born on U.S. soil to an illegal alien.
Their prior rulings on the 14A make this somewhat irrelevant.
quote:
It would not be that big of an overturning of "settled law" that some claim.
It would be a complete redefinition of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, which is kind of important in 14A analysis.
Not just for birthright citizenship. It would also mean that we could no longer prosecute illegal aliens for crimes they commit on US soil, as a side effect of this proposed change in interpretation.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 3:09 pm to BarberitosDawg
Seems to me that Anchor Babies is a separate issue from Birthright Citizenship and also Chain Migration.
I think Anchor Babies and Chain Migration can be ended by something less than an amendment, and will also solve a lot of the problem. Deport families and take the citizen with them. They then have right of return when they are of age. Make sure you adhere to our tax laws though, the ones that require you to pay taxes on money earned in foreign countries and file your taxes each year. Would be a big mess if you didn't if you ever wanted to return.
Ending Anchor Babies and Chain Migration probably alleviates a lot of the problem.
To end Birthright Citizenship would most likely require re-litigation of the case mentioned above. Maybe not. Would it be that big a problem if the borders were closed and Anchor Babies and Chain Migration were eliminated, if we really adhered to our laws?
I think Anchor Babies and Chain Migration can be ended by something less than an amendment, and will also solve a lot of the problem. Deport families and take the citizen with them. They then have right of return when they are of age. Make sure you adhere to our tax laws though, the ones that require you to pay taxes on money earned in foreign countries and file your taxes each year. Would be a big mess if you didn't if you ever wanted to return.
Ending Anchor Babies and Chain Migration probably alleviates a lot of the problem.
To end Birthright Citizenship would most likely require re-litigation of the case mentioned above. Maybe not. Would it be that big a problem if the borders were closed and Anchor Babies and Chain Migration were eliminated, if we really adhered to our laws?
Posted on 1/12/25 at 3:10 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
True, but you simply start with an EO.
Let the moonbats bitch about it going through Congress. In the meantime, we get to ship these swirthy leaches out of here.
That, right there, is the most important part of this issue.
I believe Homan when he says he will start day 1. From the way he talks, I think he's going to do what he wants, and worry about it later. Which is what a lot of us will answer with "I voted for this!"
"Let the moonbats bitch about it".
I say we do just that. Let Homan off the leash, and let him do what he's gonna do. Then while they bitch about, Trump and the voters hammer the Congress to pass what we need to back him up.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 3:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That analysis/decision was made about 130 years (1898) ago by the USSC.
A sympathetic court would have no trouble saying the prior analysis was flawed (Plessy vs Ferguson; Rowe vs Wade)
Posted on 1/12/25 at 3:16 pm to CharlesUFarley
quote:
Seems to me that Anchor Babies is a separate issue from Birthright Citizenship and also Chain Migration.
You are 100% correct, here.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 3:17 pm to blueridgeTiger
quote:
A sympathetic court would have no trouble saying the prior analysis was flawed (Plessy vs Ferguson; Rowe vs Wade)
That was already covered in the post to which you replied
quote:
The jurisprudence supporting the case has only grown from that case. The case for reversing it would require an entirely new paradigm for reversal that they established in Dobbs just a few years ago (aka, insane judicial chaos that we have never seen before).
Posted on 1/12/25 at 3:18 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
True, but you simply start with an EO.
Let the moonbats bitch about it going through Congress. In the meantime, we get to ship these swirthy leaches out of here.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 3:23 pm to BarberitosDawg
Just curious but I agree with ending birth right citizenship but what about the scenario where you have one person being a US citizen having a child with an illegal or someone with a work visa? Would that child get citizenship? How would or should that situation be addressed?
Posted on 1/12/25 at 3:33 pm to Asleepinthecove
quote:
I agree with ending birth right citizenship
Silly question, but to what end do you want to end birthright citizenship?
It's a big constitutional step, what problem do you think it solves?
Posted on 1/12/25 at 3:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It would be a complete redefinition of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
What is the current definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
Posted on 1/12/25 at 3:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Will need an amendment, unless you believe try-hard dullards like Ann Coulter
quote:
by SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/12/25 at 3:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"
quote:
That phrase means anyone born here is a citizen other than (1) children of ambassadors and (2) children born in areas occupied/controlled by an enemy during a war/conflict.
The current interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, except from dullards, is
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and anyone born here (except children of ambassadors and children of enemy occupiers), are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.
I'll just remove the obvious that children of ambassadors and children of enemy occupiers aren't citizens.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and anyone born here, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.
What a fascinating interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. You have to born here AND born here. Seems strange that the author would repeat himself like that.
This post was edited on 1/12/25 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 1/12/25 at 4:49 pm to MikeBRLA
I understand that lol most people even in here do not… 
Page 2 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News