- 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 8:36 pm to Tall Tiger
Posted on 1/12/25 at 8:36 pm to Tall Tiger
quote:
SFP, my child is considering law school but worried about the bar exam. How hard was it
That depends on the state.
Cali, LA, NY, and a couple others have hard ones. Lots of states are going to the UBE, which makes getting licensed in multiple states easier. That's a much easier and more consistent model.
They have changed the LA bar twice since I took it, but it's not really hard, but it's an endurance effort in a way I can't describe. MWF full days of just writing answers to legal questions written somewhat intentionally vague/weird.
quote:
and did you pass it on your first try?
Yes.
0
Posted on 1/12/25 at 8:42 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
Unless that phrase refers to something else.
I promise you it doesn't. if you read that case, it goes into a full historical analysis of the English Common law and usage of the time.
quote:
If the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means people within our borders then the Citizenship Clause is repetitive. You have to be born here and born here.
This is what I was referring to earlier. You're applying my definition in the thread to the larger wording in the 14A
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.
I wrote my definition as to not get too technical. There isn't a double use of the "birth" terminology, but it's easier to explain in a normal conversation that way. Diplomats and their children are typically not subject to US jursidiction, either.
LINK
quote:
Foreign diplomats enjoy certain immunities under international law. The spouse and child of a diplomat generally enjoy similar immunities.
quote:
So you can interpret the Citizenship Clause as a strange repetition or at least acknowledge that the phrase "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something different than "persons born or naturalized in the United States"
The amendment uses the wording in the negative, to exclude those people.
quote:
those who have an allegiance to another country,
Aka, diplomats
Posted on 1/12/25 at 8:43 pm to LordSaintly
quote:
but it's clear what the founding fathers meant by it.
Our Founding Fathers were dead when the 14A was written.
Our Founding Fathers would have NEVER agreed to the 14A (we got the 3/5 Compromise instead).
Posted on 1/12/25 at 8:45 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
The Fuller Court has been overturned quite often and isn't held in high esteem. Wong Kim Ark leans heavily on English Common law.
Relying on English Common Law and the historical analysis the court goes into in Wong Kim Ark is exactly what originalism and textualism claim to rely on.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 8:46 pm to tigerfan 64
quote:
Challenged where, in a military tribunal? I
No.
If he's not subject to US jurisdiction, then he can't be prosecuted for crimes.
quote:
If the courts have no jurisdiction over his crime, who will he plead to, his consulate or embassy?
He won't plead because he can't be prosecuted.
I advise you to d some research with the movie Lethal Weapon 2
I won't spoil how the bad guys are foiled, but I assure you it wasn't in a court of law.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 8:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
In your view, what's the best, most practical and time efficient path to ending birthright citizenship?
Posted on 1/12/25 at 8:47 pm to David_DJS
quote:
In your view, what's the best, most practical and time efficient path to ending birthright citizenship?
Amendment.
If the USSC comes to a different ruling than Won Kim Ark, it will throw our common law into chaos and eliminate the power of precedent, while politicizing the hell out of the court.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 8:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Amendment.
Advanced in congress or by a convention of states? Given the realities of illegal immigration the past 5-10 years, let's assume an economic downturn of some scale - could something like that come out of a nearly 50/50 congress or is the more likely path through the states?
Posted on 1/12/25 at 8:52 pm to David_DJS
I'll just assume states b/c an Amendment via Congress is so difficult. I doubt I ever see one again.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 8:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'll just assume states
I agree. And for anything meaningful re: spending/debt and term limits.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 9:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Just dropping in to say that you’re a fricking douche bag loser.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 9:07 pm to grizzlylongcut
Posted on 1/12/25 at 9:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
If everyone has that opinion of you, which they do here, it’s probably true.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 9:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Our Founding Fathers were dead when the 14A was written.
Oof. I'll edit.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 9:37 pm to Gifman
quote:
Says the divorce lawyer. I’ll wait until a legal mind can weigh in.
What's funny is if he were paid enough he'd find a way to argue how to legally do it with an EO
Posted on 1/12/25 at 9:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I promise you it doesn't. if you read that case, it goes into a full historical analysis of the English Common law and usage of the time.
I prefer the dissent.
quote:
Obviously, where the Constitution deals with common law rights and uses common law phraseology, its language should be read in the light of the common law; but when the question arises as to what constitutes citizenship of the nation, involving as it does international relations, and political, as contradistinguished from civil, status, international principles must be considered, and, unless the municipal law of England appears to have been affirmatively accepted, it cannot be allowed to control in the matter of construction.
quote:
It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent of the English common law rule has always been rejected in respect of citizenship of the United States.
quote:
The Civil Rights Act became a law April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27, c. 31), and provided:
"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."
And this was reenacted June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes, section 1992. .
The words "not subject to any foreign power" do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.
quote:
The jurists and statesmen referred to in the majority opinion, notably Senators Trumbull and Reverdy Johnson, concurred in that view, Senator Trumbull saying: "What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else; that is what it means." And Senator Johnson:
"Now, all that this amendment provides is that all persons born within the United States and not subject to some foreign power -- for that no doubt is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us -- shall be considered as citizens of the United States."
quote:
The Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to accord citizenship to persons so situated and to cut off the legislative power from dealing with the subject.
The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized or taken an steps toward becoming citizens of a country is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.
Giving the Fuller Court the final word on the matter is crazy.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 10:14 pm to David_DJS
quote:
In your view, what's the best, most practical and time efficient path to ending birthright citizenship?
Harry Reid introduced a bill in 1993 to end birthright citizenship.
quote:
…the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of [Section 1 of the 14th Amendment] and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.
Posted on 1/12/25 at 11:01 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
To be honest, this is too broad and still encourages people to come here on non-immigrant visas to have their children and get them citizenship.
I think it makes more sense to limit it to those here legally on an immigrant visa. It doesn’t have to be a permanent resident, but people here on B1 or B2 visas should not be rewarded with their children getting citizenship.
Tha simplifies it and makes it more fair.
Posted on 1/13/25 at 4:04 am to SlowFlowPro
No where in Oklahogs post did he insinuate Lakens killer was shielded by diplomatic immunity, nor did i in my response.
Why did you add that to the discussion?
If he isn't covered by diplomatic immunity and is not liable to US legal court jurisdiction he should be an enemy of the state.
Why did you add that to the discussion?
If he isn't covered by diplomatic immunity and is not liable to US legal court jurisdiction he should be an enemy of the state.
Posted on 1/13/25 at 4:49 am to Wolfwireless
Will never happen in your life time .
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News