Started By
Message

Executive Order expected to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants

Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:03 am
Posted by Kjnstkmn
Vermilion Parish
Member since Aug 2020
14896 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:03 am
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 8:02 am
Posted by baybeefeetz
Member since Sep 2009
32107 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:04 am to
Just a guess but I think that won’t work.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
443414 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:05 am to
quote:

Just a guess but I think that won’t work.


Yeah this is going to be enjoined immediately and then that will be called "lawfare", even if it's ultimately the correct decision to protect our Constitutional rights.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
105993 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:05 am to
quote:

Just a guess but I think that won’t work.


Then issue has never been mitigated. Only SCOTUS mention of it and the 14th is a footnote in Plyler v. Doe.
Posted by Bjorn Cyborg
Member since Sep 2016
30761 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:06 am to
quote:

then that will be called "lawfare"


Shiny
Posted by Deuces
The bottom
Member since Nov 2011
14668 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:07 am to
There will be a court challenge, but this needs to be settled.

They need to make it dependent on if at least one of your parents are already a citizen.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
443414 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:07 am to
quote:

Only SCOTUS mention of it and the 14th is a footnote in Plyler v. Doe.


If you read the decision in Wong Kim Ark, it's effectively impossible to decide the matter otherwise without overruling Wong Kim Ark.

WKA gets into excruciating detail over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, giving an in-depth originalist, textualist, and historical analysis. Overruling WKA is going to make some USSC judges quite the hypocrites.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
443414 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:08 am to
quote:

They need to make it dependent on if at least one of your parents are already a citizen.


Where in the language of the 14A is that stated?
Posted by SingleMalt1973
Member since Feb 2022
17761 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:09 am to
quote:

to protect our Constitutional rights.


Please let us know which Constitutional rights illegals have and how would the Constitutional right of birth right citizenship apply to illegals or several thousand mothers from China that travel to the US to have their new born delivered?
Posted by SquatchDawg
Cohutta Wilderness
Member since Sep 2012
16367 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:09 am to
Isn’t that guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?

ETA:

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."


Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 9:13 am
Posted by Nado Jenkins83
Land of the Free
Member since Nov 2012
62134 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:09 am to
Hey loser

Enjoy today
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
443414 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:09 am to
quote:

Please let us know which Constitutional rights illegals have

Almost all of them.

quote:

and how would the Constitutional right of birth right citizenship apply to illegals or several thousand mothers from China that travel to the US to have their new born delivered?

Were the parents subject to the jurisdiction of our laws?

Was the child born within our geographic boundaries?
Posted by ArHog
Gulf Coast
Member since Jan 2008
36045 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:10 am to




Posted by lionward2014
New Orleans
Member since Jul 2015
12421 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:10 am to
Clear violation of the 14th Amendment, and there is 0 legal reasoning that can interpurt the clause in the 14th granting it differently without completely screwing up our entire legal system.
Posted by Bjorn Cyborg
Member since Sep 2016
30761 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:10 am to
quote:

it's effectively impossible to decide the matter otherwise without overruling Wong Kim Ark.


Past cases get overruled all the time. Why do you act like this is some unheard of thing?


Way more recent precedents have been overturned than this one.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
443414 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:10 am to
quote:

Enjoy today


I will
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
129479 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:10 am to
quote:

Yeah this is going to be enjoined immediately and then that will be called "lawfare", even if it's ultimately the correct decision to protect our Constitutional rights.


Call it what you want but this EO is needed and needed to get some clarity on this issue from the judicial branch so the legislative branch can hopefully respond in a manner to stop this birthright citizenship bull shite that is being abused by foreigners.
Posted by SingleMalt1973
Member since Feb 2022
17761 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:11 am to
quote:

Isn’t that guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?


Yes but illegals and foreigners do not have constitutional rights. This is the exact reasoning in how the USSC held up the Tik Tok ban in that a foreign company did not have 1st Amendment rights.

Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
443414 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:12 am to
quote:

Past cases get overruled all the time.


"All the time" is a stretch.

quote:

hy do you act like this is some unheard of thing?

If you keep reading, I explain why it should be difficult, especially for justices like Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito.

quote:

Way more recent precedents have been overturned than this one.

And the justifications for those reversals should mandate maintaining WKA.

Also, I would have to look, but this would probably set the record for oldest USSC precedent to be reversed, which would be historic (in the bad way)
Posted by Bjorn Cyborg
Member since Sep 2016
30761 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:12 am to
quote:

Clear violation of the 14th Amendment, and there is 0 legal reasoning that can interpurt the clause in the 14th granting it differently without completely screwing up our entire legal system.


Will it be successful? I don't know.

But plenty of constitutional law experts disagree with you.
Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 12
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 12Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram