- 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
Executive Order expected to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:03 am
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:03 am
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 8:02 am
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:04 am to Kjnstkmn
Just a guess but I think that won’t work.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:05 am to baybeefeetz
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:05 am to baybeefeetz
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
then that will be called "lawfare"
Shiny
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:07 am to Kjnstkmn
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.
They need to make it dependent on if at least one of your parents are already a citizen.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:07 am to udtiger
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:08 am to Deuces
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:09 am to SlowFlowPro
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:09 am to Kjnstkmn
Isn’t that guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?
ETA:
Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:09 am to SingleMalt1973
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:10 am to Kjnstkmn
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:10 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
Enjoy today
I will
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:11 am to SquatchDawg
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:12 am to Bjorn Cyborg
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 on 1/20/25 at 9:12 am to lionward2014
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.
Popular
Back to top
