- 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
re: Executive Order expected to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:47 am to the808bass
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:47 am to the808bass
quote:
“Let’s interpret a phrase not found in common law as if it’s found in common law.”
But...this is part of common law and they go into the English law at issue.
quote:
“Hey Judge. Should we see what the people who wrote the phrase meant by it.”
“No way, buddy. We’ve got a Chinese guy to save. Now get to it.”
You're getting that white flag prepared early today I see.
2
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:47 am to POTUS2024
quote:
I remember talking about this and so many people said I was so incredibly wrong, that you couldn't do this with an EO, but now that Trump came out with one, oh the tide has turned
You should be happy Trump is doing something you wanted to do.
Instead you have been constantly bitching.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:47 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
It’s one thing to be pro constitution it’s another to think illegals have rights.
Illegals do have rights.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:48 am to SlowFlowPro
That doesn’t mean anything. That’s your brain desperately reacting.
Has anyone prescribed electro shock therapy for you?
Has anyone prescribed electro shock therapy for you?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this is part of common law
Where is “subject to the jurisdiction” as a phrase found in common law?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Illegals do have rights.
And that’s the problem. They shouldn’t. If they show up for some type of assistance or help they should be rounded up and sent back. THEY BROKE THE LAW ENTERING
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:57 am to the808bass
quote:
Where is “subject to the jurisdiction” as a phrase found in common law?
quote:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
Read
the
case
it answers all of your big brain questions
I'll even give you a link to help you
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:59 am to the808bass
quote:
That doesn’t mean anything.
Supreme Court precedent matters a great deal
quote:
That’s your brain desperately reacting.
No it's my brain reading...the precedential case.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:02 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:10 am to SlowFlowPro
Your incessant posting in this thread has taken you to new heights of pathetic status.
Just take the L, drink some hot tea, and chill the frick out for the next 4 years. No one respects your "legal" opinion here, and with each straw of sanity that slips through your fingers your credibility diminishes.
If you continue at this pace the next four years are going to leave you as empty a husk as your outgoing president.
Just take the L, drink some hot tea, and chill the frick out for the next 4 years. No one respects your "legal" opinion here, and with each straw of sanity that slips through your fingers your credibility diminishes.
If you continue at this pace the next four years are going to leave you as empty a husk as your outgoing president.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Have a fish:
But maybe someone will bite
---
Already used prior to 8:00 a.m. CST
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:34 am to SlowFlowPro
Stick to breaking up marriages shyster
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:38 am to Icansee4miles
The more I think about it the more I don't think this executive order did anything..... Are hospitals this morning checking a parents citizenship? Are all babies born still getting social security cards?
If they aren't checking and everyone still getting ss cards then it's kinda irrelevant what the EO says isn't it?
If they aren't checking and everyone still getting ss cards then it's kinda irrelevant what the EO says isn't it?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:40 am to oklahogjr
It hasn't even been 24 hours you dolt.
But wait, a reckoning is coming. And I hope it breaks you somewhere deep in your limp, jellied spinal column.
But wait, a reckoning is coming. And I hope it breaks you somewhere deep in your limp, jellied spinal column.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:46 am to SlowFlowPro
Thanks for confirming that “subject to the jurisdiction” is, in fact, not a phrase from common law.
A problem created by lawyers, exacerbated by lawyers and not preventing from being solved by lawyers. America in a nutshell.
A problem created by lawyers, exacerbated by lawyers and not preventing from being solved by lawyers. America in a nutshell.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:46 am to TygerTyger
quote:
It hasn't even been 24 hours you dolt.
But wait, a reckoning is coming. And I hope it breaks you somewhere deep in your limp, jellied spinal column.
Right but the executive order doesn't change all those processes or make anything different there...
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:48 am to oklahogjr
How do you know it isnt different right now?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:50 am to Kjnstkmn
The Executive Order will be enjoined. An executive order cannot alter constitutional rights. That's a fundamental principle of constitutional law.
The fourteenth amendment, the jurisprudence interpreting it, and the common law supporting that jurisprudence are clear.
The fourteenth amendment, the jurisprudence interpreting it, and the common law supporting that jurisprudence are clear.
quote:US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 682 (1898) (citations omitted, emphasis added).
The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:54 am to Salviati
They are enemies. They broke the law entering our country.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:56 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
They are enemies. They broke the law entering our country.
So they are subject to the laws of our country if they broke the law....
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News