- 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 8:56 am to the808bass
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:56 am to the808bass
quote:
Thanks for confirming that “subject to the jurisdiction” is, in fact, not a phrase from common law.
Is English your 2nd language?
0
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:57 am to oklahogjr
The law is don’t come here and should be removed. You’re arguing someone gets arrested then they have rights and claims to citizenship?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:57 am to Salviati
quote:
children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation
Huh, . . .
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:00 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
The law is don’t come here and should be removed.
This discussion isn't about removal of illegals.
quote:
You’re arguing someone gets arrested then they have rights and claims to citizenship?
No. That is specifically not what is being argued. You're conflating simple concepts. Perhaps you should sit thiw one out
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:01 am to SlowFlowPro
Perhaps you can go frick yourself and get back to discount divorces or go see mental health for your TDS.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:03 am to Salviati
quote:
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.
Well when it comes to Central and South American immigration, that part doesn't really apply here. Additionally, the United States Government has allowed this illegal immigration and is complicit in the crimes committed.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:05 am to Pandy Fackler
quote:
, the United States Government has allowed this illegal immigration and is complicit in the crimes committed.
Replyreplies0...
The big ruse is the "refugee" crisis our govt funded and implemented.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:12 am to oklahogjr
quote:Not if you understand ramifications of "effective date." Once in place, what actually happened yesterday or today in terms of SS cards has no long term relevance. The ACLU has filed suit. The EO will quickly be enjoined. The case will go to SCOTUS. Though there are arguments against birthright citizenship, I'd expect a decision preserving current law.
it's kinda irrelevant what the EO says isn't it?
But if it doesn't, foreigner's kids born on US soil today, and moving forward, will not be given citizenship as a birthright regardless of what card the hospital gives them.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:12 am to momentoftruth87
quote:That is not an accurate legal statement. In addition, they are not in hostile occupation.
They are enemies.
quote:Even if that statement is legally accurate, it's irrelevant.
They broke the law entering our country.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:17 am to Salviati
Weird how SFP logs out and some idiot comes to chime in with legal talk. Hi SFP
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
I think they are somewhat related because people use the anchor baby gain a foothold here for their own citizenship. I think we should deport everyone here illegally and tell them they can leave with or without their kids.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:26 am to Salviati
quote:
That is not an accurate legal statement
Well, that's really up to SCOTUS and not a 3rd rate divorce lawyer with gaping daddy issues. isn't it?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:49 am to shinerfan
quote:Exactly right, but immigrants in the United States are not an "alien enemies in hostile occupation." To the contrary, immigrants in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government.
Well, that's really up to SCOTUS and not a 3rd rate divorce lawyer with gaping daddy issues. isn't it?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:25 am to Salviati
quote:
Exactly right, but immigrants in the United States are not an "alien enemies in hostile occupation
Immigrants and illegal criminal invaders are not the same no matter how much you try to dishonestly conflate the two.
And tell Laken Riley's parents how they aren't in hostile occupation.
quote:
To the contrary, immigrants in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government.
Legal Immigrants, sure. But that's not who we're talking about. Try to keep up.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:53 am to shinerfan
quote:
Immigrants and illegal criminal invaders are not the same no matter how much you try to dishonestly conflate the two.
The distinction is irrelevant to the conversation.
quote:
And tell Laken Riley's parents how they aren't in hostile occupation.
Terrible situation. But nothing close to hostile occupation.
Also, you just showed that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US by the fact hew as prosecuted.
quote:
Legal Immigrants, sure. But that's not who we're talking about.
Yes you are. Laken Riley's killer. Illegal immigrant. Prosecuted by the State of Georgia, proving he was subject to the jurisdiction of the US
Posted on 1/21/25 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Read
the
case
it answers all of your big brain questions
I read the case. The case itself gives you the exact argument we are stating. It's just in the dissent. Just read the dissent. So yeah the idea didn't win out at the time. But we have different judges in place now.
I don't think Trumps people even need to come up with a new argument. They can just read the dissent out and say, yeah, the justices at that time got it wrong and we need new precedent. The dissent is correct. The 14th amendment was never meant to be utilized this way. Children of foreign nationals were never meant to be given citizenship just their mama got here in time for delivery. There is documentation of this. The Civil rights act of 1866 was two years earlier. It had slightly different wording that was adjusted for the 14th amendment to handle the issue with diplomats. But it wasn't meant to open the floodgates. This isn't a hard jump to make. SFP is just on one side of the argument. There are plenty of legal eagles who think this is a winnable argument.
And amazingly enough the judges on the court are not afraid to reverse course and set new precedent.
SFP may be right. This might go against Trump. But I wouldn't be surprised if he wins.
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 10:59 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:00 am to shinerfan
quote:They are not in hostile occupation.
And tell Laken Riley's parents how they aren't in hostile occupation.
quote::sigh:
Legal Immigrants, sure. But that's not who we're talking about. Try to keep up.
Immigrants, regardless of status, are subject to the laws of the United States. If they were not, how could the government arrest them for crimes, such as the murder of Laken Riley?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:04 am to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
The case itself gives you the exact argument we are stating. It's just in the dissent.
That distinction matters a great deal in terms of a common law system, especially since it was 6-2 and has only been strengthened since.
quote:
This isn't a hard jump to make
Legally it would be very difficult
It would also make any of Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito hypocrites, from a juridical philosophy angle.
quote:
And amazingly enough the judges on the court are not afraid to reverse course and set new precedent.
This would reverse their recent precedent on reversing precedent.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Where in the language of the 14A is that stated?
It's somewhere buried amongst the 19 genders newly discovered over the last 4 years. That shite being undone also.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 11:09 am to shinerfan
quote:Typically, a foreign army that invades and occupies part of our country. It does not happen often in the United States. The War of 1812 would be an example. It any of the British officers/soldiers had a wife who gave birth in an occupied territory such as Washington DC or portions of Louisiana, the child would not be a US citizen.quote:Huh, . . .
children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News