- 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 1/20/25 at 9:13 am to GumboPot
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:13 am to GumboPot
quote:
Call it what you want but this EO is needed and needed to get some clarity on this issue
It's pretty clear today.
quote:
so the legislative branch can hopefully respond i
How would the legislative branch upend a Constitutional right?
0
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Almost all of them.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:13 am to SingleMalt1973
quote:
but illegals and foreigners do not have constitutional rights.
This is 100% incorrect.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:13 am to Kjnstkmn
Why are Democrats opposed to this? I don’t get a lot of their stances on illegal immigration, but it’s ridiculous we waited this long to do anything about it.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:13 am to SingleMalt1973
That’s incorrect. Illegals have a constitutional right to eduction.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
WKA gets into excruciating detail over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, giving an in-depth originalist, textualist, and historical analysis.
Yeah, they were talking about former slaves not foreigners entering illegally and dropping babies on our country.
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 9:14 am
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:14 am to GumboPot
quote:
Yeah, they were talking about former slaves not foreigners entering illegally and dropping babies on our country.
That's literally irrelevant to their analysis.
It changes nothing.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:15 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
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.
Roe is a good example of what you're talking about and that literally put the lives of some Justices and their families in danger.
That said, I don't think this SCOTUS has the balls to go through that level of pushback again. At the very least, they aren't going to want to listen to Justice Wise Latina crying the cloakroom every day.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:16 am to SingleMalt1973
quote:
Yes but illegals and foreigners do not have constitutional rights.
First of all, I don’t like it but the14th says:
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."
That’s pretty clear and specific to this question.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:16 am to SlowFlowPro
Lots has happened since that decision the underlying facts are different.
Also Plessy and Roe were also long standing precedent.
Also Plessy and Roe were also long standing precedent.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:17 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
But plenty of constitutional law experts disagree with you.
I've researched this matter thoroughly, and have yet to find one that doesn't rely on "it was about free slaves" as the basis. That's an extremely weak foundation to base an argument against the clear text of the clause.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:18 am to lsuconnman
quote:
That’s incorrect. Illegals have a constitutional right to eduction.
The right to education needs to be overturned. It's an interpretation were a right was born basically out of nothing. The constitution is supposed to keep the government off our backs not give us stuff including education.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:18 am to Bard
quote:
Roe is a good example of what you're talking about
WKA has been around for like 2.5x what Roe was.
Also Roe was based in a literal judicial creation, while this dispute has actual text, historical analysis, etc.
Lastly, in reversing Roe, the court late guidelines for when cases can be overruled, which boxes them in here a great deal. They would have to almost overrule that decision and create a whole new standard, a few years after Dobbs
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:19 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
Hey loser
Enjoy today
I know i will. It's Martin Luther day.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:19 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
That’s pretty clear and specific to this question.
This EO is needed to force this to the Supreme Court where they can clarify it. You may be right. But many constitutional law experts disagree with you.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:20 am to udtiger
quote:
Lots has happened since that decision the underlying facts are different.
Nothing has changed about the analysis of what subject to the jurisdiction means.
The fact that we now have a immigration system that declares some people illegal and some people not, has nothing to do with ambassadorships or hostile occupation of portions of our country, which are the only two examples made part of the analysis.
You can try to distinguish it away, show me how you fit and illegal alien into either of those boxes
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's literally irrelevant to their analysis.
But you specifically said "giving an in-depth originalist, textualist". The context of the 13th and 14th were freeing former slaves not protecting anchor baby factories.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:20 am to udtiger
quote:
Also Plessy and Roe were also long standing precedent.
Long standing precedent is a lot different than plain text in the Constitution.
Arguing this is like arguing that the "shall not be infringed" clause of the 2nd is subject to limitations even though Heller is precedent because you want to restrict certain guns.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:21 am to GumboPot
quote:
But you specifically said "giving an in-depth originalist, textualist".
Yes of what the crucial part of the amendment means.
The analysis of the case that goes into those details is what subject to the jurisdiction of means.
quote:
The context of the 13th and 14th were freeing former slaves not protecting anchor baby factories.
Literally irrelevant to the analysis
Page 2 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News