- 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 9:22 am to lionward2014
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:22 am to lionward2014
quote:
I've researched this matter thoroughly,
Well if lionward2014 has researched it thoroughly then I'm not sure why we are even wasting time on it. Seems settled.
1
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:22 am to Kjnstkmn
There will be an immediate injunction issued against it. If it ends up at SCOTUS, they'll punt it and say it's up to congress to alter the 14th.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:23 am to SquatchDawg
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."
There's the out. Illegal aliens don't get to do things like vote, have SSNs, run for office, etc. (At least they're not supposed to.) There's a distinction there.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:23 am to ClientNumber9
quote:
There's the out. Illegal aliens don't get to do things like vote, have SSNs, run for office, etc
That is not what those words mean
What those words mean is that if they commit a crime on our soil we cannot prosecute them
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 9:24 am
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:24 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Well if lionward2014 has researched it thoroughly then I'm not sure why we are even wasting time on it. Seems settled.
Feel free to present a legal argument that lays out a clear reason why "subject to the jurisdiction of" does not include every single person inside the US not subject to sovereign immunity.
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 9:25 am
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:24 am to lionward2014
quote:
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.
And yet the 2nd Amendment is probably the MOST infringed amendment. So, you aren't making the point you think you are making.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:25 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
And yet the 2nd Amendment is probably the MOST infringed amendment. So, you aren't making the point you think you are making.
So you are okay with infringing amendments for political purposes? I don't think you are making the point you think you are making.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:25 am to lionward2014
quote:
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
If you look at Dobbs, and how it reached the conclusion there was no 14th Amendment right to abortion, you will see the groundwork for this very argument.
Not a single person in Congress, nor any of the state legislature that ratified it, would have (or historically could have) intended it to apply to abortion.
Considering the concepts of citizenship, national sovereignty and immigration, the arguments against birthright citizenship for children of illegals are just as strong.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:26 am to udtiger
quote:
If you look at Dobbs, and how it reached the conclusion there was no 14th Amendment right to abortion, you will see the groundwork for this very argument.
Not a single person in Congress, nor any of the state legislature that ratified it, would have (or historically could have) intended it to apply to abortion.
Considering the concepts of citizenship, national sovereignty and immigration, the arguments against birthright citizenship for children of illegals are just as strong.
It doesn't. Abortion was an implied right. Birthright citizenship is right there in the text.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:27 am to lionward2014
quote:
So you are okay with infringing amendments for political purposes?
What does any of this have to do with what I am OK or not OK with?
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:28 am to lionward2014
quote:
Birthright citizenship is right there in the text.
It is, and so is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - which is where the party will be
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:30 am to udtiger
quote:
If you look at Dobbs, and how it reached the conclusion there was no 14th Amendment right to abortion, you will see the groundwork for this very argument.
Not a single person in Congress, nor any of the state legislature that ratified it, would have (or historically could have) intended it to apply to abortion.
The court morphed "due process" into "abortion"
That sort of logical leap is not applicable to this issue. We know the exact words at issue and what they mean.
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Wong Kim Ark went into this with an excruciating textual, originalist, and historical analysis. There has been no challenge of this whatsoever since, over about 140 years.
There are 2 exclusions that place a person outside of the jurisdiction of the US for these purposes:
1. Diplomats
2. People in areas occupied by hostile forces in conflict with the US
How do you fit people here illegally into either, and do you want to stop prosecuting them for crimes while they're here illegally in order to get there?
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
here you are, thinking you are "winning" again bc that is all you care about.
pretty embarrassing
pretty embarrassing
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:31 am to udtiger
quote:
and so is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
We know what this means, though.
Illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the US/states
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:32 am to DawgCountry
quote:
here you are, thinking you are "winning" again bc that is all you care about.
It's a combination of winning/being right AND protecting our rights.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:32 am to udtiger
quote:
It is, and so is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - which is where the party will be
If SCOTUS decides that illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof of the US, how do we enforce any law against them? The only argument would be to declare it an invasion and release the military and treat them as POW's but that seems completely insane from a public relations matter, and presumably from an actual implementation perspective. Military law is outside of my scope of knowledge, so I could be wrong.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:33 am to SquatchDawg
If the parents are here illegally, they have not been subject to the jurisdiction hereof.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:35 am to Pandy Fackler
Is it?
I forgot. Just doesn't seem.like his message resonates with half the country anymore
I forgot. Just doesn't seem.like his message resonates with half the country anymore
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:35 am to lionward2014
quote:
If SCOTUS decides that illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof of the US, how do we enforce any law against them?
We can't. That's what I keep bringing up.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:35 am to Lynxrufus2012
quote:
If the parents are here illegally, they have not been subject to the jurisdiction hereof.
If this is true, those parents can murder someone and we can't prosecute them.
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News