- 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 10:12 am to Bwmdx
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:12 am to Bwmdx
quote:
With this line of thinking any criminal outside the US (Assange) who the US decides to prosecute can be considered a citizen since they are subject to our jurisdiction?
No.
If that person had a child within our boundaries, that child would.
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 10:13 am
0
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:13 am to Born to be a Tiger1
quote:
Now tell me why they weren't allowed citizenship even though they were all born within the US.
They lived in their own nations not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:14 am to Laugh More
quote:
Our? How are illegals, non citizens, supposed to be considered “our?”
The Constitution applies to illegals, too.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Constitution applies to illegals, too.
A lot of people here may need this explained.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you keep reading, I explain why it should be difficult, especially for justices like Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito.
This is your explanation?
quote:
Overruling WKA is going to make some USSC judges quite the hypocrites
Simply claiming that you "explained" something doesn't take the place of a actually making a point. Childlike semantics are the only thing you've ever brought to this board. Another in a long line of failures by little slobro.
Please explain what would be hypocritical in overturning a bad precedent.
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 10:20 am
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
Rapidly approaching 100 posts this morning. 
Putting in that work!
Putting in that work!
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:19 am to Decatur
quote:Perhaps.
A lot of people here may need this explained.
Are illegal migrants criminals?
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:19 am to SlowFlowPro
Invaders that have killed and raped pay no attention to our laws. Yes, they have been arrested. Just as we resisted the British invaders in 1812.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Please let us know which Constitutional rights illegals have
Almost all of them.
Come again? I don't believe so.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:21 am to Bwmdx
quote:
With this line of thinking any criminal outside the US (Assange) who the US decides to prosecute can be considered a citizen since they are subject to our jurisdiction?
You clearly don't understand the idea of jurisdiction.
Let's walk through this analysis.
There are citizens and non-citizens.
Citizens are born in the US or naturalize through the laws prescribed in the INA (we are going to ignore derivative citizenship for this).
Non-citizens come in many categories, but for now we are going to categorize them as simply legal and illegal.
I think everyone agrees if someone is here legally they are subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the US. If someone here on a H1B visa and they rob a bank everyone is okay with them going to jail and then being deported because of it.
The argument against the clause in the 14th then is that if an illegal is here he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then how does a criminal court convict them or how does our immigration court order them deported like the person here on the H1B?
This is like saying if someone is driving a car without a license and gets rearended by a drunk 18 wheeler driver he cannot sue for damages. Even the no pay, no play statute in LA allows it after the initial recover limits are exceeded.
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 10:25 am
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:21 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Are illegal migrants criminals?
illegal == criminal
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:22 am to SlowFlowPro
We've argued this before. You just said that Native Americans were not under the jurisdiction of the US thus not allowed citizenship. This also applies to the illegals. One other point is that the Natives actually were under the jurisdiction of the US as being conquered thus under the jurisdiction of the US.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:28 am to SingleMalt1973
quote:
Yes but illegals and foreigners do not have constitutional rights.
the law and amendments say otherwise
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:31 am to theballguy
quote:
quote:
Please let us know which Constitutional rights illegals have
Almost all of them.
Come again? I don't believe so.
What you believe =/= what SCOTUS has held for a century.
Even in Plyler v. Doe the dissent wasn't arguing against the idea that illegals don't have rights, simply against SCOTUS deciding the issue and getting involved in what the 4 dissenters deemed a political issue.
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 10:32 am
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:33 am to SingleMalt1973
quote:
Yes but illegals and foreigners do not have constitutional rights.
Bingo
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:36 am to Kjnstkmn
YES!!!
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:48 am to lionward2014
quote:
That's not in there. The Constitution doesn't create any laws, especially criminal, it establishes the structures and framework of how the government is run.
There is the Supremacy clause
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:54 am to theballguy
quote:One might think so.
illegal == criminal
But I've heard a litany of Decatur types claiming otherwise.
Hence the question.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:56 am to Deuces
quote:
There is the Supremacy clause
Sure which gives the Legislative branch the ability to make laws, but there aren't laws in the Constitution.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:02 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.
The children of foreign diplomats do not get birthright citizenship because they are not under American jurisdiction. Illegal aliens who did not enter America legally are also not under American legal jurisdiction.
Of course, it is hard to imagine our legal system being more screwed up than it already is given the BS show trials we've seen over the last four years.
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News