Started By
Message

re: Executive Order expected to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants

Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:18 am to
Posted by lionward2014
New Orleans
Member since Jul 2015
14021 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:18 am to
quote:

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.



True or false: The illegal alien who murdered Laken Riley was rightfully tried and convicted?

If true, then was he subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476309 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:19 am to
quote:

This is your explanation?


No.

This is

quote:

If you read the decision in Wong Kim Ark, it's effectively impossible to decide the matter otherwise without overruling Wong Kim Ark.

WKA gets into excruciating detail over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, giving an in-depth originalist, textualist, and historical analysis. Overruling WKA is going to make some USSC judges quite the hypocrites.


quote:

Please explain what would be hypocritical in overturning a bad precedent.

They're big fans of originalist, textualist, and historical analysis.

This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 11:20 am
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
26428 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:20 am to
quote:

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 SC generally does take into account the intent, historical debates and context of an amendment when it was passed. At least the honest members of the court do that rather than contorting words into rationalizing an ideological agenda.



Posted by DaveyJones12
Member since Dec 2022
358 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:26 am to
quote:

Way more recent precedents have been overturned than this one.


Recent precedents are easier to overturn than longstanding ones that have been tried multiple times.

Sailor's Snug Harbor (1839) stated:

quote:

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.


Plyler v. Doe (1982) stated:

quote:

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.


The only wiggle room that Wong Kim Ark gives is if you were to consider the illegal aliens in this country to be "enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory," which is an extremely difficult position to sell with a straight face.

It is extremely clear that the 14th Amendment grants US citizenship to anyone born in the US or its territories to parents that do not enjoy diplomatic immunity.

One of the defining results of WKA wasn't the immigration question. It was the idea that the constitution, in its entirety, including amendments, should be read through the lens of Common Law.




Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
37460 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:27 am to
Stop! Don't get in the way of making it up as they go along.
Posted by DaveyJones12
Member since Dec 2022
358 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:37 am to
you can personally disagree all you'd want, but just know that you're disagreeing with almost all of the SCOTUS judges from the past 100+ years
Posted by DaveyJones12
Member since Dec 2022
358 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:40 am to
quote:

Illegal aliens who did not enter America legally are also not under American legal jurisdiction


Yes they are. Why do you think they're not? There is absolutely no reason to believe they're not. If they weren't, then we wouldn't be able to prosecute them for the crime of entering the country illegally.
Posted by dblwall
Member since Jul 2017
1619 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:43 am to
Can we get rid of Vivek then?
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
59449 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:43 am to
quote:

So you are okay with infringing amendments for political purposes? I don't think you are making the point you think you are making.


There are limits on the 1st Amendment too. You may disagree with them, but to pretend like there couldn’t be limits placed on the 14th is very naive.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476309 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:46 am to
quote:

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

It does not apply to illegals, though.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476309 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:46 am to
quote:

Are illegal migrants criminals?

Yes, and they can be prosecuted for their criminality.

That requires that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US/states
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476309 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:47 am to
quote:

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.

By this argument, illegals can't be prosecuted for crimes.


See how silly that argument is?
Posted by RohanGonzales
Pronoun: Whatever
Member since Apr 2024
10559 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:48 am to
quote:


Stop! Don't get in the way of making it up as they go along.


Fight for your win shithead.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476309 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:54 am to
quote:

The only wiggle room that Wong Kim Ark gives is if you were to consider the illegal aliens in this country to be "enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory," which is an extremely difficult position to sell with a straight face.


Especially if you read WKA and how it defines the term.

quote:

One of the defining results of WKA wasn't the immigration question. It was the idea that the constitution, in its entirety, including amendments, should be read through the lens of Common Law.

Which has been adopted into the originalist/historical analytical model we see with guys like Thomas and Gorsuch.

quote:

Originalism teaches only that the Constitution’s original meaning is fixed; meanwhile, of course, new applications of that meaning will arise with new developments and new technologies. Consider a few examples. As originally understood, the term “cruel” in the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause referred (at least) to methods of execution deliberately designed to inflict pain. That never changes. But that meaning doesn’t just encompass those particular forms of torture known at the founding. It also applies to deliberate efforts to inflict a slow and painful death by laser. Take another example. As originally understood, the First Amendment protected speech. That guarantee doesn’t just apply to speech on street corners or in newspapers; it applies equally to speech on the Internet. Or consider the Fourth Amendment. As originally understood, it usually required the government to get a warrant to search a home. And that meaning applies equally whether the government seeks to conduct a search the old-fashioned way by rummaging through the place or in a more modern way by using a thermal imaging device to see inside. Whether it’s the Constitution’s prohibition on torture, its protection of speech, or its restrictions on searches, the meaning remains constant even as new applications arise.



Gorsuch himself

quote:

Living constitutionalists often complain we can’t know the original understanding because the document’s too old and cryptic. Hardly. We figure out the original meaning of old and difficult texts all the time. Just ask any English professor who teaches Shakespeare or Beowulf.

I suspect the real complaint of living constitutionalists isn’t with old laws generally so much as it is with the particular terms of this old law. The Constitution is short—only about 7,500 words, including all its amendments. It doesn’t dictate much about the burning social and political questions they care about. Instead, it leaves the resolution of those matters to elections and votes and the amendment process. And it seems this is the real problem for the critics. For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy.


This is what the "they couldn't conceptualize illegal immigrants or birth tourism" are doing. They're arguing for a living document because they don't like what the actual Constitution says.
Posted by Broadside Bob
Atlanta, GA
Member since Dec 2012
1676 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:55 am to
quote:

"All persons born...in the United States"


Can this be interpreted in such a way as to say that mom must be in the U.S. legally at the time of the child's birth?

It would not completely end the problem, but it would stop a lot of it. Hard to imagine that the writers of the 14th envisioning intended to extend constitutional protections to non-citizens in the country illegally.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476309 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 12:03 pm to
quote:

Can this be interpreted in such a way as to say that mom must be in the U.S. legally at the time of the child's birth?


Not if you read WKA and how it defines the next set of words (subject to the jurisdiction thereof)

quote:

Hard to imagine that the writers of the 14th envisioning intended to extend constitutional protections to non-citizens in the country illegally.

Wong Kim Ark was that, although "illegally" is largely an anachronism.
Posted by LatinTiger30
New Orleans
Member since Oct 2007
4822 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 12:11 pm to
It won't hold up. This issue was decided over 100 years ago. Born on American soil = American Citizen.
Posted by shinerfan
Duckworld(Earth-616)
Member since Sep 2009
28517 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 12:46 pm to
quote:

They're big fans of originalist, textualist, and historical analysis.




It's not original.

It's not textual.

They've shown a willingness to revisit prior bad decisions.
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
82267 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 12:49 pm to
It's a completely idiotic policy The rewards people who break the law.

No country does this but the US.
Posted by LSUROXS
Texas
Member since Sep 2006
8649 posts
Posted on 1/20/25 at 12:51 pm to
Proud to be the 100 upvote on this thread!
Jump to page
Page First 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 12Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram