- 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 9:36 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:36 pm to Mason Dixon Swine
Nope. Probably raise them a ton. But that’s just because me and you will be in the hen house collecting those eggs ourselves, good American jobs
0
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Love this EO. Birthright citizenship is obsolete. Great to get rid of it.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I will
Take a trip down to the Gulf of America.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:06 pm to i am dan
quote:
Birthright citizenship is obsolete. Great to get rid of it.
Can't wait for the next DEM President to declare the 2nd Amendment "obsolete"...oh wait, that would be terrible.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Can't wait for the next DEM President to declare the 2nd Amendment "obsolete"...oh wait, that would be terrible.
Great EO. Birthright citizenship gone!!
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 1/20/25 at 10:14 pm to Kjnstkmn
I remember talking about this and so many people said I was so incredibly wrong, that you couldn't do this with an EO, but now that Trump came out with one, oh the tide has turned.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 11:32 pm to POTUS2024
"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."
If the bolded part means what SFP is saying it means.....
then why does it have to be stated as such?
If it means what he says it means, then it could just say, "and are here today in the US" or it could be left out.
Why were those specific words used? Now, I get the SFP response. He will say WKA settled this back in 1898. And I would agree.
Which means that the USSC can reverse it easily. I wonder if they will point to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which predates the 14th amendment by two years and was the template for the 14th amendment.
It uses the phrase, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power".
This is what was intended and what the dissenters in WKA noted as well.
SFP has history on his side. But it seems Trump is doing pretty good at overcoming history to make his mark.
I think this needs to happen. If the SC does indeed side with WKA, then Homan has his work cut out for him. These kids can indeed go back with their parents if they want to stay together.
To be honest. I don't think I have a real problem with that. It's only an issue if the border is wide open and no one gets deported.
But it does need to be clarified.
If the bolded part means what SFP is saying it means.....
then why does it have to be stated as such?
If it means what he says it means, then it could just say, "and are here today in the US" or it could be left out.
Why were those specific words used? Now, I get the SFP response. He will say WKA settled this back in 1898. And I would agree.
Which means that the USSC can reverse it easily. I wonder if they will point to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which predates the 14th amendment by two years and was the template for the 14th amendment.
It uses the phrase, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power".
This is what was intended and what the dissenters in WKA noted as well.
SFP has history on his side. But it seems Trump is doing pretty good at overcoming history to make his mark.
I think this needs to happen. If the SC does indeed side with WKA, then Homan has his work cut out for him. These kids can indeed go back with their parents if they want to stay together.
To be honest. I don't think I have a real problem with that. It's only an issue if the border is wide open and no one gets deported.
But it does need to be clarified.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 4:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Nah. But maybe someone will bite. Then you can reel your fish in, and leave it to flop around on the dock, while you shout to the board "See! There it is! I told you so! That's why, despite my 140 IQ, I can't understand what lawfare is. But look at that fish flop!"
Yeah this is going to be enjoined immediately and then that will be called "lawfare"
It's likely a 9-0 decision, but as we've discussed, there are pretexts that should be highlighted and explored.
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 4:36 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 4:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Your tears are DELICIOUS!
Posted on 1/21/25 at 4:37 am to Kjnstkmn
Squat and drop should not make someone a citizen. My wife shows up on your doorstep and drops a kid, is it then part of your family and gets to stay in your house?
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 4:55 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 4:53 am to SlowFlowPro
Illegal aliens are not foreign diplomats.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:35 am to RollTide4547
quote:
Your tears are DELICIOUS!
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:36 am to Sailor Sam
quote:
Illegal aliens are not foreign diplomats.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:39 am to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
If the bolded part means what SFP is saying it means..... then why does it have to be stated as such?
Because Indians were born in this country and they didn’t want them to be citizens.
But before Native Americans were made citizens they were made “subject to the jurisdiction,” based on SlowFloPro’s reading of subject to the jurisdiction. So either his reading (and Gray’s hackneyed attempt to right a wrong) is wrong or none of it makes sense.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:41 am to the808bass
quote:
But before Native Americans were made citizens they were made “subject to the jurisdiction,” based on SlowFloPro’s reading of subject to the jurisdiction.
You mean the Supreme Court's reading, which has been the undisputed law and interpretation for 130-ish years?
quote:
or none of it makes sense.
Read the case. It makes perfect sense if you just read for once.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:43 am to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
If the bolded part means what SFP is saying it means.....
then why does it have to be stated as such?
There are 2 categories to which this applies, and the only one relevant now is diplomats.
Children of diplomats have never been considered citizens by birth within the borders of the host country.
quote:
If it means what he says it means, then it could just say, "and are here today in the US" or it could be left out.
Then children of diplomats would be US citizens.
quote:
Why were those specific words used?
Diplomats
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Overruling WKA is going to make some USSC judges quite the hypocrites.
Gee, we've never had that. How will the Republic survive?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You mean the Supreme Court's reading, which has been the undisputed law and interpretation for 130-ish years?
They got it wrong. This isn’t hard.
Gray purposefully ignored the intent of the legislation to legislate from the bench. Judicial fiat.
And now we’re sacrificing the financial future of our country on Gray’s nonsense. None of which your libertarian self gives a shite about as long as you feel you’re winning an argument on the internet. Which is kind of a feature of sophistry.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:45 am to Kjnstkmn
It’s one thing to be pro constitution it’s another to think illegals have rights. They should never be having kids here or even entering …
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Read the case. It makes perfect sense if you just read for once.
Lol. No, it doesn’t. “Let’s interpret a phrase not found in common law as if it’s found in common law.”
“Hey Judge. Should we see what the people who wrote the phrase meant by it.”
“No way, buddy. We’ve got a Chinese guy to save. Now get to it.”
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News