- 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
Hear me out on the 14th
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:00 pm
I wrote in another opi that I thought the opinion was poorly written
I also did not see all the court analyze 14th amendment which, in my view, is not even legal. Hear me out it says
The key provision said "end of the state where in they reside"
The problem with that language is that the use of the term reside is a particularly specific legal term
In order to have residence in a state you have to fulfill multiple legal obligations none of which in illegal can do
Therefore, if they cannot reside in a state because they are illegal there can be no compliance with the 14th amendment
The failure to at least address the anomaly is embarrassing for Robert and the court
I also did not see all the court analyze 14th amendment which, in my view, is not even legal. Hear me out it 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.
The key provision said "end of the state where in they reside"
The problem with that language is that the use of the term reside is a particularly specific legal term
In order to have residence in a state you have to fulfill multiple legal obligations none of which in illegal can do
Therefore, if they cannot reside in a state because they are illegal there can be no compliance with the 14th amendment
The failure to at least address the anomaly is embarrassing for Robert and the court
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 4:01 pm
17
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:06 pm to dafif
quote:While some could call that to question (e.g., an illegal, who rents a home, maintains an address, has a drivers license, and has lived in a location for several years), certainly a "birth tourist" would not meet the obligations of "residence."
In order to have residence in a state you have to fulfill multiple legal obligations none of which in illegal can do
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:07 pm to dafif
The 14th has always been one huge clusterfrick. Why couldn't the guys back in 1865 have simply worded it: "All descendants of African slaves are hereby granted U.S. citizenship." That was the entire point of the 14th - to codify into law that slaves are now citizens.
Instead they left us with this vague mess. If they literally felt every human being on earth is worthy of being granted citizenship, then they were morons. I seriously doubt any of them (in either party) would have voted for it if they could take a time machine to the present.
Instead they left us with this vague mess. If they literally felt every human being on earth is worthy of being granted citizenship, then they were morons. I seriously doubt any of them (in either party) would have voted for it if they could take a time machine to the present.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:08 pm to dafif
You make an interesting point. I read the first four or five pages of the majority opinion and from what I remember it mostly centered around the “subject to jurisdiction of” part
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:10 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
While some could call that to question (e.
I understand your argument but looking at Florida's residency requirements by statue requires an intent to reside their permanently which an illegal could never have
It also appears interesting to me that the 14th amendment can contemplate being a citizen of a state
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:19 pm to dafif
quote:
The key provision said "end of the state where in they reside"
The problem with that language is that the use of the term reside is a particularly specific legal term
In order to have residence in a state you have to fulfill multiple legal obligations none of which in illegal can do
Therefore, if they cannot reside in a state because they are illegal there can be no compliance with the 14th amendment
The failure to at least address the anomaly is embarrassing for Robert and the court
Sorry.
This IS where the drafters/ratifiers intent was (and has been) considered by the Court. That part of the Amendment was directed to Dred Scott and the freed slaves. It is also the basis of the incorporation doctrine.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:23 pm to AUstar
quote:
The 14th has always been one huge clusterfrick. Why couldn't the guys back in 1865 have simply worded it: "All descendants of African slaves are hereby granted U.S. citizenship." That was the entire point of the 14th - to codify into law that slaves are now citizens
Good point.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:26 pm to dafif
Congress can write a bill to limit the 14 Amendment the same way they put limitations on the 2nd Amendment.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:26 pm to dafif
America's history of immigration is a major confounding factor beyond the 14th Amendment's twisted interpretations. We pretty much accepted anyone who wasn't sick, crazy or criminal since the early 1820's because America needed people to expand West. That was between 80 and 100 million immigrants, but they were legal immigrants.
The 14th should be a moot point at this stage because there are no children of former slaves that exist and haven't been for a few generations.
We need a new amendment to define in current reality who should have birthright citizenship.
The 14th should be a moot point at this stage because there are no children of former slaves that exist and haven't been for a few generations.
We need a new amendment to define in current reality who should have birthright citizenship.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
certainly a "birth tourist" would not meet the obligations of "residence."
Certainly not.
And to all those who hang their hats on the Wong Kim Ark case, I remind them that his parents were legal residents and not illegals.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:53 pm to TrueTiger
quote:Bingo.
And to all those who hang their hats on the Wong Kim Ark case, I remind them that his parents were legal residents and not illegals.
Which is why the Fuller Court finding was nowhere nearly as atrocious as today's is.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 6:06 pm to udtiger
quote:
That part of the Amendment was directed to Dred Scott and the freed slaves. It is also the basis of the incorporation doctrine.
Perhaps but every state has a law defining reside that simply does not comport with the 14th
No way around that. And never addressed bt Roberts either - just washed over. It certainly provided a potential off ramp
Posted on 6/30/26 at 6:09 pm to dafif
quote:
Therefore, if they cannot reside in a state because they are illegal
How is a naturalized or natural born citizen illegal?
quote:
The failure to at least address the anomaly is embarrassing for Robert and the court
No the embarrassment is you thinking that naturalized and natural born citizens are "illegal"
I'm sure you'll find no shortage of idiots here to agree with you though
Posted on 6/30/26 at 6:21 pm to Powerman
If a person is born in the United States and lives their entire life in another country and what they do in another country is illegal in the United States, which jurisdiction are they subject to?
Is the US now allowed to prosecute every person granted us citizenship by birth that has never lived their life in the US if they commit what is a crime in the US in their home country?
I say bring it on. Fire up the CIA and FBI
Is the US now allowed to prosecute every person granted us citizenship by birth that has never lived their life in the US if they commit what is a crime in the US in their home country?
I say bring it on. Fire up the CIA and FBI
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 6:23 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 6:23 pm to AUstar
quote:
The 14th has always been one huge clusterfrick. Why couldn't the guys back in 1865 have simply worded it: "All descendants of African slaves are hereby granted U.S. citizenship." That was the entire point of the 14th - to codify into law that slaves are now citizens.
If you are not a troll and genuinely interested, read Judge Jackson’s concurrence. It is quite good.
As Judge Jackson deftly lays out, the language you proposed was the original text of the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1866. That language was rejected and the Civil Rights Act was adopted with universal language, and that language is the basis of the 14th amendment.
Senators warned we would be overrun by Chinese, gypsies and all manner of undesirables if the language was universal.
That argument was rejected and universal language was adopted in the 14th amendment because that was precisely the point and purpose. A universal statement that never again will rights be denied to people in America.
God bless, Judge Jackson and the United States
Posted on 6/30/26 at 6:25 pm to dafif
Posted on 6/30/26 at 6:40 pm to TFH
quote:
“subject to jurisdiction of” part
The part I don’t understand is…
If illegals are “subject to jurisdiction” and the jurisdiction is saying you must leave the country if you’re here illegally…. How in the absolute fck is citizenship bestowed?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 7:21 pm to Django Unchained
quote:
If illegals are “subject to jurisdiction” and the jurisdiction is saying you must leave the country if you’re here illegally…. How in the absolute fck is citizenship bestowed?
Imagine if you traveled to Mexico. The moment you step foot into the country you are subject to their jurisdiction. Regardless of anything else, at the moment of birth, the child is at that precise moment subject to the laws of our land. And there isn’t a law saying they are here illegally or that they have to leave. There IS law(in the opinion of the Supreme Court) that that child is a citizen.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 7:29 pm to dafif
If one's mere presence in the US is sufficient for birthright citizenship - what is the purpose of the clause ".. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
Seems redundant
Seems redundant
Posted on 6/30/26 at 7:33 pm to dafif
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News