- 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
0
Posted on 6/30/26 at 8:29 pm to Ailsa
quote:
23.5% of all children born in America in 2025 were from foreign mothers. They would all be American citizens now. No questions asked. Forever.
They would all be American citizens now as of 1868.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 8:35 pm to dafif
The classic legal definition is
“Residence in fact” plus “the intent to reside indefinitely…”
“Residence in fact” plus “the intent to reside indefinitely…”
Posted on 6/30/26 at 8:40 pm to dafif
"Reside" and "Residence" are terms which, by their legal definition, have nothing to do with legal status in a place. Black's Law Dictionary defines it as "The act or fact of living in a given place for some time."
A person can reside, and be domiciled (a related and relevant but distinct concept) in the US without legal status.
The 14th is settled law now (and was before). It's a 6-3 result even with the conservative supermajority. The Court is unlikely to have this many Republican/Conservative justices again in the next several decades.
A person can reside, and be domiciled (a related and relevant but distinct concept) in the US without legal status.
The 14th is settled law now (and was before). It's a 6-3 result even with the conservative supermajority. The Court is unlikely to have this many Republican/Conservative justices again in the next several decades.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 8:53 pm to AUstar
Because they assumed everyone with a functioning IQ could understand the subject of the slave amendments but clearly even several in this thread come with the “muh it doesn’t specifically say African slaves” lol “the 3rd amendment doesn’t specifically say British soldiers, they could have been talking about Chinese soldiers”. It’s never ending
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:49 pm to dafif
quote:
The failure to at least address the anomaly is embarrassing for Robert and the court
Roberts wasn’t embarrassed. He was giddy as a school girl. There was a lot of estrogen flowing today.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:17 pm to dafif
quote:
In order to have residence in a state you have to fulfill multiple legal obligations none of which in illegal can do
Yep. I lived in Oklahoma for 3 years and 9 months, but according to the OU bursar’s office, I resided in Louisiana.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:40 pm to TFH
quote:
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.
Not all laws . Seems to me a subject would be required to fulfill ALL laws, which illegals most certainly are not.
Register for selective services and be conscripted into armed forces being primary.
A man who is not eligible to fight for his country is no subject of the same.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:44 pm to dafif
Any intellectually honest person who isn’t retarded knows exactly what they meant in the 14th amendment. It was to give ONLY SLAVES citizenship. The end.
Barret was swatted recently and is a traitor same as Roberts. I guarantee Roberts is trying to groom her and push to make her the next chief justice
Barret was swatted recently and is a traitor same as Roberts. I guarantee Roberts is trying to groom her and push to make her the next chief justice
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:52 pm to TigersnJeeps
quote:
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
Not if you're a diplomat
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 10:54 pm
Posted on 7/1/26 at 12:23 am to dafif
quote:
The key provision said "end of the state where in they reside"
That provision is stating the person being born is a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the state they are living in, it has nothing to do with the parents.
Even assuming your dumb attempt at a gotcha is correct, that was addressed in the 2 hours of oral argument you clearly didn’t listen to. It was also discussed by Alito and Gorsuch in their dissents.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 12:28 am 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?
First off if they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction trying to get them out by the jurisdiction enforcing it’s laws then they wouldn’t have to listen to that jurisdiction.
Secondly, citizenship isn’t bestowed to the person in violation of the law, it’s bestowed to the child. So your whole tangent is illogical.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News