- 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.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 8:41 am to Robin Masters
quote:
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.
AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH. SS registration happens at 18. Which they have to do, as a citizen. At 18.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 9:48 am to Powerman
quote:
How is a naturalized or natural born citizen illegal?
I know that you are trying to take the end result and justify your idiotic statement above
The issueis that those people in this country illegally Hannah be a resident of a state because the laws prohibit that.
A naturalized citizen is not illegal
Sometimes you write incredibly stupid stuff
Posted on 7/1/26 at 9:49 am to dafif
quote:
The failure to at least address the anomaly is embarrassing for Robert and the court
They’re not embarrassed.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 9:49 am to VOR
quote:
plus “the intent to reside indefinitely
As a general statement that is correct and if you are here illegally you can never have the intent to live indefinitely as well as the other requirement for status
Posted on 7/1/26 at 9:53 am to ned nederlander
quote:
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
That’s fricking retarded. Did you even read what it said?
And the DEI justice has 0 business being the fricking judge of the lowest court in the land much less the highest. She’s a complete moron and a fricking disgrace to the bench. And you’re a disgrace to this country along with her and all your piece of shite leftist allies.
Leave the country.
This post was edited on 7/1/26 at 9:59 am
Posted on 7/1/26 at 9:57 am to grizzlylongcut
As an aside, in reading justice Thomas dissent all like to think of is Jack Nicholson screaming "all you did is weaken a country today"
Two additional points
1. It seems they worked backwards meaning the innocent child being born loyal becomes a citizen regardless of the status of the car and it is only the child they are concerned with
2. It seems that some consideration could have been made given the entire ruling is based on English Commonwealth to discuss the fact that the English Commonwealth no longer exist and it is subsequently changed so some thought should've been given to changing our basis for analysis
Two additional points
1. It seems they worked backwards meaning the innocent child being born loyal becomes a citizen regardless of the status of the car and it is only the child they are concerned with
2. It seems that some consideration could have been made given the entire ruling is based on English Commonwealth to discuss the fact that the English Commonwealth no longer exist and it is subsequently changed so some thought should've been given to changing our basis for analysis
This post was edited on 7/1/26 at 10:00 am
Posted on 7/1/26 at 10:02 am to TFH
quote:
The moment you step foot into the country you are subject to their jurisdiction
Why would they include that part at all if this was how it is to be interpreted?
Posted on 7/1/26 at 10:17 am to dafif
quote:
if you are here illegally you can never have the intent to live indefinitely as well as the other requirement for status
You can absolutely have that intent. You might get caught and be unable to fulfill that intent, but that doesn't prevent you from being a resident of the state.
Most illegal immigrants are considered residents of the state where they live. They are counted in the US census. They pay state taxes, including income tax. Their children attend public schools, and do not pay out of state tuition if they go to college.
Their illegal status should prevent them from receiving some benefits of state residency, but they are considered residents.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News