- 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: Here’s Why the Era of Lawless Leftist Judges is Likely Ending Soon
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:53 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:53 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Well, what will be done about it? I need to see ACTION,, not just talk!
0
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:54 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
Yes. As a foreign national, Abrego Garcia is subject to our laws.
Yet that does not grant him citizenship
He wasn't born here.
quote:
The distinction here highlights that being subject to a country’s laws does not automatically confer citizenship or all the rights and privileges that citizenship entails.
Correct. Birth does, in America at least, when born within our borders. Wong Kim Ark is explicit that only 2 groups of people are not subject to the jurisdiction of America: 1. Diplomats of foreign government 2. People under hostile occupation. Their children are not citizens automatically.
Everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction of America, per Wong Kim Ark.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:57 pm to blueboy
quote:
So you think they should have taken on this issue through a better case? I can understand that.
For the injunctions? Yes.
If they're not ruling on the merits of the birthright citizenship issue, this is the worst example of Trump's EOs from which to argue against nationwide injunctions, due to the clear Constitutional violations, clear illegality, and the practical clusterfrick this would create (amplified by the other admin action against non-citizens).
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:57 pm to TigerFanatic99
quote:
Ok, so do conservatives want the constitution interpreted purely by the text as written, or interpreted for today's day and age? Textualism or purposivism?
If you take it with the language of the day and you read the author of case law/precedent, it is a strict interpretation. Sorry you can comprehend that modern language has subverted the original meaning.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:59 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Our constitution was written to enshrine what is commonly referred to as "common law" ==== meaning real basic common sense.
That's NOT what "common law" means.
And Wong Kim Ark gets into English common law to define "subject to the jurisdiction of".
quote:
The fourteenth amendment was written to remove the one glaring omission from that general purpose of the constitution - that of slavery.
Everything about the 14th was devoted to taking care of newly freed slaves - not to give future idiotic democrats a hole-card for producing new voting blocks en masse.
You're arguing for a living constitution and rejecting textualism.
I prefer textualism to the living document analysis the left loves so much
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:59 pm to TDFreak
quote:
I really wish our founding fathers had included a sunset clause on birthright citizenship in the Constitution.
Our founders have literally nothing to do with birthright citizenship. I'm quite positive they were all dead by the time the 14th Amendment was passed.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:01 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
If you take it with the language of the day and you read the author of case law/precedent, it is a strict interpretation.
That's Wong Kim Ark.
quote:
Sorry you can comprehend that modern language has subverted the original meaning.
"Modern" language from....1898?
You mean like "illegal immigration" a term that didn't exist conceptually for a few decades after that?
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:03 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
Toomer Deplorable
/\ Nailed it, thank you kind sir for putting SFP in his place as a trailer park divorced lawyer!
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:04 pm to cajunandy
quote:
Scalia in the Heller decision defined "to bear" to mean to carry. I would think a nuclear bomb is too heavy to carry. Therefore you have no right to own a nuclear bomb. Also good luck trying to buy Plutonium, just might get yourself arrested.
There are suitcase nukes…..just saying!
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:04 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
/\ Nailed it, thank you kind sir for putting SFP in his place as a trailer park divorced lawyer!
He did not, though.
He references Wong Kim Ark without citing the relevant portions where the court is quite explicit.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:05 pm to evil cockroach
quote:
what should happen when they break our laws?
They get deported and made PNG!
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:06 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Our constitution was written to enshrine what is commonly referred to as "common law" ==== meaning real basic common sense.
I think its purpose was to isolate the average public from having to defend against stupid interpretations that might occur to someone in the future in order to obtain an undeserved political advantage - i.e. establishing a totalitarian state.
Anything that doesn't make common sense SHOULD be against the law - except in extraordinary circumstances.
quote:
And the penchant the current democrat cult has in inventing new words, and redefining old words, you cannot trust them to have anything but nefarious intent when they propose anything that 'just doesn't sound right' - they are SCAM artists - period.
Earnestly equating common law to common sense while accusing the left of making shite up…
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Read Wong Kim Ark and explain how your argument fits within the case (which is still binding).
It says that since Wong’s parents where lawful immigrants, please explain how illegal immigrants are “lawful”?
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He references Wong Kim Ark without citing the relevant portions where the court is quite explicit.
“Lawfully domiciled”…..how can an illegal immigrant who broke our laws by crossing our sovereign border illegally be lawfully domiciled?
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:15 pm to boosiebadazz
They keep citing dishonest brokers who won't actually quote WKA.
I will fix that.
I will fix that.
quote:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
quote:
That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the court of chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.
quote:
There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States there was any settled and definite rule of international law generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
quote:
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive, or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory, or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country which have gone the furthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents
quote:
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
quote:
The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:17 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
It says that since Wong’s parents where lawful immigrants
It does not, in fact, discuss this.
Especially within the context of "subject to the jurisdiction of"
quote:
please explain how illegal immigrants are “lawful”?
"Lawful" wasn't a distinction at the time of the ruling. That distinction was made decades later by Congress, and Congress can't enact a statute to override the Constitution.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:18 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
“Lawfully domiciled”
Where in the case is this exact phrase?
Lawfully is in the case twice, but nowhere in relation to "domiciled"
quote:
how can an illegal immigrant who broke our laws by crossing our sovereign border illegally be lawfully domiciled?
The case only requires domicile, not this "lawfully domiciled" standard you're making up out of thin air.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
domicile /dom'i-sil", -s?l, do'mi-/ noun
A residence; a home.
One's legal residence.
An abode or mansion; a place of permanent residence, either of an individual or a family.
So then as a strict interpretationist if they don’t own a home they aren’t domiciled? I can go with that if you can! Likely eliminates a vast majority of the 13 million + illegal parasites the Biden administration let in!
This post was edited on 4/20/25 at 8:46 pm
Posted on 4/20/25 at 8:54 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
So then as a strict interpretationist if they don’t own a home they aren’t domiciled?
No
quote:
a place of permanent residence,
quote:
Likely eliminates a vast majority of the 13 million + illegal parasites the Biden administration let in!
Their status is illegal already and they can be deported
Their children born in the US are citizens,. however
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns
This is where you and most liberals are misinterpreting the ruling. If the parents are are not citizens of this country, they are sovereign and subject to the country of where they are from.
This is where you and most liberals are misinterpreting the ruling. If the parents are are not citizens of this country, they are sovereign and subject to the country of where they are from.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News