- 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: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:21 pm to deuceiswild
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:21 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
The point here is that it needs to be changed and stated more clearly.
Then there's a process to that, and it's not the supreme court making up definitions to fit what we want the law to be.
quote:
That said, it seems you support things just the way they are. The question is.... why? How is it beneficial to this country to allow a random foreigner to come here for a weekend getaway and ten min after arrival dropping a baby and calling it a US citizen?
It's not. The same way that I think spreading commie propaganda on college campuses is a bad thing, but it's covered under the first amendment. I don't ask the supreme court to invent some ruling that changes that.
0
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:24 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Yes, let's let our country be ruined and our children raped and murdered by illegals because the pieces of shite in congress are being paid to destroy our way of life.
Brilliant plan.
Anyone supporting this as the "rule of law" is not American. They would be the people who paid the tax to the British instead of gaining their freedom.
If you complain about the debt, then it's even more stupid for you to support birthright citizenship as the "rule of law."
Histrionic woman shite. You see the same playbook trotted out when libs want gun control: "our children are DYING! We have to do SOMETHING!"
If we throw out procedure and wipe our arse with the constitution every time we deem something an emergency you're going to have a whole lot of rights taken away.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:50 pm to Ingeniero
You want to navel gaze.
Other people want to fix problems.
We welcome you to your omphaloskepsis.
Other people want to fix problems.
We welcome you to your omphaloskepsis.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:30 pm to the808bass
illegal aliens are fugitives and subject to deportation upon apprehension. They are sent back where they come from when deported , as they should be, and any child with them should be too. No way in hell they should be rewarded for breaking our laws..
It is insanity to declare an alien's child a citizen because of where it is born. Kick them all out and the illegal alien problem solves itself and quickly.
It is insanity to declare an alien's child a citizen because of where it is born. Kick them all out and the illegal alien problem solves itself and quickly.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 10:36 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:40 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
We didn’t use to have mass shootings at schools either. Does that justify eroding 2A in response?
Death by homicide rate for teenagers today is about half of what it was in the 90’s. If A2 is a factor, we should be handing out guns like candy.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:11 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
No poli board legal scholars want to approach this one?
Understanding the opinion - SCOTUS has a long history of being wrong
Dred Scott
Roe v Wade
Korematsu
Maybe this court will find the same
I do understand that it is highly unlikely if not impossible but SCOTUS has done stranger things
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:53 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
Yet here is what the U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice John Marshall Harlan II, said on behalf of himself and five other justices: “The child is, of course, an American citizen by birth.”
Mexican engineer discovers obiter dicta.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 12:18 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Every time I hear/read "the founders never intended" I just kind of reflexively tune out.
quote:
Bunk Moreland
are you even a citizen yet?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 6:42 am to the808bass
quote:
other people want to fix problems
And then there are people like you. Hope someone else fixes the problem and then bitch when they don't
Posted on 4/2/26 at 6:55 am to Bunk Moreland
Thats because you are a good little uniparty rino
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:12 am to Ingeniero
quote:At no point did the Hintopouloses attempt to slip US jurisdiction. On the contrary, both appear to have submitted to it from Day #1.
I found this way more interesting
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:37 am to WHS
quote:
I used to never question birth right citizenship because how it was always done and in the constitution, but we can no longer think that way.
That's exactly how the left believes the Constitution should be applied.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:45 am to dafif
I’m not sure there’s ever been a definitive ruling on what under the jurisdiction thereof specifically includes outside of a handful of examples. Just that pure birthright seems to have been the prevailing assumption underpinning these cases.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:53 am to Ingeniero
meanwhile the “muh Constitution” crowd advocates creating tens of millions of “birthright citizens” who will, in another couple of generations, render the Constitution itself meaningless
Franklin was right, we just couldn’t keep it
Franklin was right, we just couldn’t keep it
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:53 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
At no point did the Hintopouloses attempt to slip US jurisdiction. On the contrary, both appear to have submitted to it from Day #1.
They were illegal visa overstays. They had a kid here and expected to be granted leniency and not deported because of it. Every party to the case admitted the kid was a citizen but that the family could be deported anyway.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:56 am to Ingeniero
The ruling was on the stay of deportation, but what makes the case relevant is that they were here illegally when the child was born, yet most of the justices (if not all) never questioned the citizenship of the child. The question is; were they right?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:57 am to Riverside
quote:
Mexican engineer discovers obiter dicta.
It wasn't central to the case in Hintopoulos, but you're out of your mind if you think it won't be leaned upon for the ongoing case. In fact, part of the Hintopoulos decision was that they were eligible for relief because their child was a citizen, but the fact that they had no roots here meant they weren't guaranteed relief.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:02 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
The ruling was on the stay of deportation, but what makes the case relevant is that they were here illegally when the child was born, yet most of the justices (if not all) never questioned the citizenship of the child. The question is; were they right?
I think that's what we're about to find out. I find it hard to believe that the Court is going to say "actually every party to Hintopoulos was wrong and they weren't guaranteed relief, not because of administrative discretion, but because the kid was never a citizen anyway!"
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:02 am to Ingeniero
quote:
They were illegal visa overstays. They had a kid here and expected to be granted leniency and not deported because of it. Every party to the case admitted the kid was a citizen but that the family could be deported anyway.
He's trying to move the line to a point that has no juridical or rhetorical merit.
It's weird.
There is no standard or precedent regarding "slipping US Jurisdiction". There is theoretically an argument about status, which is binary (are they here legally or illegally). There is nothing to justify creating a sub-class of the "illegal" portion of that binary decision and segregating them into "slipping US jurisdiction or not slipping US jurisdiction" (whatever that even means).
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:03 am to Ingeniero
So you're saying that one set of Justice's opinions on a case can't ever be looked at again, it's set in stone? If that were the case, then none of the other cases would ever have been looked at again, such as Roe v. Wade, etc. Afterall, these are just legal opinions by humans, and some humans see things differently as other humans, especially over long lengths of time with vast differences in societal norms. Just because one case had one ruling doesn't mean this case can't have a different ruling.
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 8:05 am
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News