- 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 4/2/26 at 9:22 am to the808bass
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:22 am to the808bass
quote:
A more charitable (and, at least in my opinion, more likely) reading of their position is that they see the gaming of the system and that it seems to only go one direction with regards to illegal immigration.
Trying to spin this into a partisan issue is exactly the type of ignorant and and insincere policy stance that I'm referencing. Hence, calling them NPCs without their own personal policy preferences. They're trying to turn this into a team concept because then it's easy for them to identify with the team that tells them what to believe and repeat
1
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:22 am to SuperSaint
That is not a bet Kalshi will take.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:23 am to SlowFlowPro
I think you might have had a stroke.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:23 am to the808bass
quote:
Probably not my children.
But someone’s.
SFP approves.
You're doubling down on the emotional and rejecting the rational.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:24 am to the808bass
quote:
I think you might have had a stroke.
Naw.
Rejecting ignorant team-based rhetoric has been a staple of my ideology since forever.
Same as rejecting emotional reasoning instead of logic has been a staple for over 20 years.
My ideology and stances are consistent.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
It’s easy to be unemotional when it’s not your kid raped. And it’s nice that you admit (however tacitly) that you don’t care about the social costs of illegal immigration.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:25 am to the808bass
quote:
. And it’s nice that you admit (however tacitly) that you don’t care about the social costs of illegal immigration.
Straw man.
I've said many times (about 10 examples just yesterday) that the problems involved require a Constitutional amendment.
I've also said for decades on here that you can have welfare or open immigration, not both. I've plainly rejected the idea of the Left that you can do both at the same time.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:26 am to the808bass
quote:
It’s easy to be unemotional when it’s not your kid raped. And it’s nice that you admit (however tacitly) that you don’t care about the social costs of illegal immigration.
It's wild how you could replace a few words and this would be identical to a leftist argument for scrapping the 2A.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Rejecting ignorant team-based rhetoric has been a staple of my ideology since forever.
Birthright citizenship is not a net positive for the country at this juncture in history.
That’s not a “partisan position.”
It’s supported by the fact that the US is an anomaly in granting it worldwide.
You want to pretend that your opposition is only emotional and partisan. But that’s because you’re a dumb fig playing games on the internet.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:28 am to the808bass
quote:I see what you're saying here. But the SCOTUS isn't court that hands down punishments. That's not it's purpose.
A more charitable (and, at least in my opinion, more likely) reading of their position is that they see the gaming of the system and that it seems to only go one direction with regards to illegal immigration. And they mistakenly believe that our Justice system has any connection to the idea of justice. So they mistakenly think that justice should be achieved by the Justice system.
Popele seem to want the SCOTUS to rule based on whether birthright citizenship is good or bad thing. That's also not it's purpose. I think we need to greatly change birthright citizenship. But simultaneosly, I want the SCOTUS to strike down the Trump EO. Why? Because I think not letting presidents invalidate contitutional amendments by EO is a good thing.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:29 am to Ingeniero
quote:
It's wild how you could replace a few words and this would be identical to a leftist argument for scrapping the 2A.
I think you’re mistaking me being a truth teller with me advocating for the court to not overturn Trump’s EO.
It would be the moral position and rational position for them to rule in a fashion that put limits on birthright citizenship. It’s not their obligation to do so and I would be fine with the argument that it’s their obligation to not do so.
I’m merely pointing out that all you navel gazers aren’t interested in solutions. You want to preen. Preen on, bitches.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:29 am to the808bass
quote:
Birthright citizenship is not a net positive for the country at this juncture in history.
We have a specified method to change that.
quote:
That’s not a “partisan position.”
You're framing what was being discussed in posts prior differently in your current post.
quote:
You want to pretend that your opposition is only emotional and partisan.
No there are non-partisan, non-emotional opposition.
Again, we were discussing specific examples that are neither. Stop trying to re-frame things so that you can get on your own soap box.
quote:
But that’s because you’re a dumb fig playing games on the internet.
I'm sorry defending the Constitution is warped into this, in your mind.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:29 am to the808bass
quote:
It would be the moral position
Soap box: activated
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:29 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Popele seem to want the SCOTUS to rule based on whether birthright citizenship is good or bad thing. That's also not it's purpose.
Correct.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:30 am to the808bass
quote:
I’m merely pointing out that all you navel gazers aren’t interested in solutions.
But you're 100% wrong. There is a solution: a Constitutional amendment.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:30 am to Taxing Authority
We (and 8 other justices) just eviscerated KBJ for a dissent that leaned on emotions and moral determination rather than law. The decision had nothing to do with "is conversion therapy good or bad," and neither should the decision in Barbara
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:31 am to Ingeniero
quote:
We (and 8 other justices) just eviscerated KBJ for a dissent that leaned on emotions and moral determination rather than law. The decision had nothing to do with "is conversion therapy good or bad," and neither should the decision in Barbara
Correct.
After yesterday it's very possible this ruling is 7-2 or worse for the admin, similar to that decision, also.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
In the WKA case, the question presented concerned children born to permanent resident aliens. The reasoning in the case went beyond that.
The fact that no one litigated the issue further is not proof of a legal fact.
I did not listen to the arguments yesterday, but public comments from Administration and its surrogates emphasize birth tourism - which fits with the question in WKA. People here on visas are clearly not permanent residents.
The fact that no one litigated the issue further is not proof of a legal fact.
I did not listen to the arguments yesterday, but public comments from Administration and its surrogates emphasize birth tourism - which fits with the question in WKA. People here on visas are clearly not permanent residents.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:31 am to Ingeniero
quote:
It's wild how you could replace a few words and this would be identical to a leftist argument for scrapping the 2A.
One is placing the blame on an object, the other on an individual.
Huge difference.
Also democrats ignore immigration law. Show me sanctuary gun law states where they just ignore all gun regs.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We have a specified method to change that.
We do. And it’s not going to happen. I’m not opposed to taking a Hail Mary shot even when the odds are low if it lets me win the game.
quote:
No there are non-partisan, non-emotional opposition.
Hey fagot. You introduced the idea that your opposition was almost solely motivated by racism. Don’t pretend you’re being unemotional.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News