- 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 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There is a solution: a Constitutional amendment.
Yes. And the solution for Canisius’ men’s basketball team winning the NCAA championship is to get into the tournament and win all their games.
1
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:34 am to JimEverett
quote:
permanent resident aliens.
That's not an accurate phrasing, as that status did not exist at the time.
quote:
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.
WKA may open avenues to analyze birth tourism, but the "permanent resident" status isn't the issue. Domicile is.
People here on visas can be domiciled here, and I don't think the admin is even targeting those people.
They're arguing illegals can't have domicile here, and clearly birth tourists don't.
The problem is that by crafting the EO in this manner, if the USSC gives a constitutional ruling, it may be forced to include birth tourism due to how the EO and argument is structured. That would be a huge L for the admin.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:35 am to Ingeniero
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:36 am to the808bass
quote:
You introduced the idea that your opposition was almost solely motivated by racism.
What in the...frick?
Go review the post history of TenWheelsForJesus, which is what was being referenced.
Hell, go review his posts IN THIS THREAD
quote:
Yes, let's let our country be ruined and our children raped and murdered by illegals
Reading is fundamental
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:37 am to the808bass
quote:
And the solution for Canisius’ men’s basketball team winning the NCAA championship is to get into the tournament and win all their games.
You'd prefer a court adjudicate them champions based on feelings instead?
Sorry, not feelings, we'll use your term, "morality"
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:38 am to SlowFlowPro
Sounds very DEI to award a decision based on feelings because the existing framework is hard to overcome
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:39 am to SlowFlowPro
It is "permanent domicile and rrsidence" it is in the question befote the Court.
I am not so much arguing one way or another - just saying there is an opening.
I agree SCOTUS most likely rules against Trump.
I am not so much arguing one way or another - just saying there is an opening.
I agree SCOTUS most likely rules against Trump.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You'd prefer a court adjudicate them champions based on feelings instead?
My analogy was only in relation to likelihood of it happening.
“There’s a solution to this obvious problem, Sisyphus. Just get the rock up the hill.”
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:54 am to Ailsa
Wah!!!!!
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:55 am to the808bass
The founders intentionally made the amendment process difficult though. That is the entire point and it does more to thwart leftism than the opposite. Even from a values perspective, this is a net positive for the anti-left.
People are just having a meltdown because one of their preferred issues may face the same restrictions. This is actually why commentary about their conflicting stances and emotional arguments becomes important.
That's why you've seen this growing population outside of these partisan-based NPCs, who want to do away with the Constitution entirely and create more of an authoritarian state, under the assumption that their site will be the one in power clearly.
People are just having a meltdown because one of their preferred issues may face the same restrictions. This is actually why commentary about their conflicting stances and emotional arguments becomes important.
That's why you've seen this growing population outside of these partisan-based NPCs, who want to do away with the Constitution entirely and create more of an authoritarian state, under the assumption that their site will be the one in power clearly.
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 9:58 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:57 am to SlowFlowPro
I’m not bothered by the Constitutional amendment process being difficult.
This is one of a handful of issues where the public is probably 70-30 on. But the people running things are 10-90.
This is one of a handful of issues where the public is probably 70-30 on. But the people running things are 10-90.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:58 am to the808bass
quote:So you want the SCOTUS to rule based on morality? I don't. And while teh merits of limiting birthright citizenship are obvious... it's up to SCOTUS to create good laws or constitutional amendments. Why would anyone want SCOTUS to legislate from the bench?
It would be the moral position and rational position for them to rule in a fashion that put limits on birthright citizenship.
(if I'm misinterpreting your position, i apologize in advance)
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 10:02 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Reading is fundamental
It is. Where did TenWheels mention race?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:01 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
So you want the SCOTUS to rule based on morality?
No. I’m just less bothered by makeup calls than bad calls. Hope that helps.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:02 am to the808bass
quote:Ha! Yeah, I edited my post, I read too much into your post.
No. I’m just less bothered by makeup calls than bad calls. Hope that helps.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:04 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
And I'd argue that people illegally coming here aren't trying to evade US jurisdiction, but are rather, seeking to be under US jurisdiction.
If a person has broken the US immigration law as their first action of being in the US, that's not a good start and doesn't demonstrate allegiance to the US. In fact, it's an incomplete allegiance, which is how it was undat the time of the 14A 's writing.
Also, if an illegal isn't a citizen of the US, then they are still "under the jurisdiction of" their native country. They can't be both.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yup. There's a reason Trump is attacking libertarian-leaning republicans.
That's why you've seen this growing population outside of these partisan-based NPCs, who want to do away with the Constitution entirely and create more of an authoritarian state, under the assumption that their site will be the one in power clearly.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:07 am to the808bass
quote:That's means the public has failed. Bigly. Not that we should throw out the constitution.
This is one of a handful of issues where the public is probably 70-30 on. But the people running things are 10-90.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:08 am to Ingeniero
If a foreign diplomat brings his wife and has a child in the USA, is that child a citizen of the US?
NO
Why?
NO
Why?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:08 am to lake chuck fan
quote:What happens if they commit a crime?
Also, if an illegal isn't a citizen of the US, then they are still "under the jurisdiction of" their native country. They can't be both.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News