- 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: I wonder if the SCOTUS knows there are millions of CCP birthright citizens in the US?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Stupid argument/statement she made about Covid back a few years ago
as opposed to those you made about birthright citizenship today
1
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:16 pm to RohanGonzales
quote:
as opposed to those you made about birthright citizenship today
Yes. Her stupid argument is a polar opposite of my intelligent argument.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:17 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:This line of thinking creates a very “slippery” slope.
wonder if this ^^^^ is what the drafters of the 14th Amendment envisioned when they were ensuring freed black Americans were being guaranteed their US citizenship?
Because I can guarantee you the founding fathers never intended for a weapon like the AR-15 to be in the hands of anyone who does nothing except turn 18 and wait 5 days for a “background check.”
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:22 pm to LawTalkingGuy
My argument around the Constitution is that even if you ignore or support whatever you believe the founder's "intent" was for a law - you have to ask the question of whether the law still makes sense in today's world.
So to cut to the chase and to ignore any BS about whatever the "intent" was:
2nd Amendment: Obviously, it doesn't matter if the intent was for muskets or anything else (it wasn't written to allow only muskets - that's frickin' stupid; it wasn't written with any such constraints in mind) - it doesn't make ANY sense to disarm the citizens of the nation. PERIOD. So intent doesn't matter.
Birthright citizenship. I don't really give a damn what the founders intended with this or not. Birthright citizenship is abused and it's ridiculously stupid to allow it.
What are we doing here? We're going to continue to shoot ourselves in the foot over what people who lived over 200 years ago thought about something? As much as I love the Constitution and personally feel that we should go back to it as much as possible (we've really strayed from it too much) at the end of the day we SHOULD be doing what makes the most sense to do.
And birthright citizenship as practiced by far too many people makes NO fricking sense whatsoever under ANY circumstances. Anyone hiding behind what the "intent" of the framers of the Constituion can go pound sand. You're a fool who is intentionally allowing your country to continue going to hell because of your stupid suicidal empathy. Grow up.
EDIT:
So to cut to the chase and to ignore any BS about whatever the "intent" was:
2nd Amendment: Obviously, it doesn't matter if the intent was for muskets or anything else (it wasn't written to allow only muskets - that's frickin' stupid; it wasn't written with any such constraints in mind) - it doesn't make ANY sense to disarm the citizens of the nation. PERIOD. So intent doesn't matter.
Birthright citizenship. I don't really give a damn what the founders intended with this or not. Birthright citizenship is abused and it's ridiculously stupid to allow it.
What are we doing here? We're going to continue to shoot ourselves in the foot over what people who lived over 200 years ago thought about something? As much as I love the Constitution and personally feel that we should go back to it as much as possible (we've really strayed from it too much) at the end of the day we SHOULD be doing what makes the most sense to do.
And birthright citizenship as practiced by far too many people makes NO fricking sense whatsoever under ANY circumstances. Anyone hiding behind what the "intent" of the framers of the Constituion can go pound sand. You're a fool who is intentionally allowing your country to continue going to hell because of your stupid suicidal empathy. Grow up.
EDIT:
quote:Yeah, hot garbage takes like this are just braindead and honestly aren't even worth trying to seriously rebuke. Give me a break.
Because I can guarantee you the founding fathers never intended for a weapon like the AR-15 to be in the hands of anyone who does nothing except turn 18 and wait 5 days for a “background check.”
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:24 pm to mwrawls
quote:
you have to ask the question of whether the law still makes sense in today's world.
This is the "living Constitution" analysis preferred by leftists.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:26 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:Makes no difference. SCOTUS doesn't evaluate laws for their merit or purpose. Nor would we want them to. It woudl be the very definition of "legislating from the bench".
I wonder if the SCOTUS knows there are millions of CCP birthright citizens in the US?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
A question that is bothering me:
Did we give up our right to choose who we allow to be citizens?
Surely that wasn't the intent?
Did we give up our right to choose who we allow to be citizens?
Surely that wasn't the intent?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:29 pm to Taxing Authority
Revoking birthright citizenship is moving the goalposts. Every poster here benefitted from it.
Yanking it away isn’t fair to those who are simply trying to do the same thing we did, live the American dream.
Yanking it away isn’t fair to those who are simply trying to do the same thing we did, live the American dream.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:30 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Did we give up our right to choose who we allow to be citizens?
We can amend the Constitution still, so no.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Crucial question: were they diplomats?
No, because of international law, not because of our constitution.
We ignore our constitution for international law.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:32 pm to CDawson
quote:Indeed. Just like the 2A doesn't apply to semi-automatic firearms.
No intellectually honest person can argue that the Constitution’s intent was to allow open citizenship to any woman who could jump the fence and go into labor.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:32 pm to RFK
quote:
Yanking it away isn’t fair to those who are simply trying to do the same thing we did, live the American dream.
My parents didn't commit visa fraud, birth me, then move back to their home country.
Both my parents were born in Louisiana and I was born in Louisiana.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:35 pm to dgnx6
quote:And who exactly do we think is doing this today? If it’s even happened it’s on such a small scale as not to register.
My parents didn't commit visa fraud, birth me, the move back to their home country.
Opening access to citizenship benefits all of us because it improves access to the economy while also improving people’s lives.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:35 pm to mwrawls
quote:What constraints were put on birthright citizenship?
My argument around the Constitution is that even if you ignore or support whatever you believe the founder's "intent" was for a law - you have to ask the question of whether the law still makes sense in today's world.
So to cut to the chase and to ignore any BS about whatever the "intent" was:
2nd Amendment: Obviously, it doesn't matter if the intent was for muskets or anything else (it wasn't written to allow only muskets - that's frickin' stupid; it wasn't written with any such constraints in mind) - it doesn't make ANY sense to disarm the citizens of the nation. PERIOD. So intent doesn't matter.
Birthright citizenship. I don't really give a damn what the founders intended with this or not. Birthright citizenship is abused and it's ridiculously stupid to allow it.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:37 pm to dgnx6
quote:So "international law" supercedes our constitution? You sure about that?
No, because of international law, not because of our constitution.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We can amend the Constitution still, so no.
I get the broad stroke. That's easy.
So without a constitutional amendment, we don't have full control who can become citizens?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:43 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
Were the non-citizen Chinese parents subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
Why would that matter?
It's the person who is born on US soil that is 'subject'.
None of this is difficult to understand. I'd venture to guess most folks are ok with reinterpreting the 14th to exclude the current system. That would require either the SCOTUS to overturn a century of precedence or the US citizens to get off their arse and participate in the amendemnt process. Doubtful the SCOTUS will ignore that kind of precedence, esp since there are so many issues tangled up with it.
However, your lord and master Donna T doesn't get to call the shots, regardless of how much you worship him.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:44 pm to mwrawls
quote:
My argument around the Constitution is that even if you ignore or support whatever you believe the founder's "intent" was for a law - you have to ask the question of whether the law still makes sense in today's world.
The Constitution is not a "nose of wax" to be molded to fit whatever you think the Constitution "should" say. We are stuck with what it says, and if it no longer makes sense it needs to be amended.
We are a nation of laws. Whether we are talking about the Constitution or statutory laws, we are stuck with the words in those laws. You dont get to change them just because they no longer make sense...you go through an amendment process instead.
I know, it seems like SCOTUS has changed the meaning of the Constitution over time, but they are still stuck with the words that are written
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:48 pm to loogaroo
quote:
So without a constitutional amendment, we don't have full control who can become citizens?
Without constitutional authority, the federal government ("we" in this context) doesn't have "full control" of anything.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:19 pm to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
The 14th amendment was never intended to allow for mass illegal immigration and the occupation of the US. The Constitution and the various amendments were truly drafted for a moral and decent citizenry
The 14th Amendment was intentionally drafted to recognize citizenship for the children of immigrants. The Congressional debate expressly confirmed the children of the Chinese immigrants flooding California should be citizens.
Now, this idea of people coming to the US just to have children and then moving back to their homeland probably wasn't given much thought, since such travel wouldnt have made much sense back then.....but here we are.
This^^^ came later, the original impetus behind the 14th amendment was to give freed black Americans US citizenship.
quote:
Passed in 1866 and ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment's original intent was to guarantee civil rights, citizenship, and equal protection under the law to formerly enslaved people. It sought to overturn the Dred Scott decision, prevent Southern states from enforcing Black Codes, and solidify Congress’s Reconstruction efforts.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News