- 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
If the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship then why ...
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:40 pm
Then why did we have to pass a law in 1924 granting Native Americans citizenship?
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
DeSantis just exposed the birthright citizenship myth.
In 1924, Congress had to pass a special law to make Native Americans citizens.
If ‘born on U.S. soil = automatic citizen’ was the rule, why the statute?
The 14th Amendment never meant instant citizenship for everyone dropping a baby here.
This is the real time bomb: Every day without mass deportations, thousands more anchor babies become instant citizens.
They grow up, vote, chain-migrate their families, and permanently shift the country left.
Delay = irreversible demographic replacement, exploding welfare costs, and cultural collapse.
Fix birthright citizenship. Deport at scale.
Tick… tick… tick…“
8
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:41 pm to scrooster
quote:Indians
Native Americans
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:42 pm to Kafka
Injuns
Redskins
Redmen
Redskins
Redmen
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:42 pm to Kafka
quote:
Indians
They hate being called that. They prefer drunken savages.
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:43 pm to navy
quote:accurate
Redskins
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:43 pm to scrooster
Was there a question prior as to whether they were actually “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? 
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:44 pm to scrooster
Sounds like an audition for the Supreme Court. I say, hire him!!!
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:47 pm to Kafka
quote:
Indians
Feathers, not Dots.
But still ... the question remains.
BTW, FWIW, I served with some absolute stud Native American paratroopers. Good men. Fearless and relentless. The two that are still alive I love like brothers. Incredible men.
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:48 pm to scrooster
quote:This is why. The tribes were regarded as other nations whose citizens lived under their sovereign authority
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside
quote:I don’t know if it’s as strong as a scientific law or not but this is almost always a retard signal
Tick… tick… tick…
I’m more disturbed actual living people think retards on Twitter are stumbling on Constitutional Law gotchas
This post was edited on 6/2/26 at 9:51 pm
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:49 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Was there a question prior as to whether they were actually “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
I'm not a lawyer but I wouldn't think so given how many Lumbees and Cherokees there were in the South when the 14th was passed.
I dunno if that's the question you were asking or not?
Posted on 6/2/26 at 9:57 pm to scrooster
Congress can also pass a law that grants them citizenship
Just like they did for people born abroad to at least one American citizen
And when they granted citizenship to those born in us territories
Just like they did for people born abroad to at least one American citizen
And when they granted citizenship to those born in us territories
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:00 pm to RemouladeSawce
quote:
I’m more disturbed actual living people think retards on Twitter are stumbling on Constitutional Law gotchas
Today I learned that Yale Law Grad, Ron DeSantis, also moonlights as a “retard on Twitter”.
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:01 pm to Robin Masters
Happy to help you out bud
Just wait till you hear about Yale Law Grad Sonia Sotomayor
Just wait till you hear about Yale Law Grad Sonia Sotomayor
This post was edited on 6/2/26 at 10:26 pm
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:04 pm to RemouladeSawce
quote:
I’m more disturbed actual living people think retards on Twitter are stumbling on Constitutional Law gotchas
Doesn’t invoking that provision as to Indian tribal members raise an interesting dilemma in how we might similarly invoke it for other foreign subjects who might happen to give birth on US soil, Learned Hand?
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:13 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Just thinking here, but wouldn’t it be hard for a nation that spent money, lives and time subjugating a people to the point of making them move to territory foreign to them then turn around and say they are a sovereign nation? More like a subjugated nation.
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:16 pm to scrooster
quote:
Then why did we have to pass a law in 1924 granting Native Americans citizenship?
Indians had an idiosyncratic position as being the only population who could be born in a different nation and the US....plus anti-Indian racism.
Elk v. Wilkins is specifically discussed in Wong Kim Ark and it explains this. It's one of the 3 clear exceptions discussed (to go along with the progeny of diplomats and persons born in areas under hostile occupation).
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:17 pm to scrooster
quote:
and permanently shift the country left.
Worse, they make it a third world country. Import third world people, you get a third world country.
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:19 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:Not particularly when legal precedent had already explicitly carved tribal members out. They were not subject to US jurisdiction in the same manner as those with diplomatic immunity are not. Anchor babies are subject to US jurisdiction
Doesn’t invoking that provision as to Indian tribal members raise an interesting dilemma in how we might similarly invoke it for other foreign subjects who might happen to give birth on US soil, Learned Hand?
Anything else while I’m here?
This post was edited on 6/2/26 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:20 pm to navy
quote:
Injuns
Redskins
Redmen
We have or had pro teams named after them but now one pro team or any team anywhere was ever called Paleface!!
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:21 pm to RemouladeSawce
quote:
They were not subject to US jurisdiction in the same manner as those with diplomatic immunity are not
No, not exactly the same. Pretty much apples to oranges.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News