- 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: If the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship then why ...
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:23 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:23 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:Neither were subject to US jurisdiction as has been backed up by long established precedent
No, not exactly the same. Pretty much apples to oranges.
You can invoke as many fruits as you want, it is what it is
1
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:26 pm to scrooster
Many tribes were by treaty more like foreign territory within the US.
Still helps with the casinos.
Still helps with the casinos.
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:27 pm to RemouladeSawce
quote:
Neither were subject to US jurisdiction
Right. Not for the same rationale.
Keep up the pretentious douchebaggery of thinking a law degree makes you special. Hank would be proud.
Posted on 6/2/26 at 10:34 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:The cool thing is it doesn’t require a law degree to understand pieces of law. It’s accessible to anyone. It just requires a brain and effort. Made easier by a little bit of awareness that one probably isn’t on to any special thinking - that should be one’s cue to self reflect
Keep up the pretentious douchebaggery of thinking a law degree makes you special
Those are you issues tho
This post was edited on 6/2/26 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 6/2/26 at 11:07 pm to Kafka
quote:
quote:
Native Americans
Indians
Calling them "Native Americans" is one of the more stupid ideas the left ever dreamed up.
WE named it America. That would be like the Martians invading, renaming the earth Gloop, and calling us Native Gloopians to make us feel better.
Posted on 6/2/26 at 11:43 pm to RohanGonzales
Posted on 6/2/26 at 11:45 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Was there a question prior as to whether they were actually “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
"Birthright citizenship" is rooted in the principle of jus soli (Latin for "right of soil"). Its counterpart is jus sanguinis ('right of blood'). If you adhere to jus soli, then Ron's question is spot on. Anyone born on the soil is a citizen, period. And every exception (which there are some) is nothing more than pragmatism.
Previous SCOTUS decisions are sorely confused. They commingled American citizenship with British subjectship. In a monarchy, one born on a king's soil becomes the king's subject. He is obligated to pay the king's taxes, plow the king's fields, fight his wars, shine his shoes, swear allegiance, etc. Jus soli in action. If you don't want this, then let's hope your parents don't give birth on my soil.
So if we're subjects to a king, then let's rock some jus soli and dispense with the exceptions. On the contrary, if we're citizens of a republic, on what basis are we citizens?
Posted on 6/2/26 at 11:51 pm to RemouladeSawce
quote:
The cool thing is it doesn’t require a law degree to understand pieces of law.
Agree.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 5:40 am to RemouladeSawce
quote:Negative.
This is why. The tribes were regarded as other nations whose citizens lived under their sovereign authority
An Indian born off the reservation, and unquestionably on US land, was still not granted birthright citizenship.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed" were to be considered US citizens. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted into law two months before the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress. There is no legitimate question that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' was intended as synonymous with the words 'and not subject to any foreign power.'
In US v Ark, perhaps an argument could be made that Ark met such a standard, due to his parents' full and voluntary submission to US jurisdiction, in lieu of China's at the time of Ark's birth in California.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 7:29 am to scrooster
Because the reservation isn't considered American soil?
Just my guess.
Just my guess.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 7:47 am to scrooster
I just want to know why anyone who supports birthright citizenship, supports it. Something other than "because the SCOTUS said so", decades ago.
Why do you agree with the ruling? What's in it for you? Why do you think I should agree with it? Why is it good for the country?
Why do you agree with the ruling? What's in it for you? Why do you think I should agree with it? Why is it good for the country?
Posted on 6/3/26 at 8:14 am to deuceiswild
quote:
Why do you agree with the ruling? What's in it for you? Why do you think I should agree with it? Why is it good for the country?
Good questions. Let's see if anyone will face the music.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 8:18 am to Timeoday
Celtics
Fighting Irish
Fighting Irish
Posted on 6/3/26 at 8:19 am to deuceiswild
quote:
I just want to know why anyone who supports birthright citizenship, supports it. Something other than "because the SCOTUS said so", decades ago.
Why do you agree with the ruling? What's in it for you? Why do you think I should agree with it? Why is it good for the country?
Are you implying that I support birthright citizenship?
I'm not sure from where, or why, you've somehow drawn that conclusion but you couldn't be more wrong.
I believe birthright citizenship is a blight upon this country, a cancer, a direct result of yankee overreach during reconstruction, and it will eventually lead to the destruction of this country ... especially when combined with the '64 civil rights act and the implementation of the social welfare system.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 8:38 am to scrooster
quote:
If the KC Chiefs are still the Chiefs, and the Atlanta Braves are still the Braves, then why are the Cleveland Indians the Guardians and the Washington Redskins the Commanders?
And whoever associated Utah with Jazz? What's up with that?
Posted on 6/3/26 at 8:44 am to deuceiswild
quote:
Why do you agree with the ruling? What's in it for you? Why do you think I should agree with it? Why is it good for the country?
The bigger question is why you're framing your view like this, instead of looking at the text and a textual analysis.
It's not about "how is this good?" because that's how liberals think/argue, and why would you want to be a liberal?
Posted on 6/3/26 at 8:45 am to scrooster
quote:
Are you implying that I support birthright citizenship?
No. I think he's just melting while virtue signaling.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 8:51 am to scrooster
quote:
DeSantis just exposed the birthright citizenship myth.
I will be more than surprised if DeSantis just discovered the cheat code to birthright citizenship as if no other constitutional scholar has considered this in the past 102 years.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 8:59 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:DeSantis reads this site ...
I will be more than surprised if DeSantis just discovered the cheat code to birthright citizenship
quote:
Again, and we've been over this many times, there is no difference between an Indian born off the reservation, therefore under US jurisdiction, and an illegal alien from a foreign country born in the US "under US jurisdiction." Yet by your interpretation of Ark, in those identical circumstances, one is a US citizen and one is not. The absurdity is self evident.
LINK
Posted on 6/3/26 at 9:02 am to scrooster
No matter what, it is just plain wrong to give citizenship to a child of illegal aliens that happens to be born in the US.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News