- 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 you support birthright citizenship...
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:28 am to deuceiswild
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:28 am to deuceiswild
I don't believe in birth right citizenship but I have a lot of honest questions as to how it would work if we removed it.
What becomes of the generation born to illegals?
Are they citizens of nowhere?
Do other countries recognize births outside their own borders and grant citizenship?
What about the following generations? In 200 years will there be someone who is a citizen of Bolivia because their 8th great grandparent was in the U.S. illegally?
What about if one parent is legal but one is not?
What becomes of the generation born to illegals?
Are they citizens of nowhere?
Do other countries recognize births outside their own borders and grant citizenship?
What about the following generations? In 200 years will there be someone who is a citizen of Bolivia because their 8th great grandparent was in the U.S. illegally?
What about if one parent is legal but one is not?
This post was edited on 3/31/26 at 8:29 am
1
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:33 am to cssamerican
quote:
They did anticipate this issue. They understood that the clause would not automatically grant citizenship in every case, but modern shifts in language make that harder to recognize. A key problem is how people interpret the word “jurisdiction” today versus how it was understood at the time. Contemporary readers often assume it means simply being subject to U.S. laws, but historical usage shows it carried a more complete sense of political allegiance.
For example, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, who introduced the Citizenship Clause in the Senate, described it as “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.” He explained that it would not apply to people born in the United States who were “foreigners, aliens,” or children of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the U.S. government. Instead, it would apply to “every other class of person,” emphasizing that citizenship required being under the country’s full and complete jurisdiction.
And this is the problem with attorneys. I understand what is right and wrong about the 14th amendment. But you guys argue endlessly because you are the defenders of all that it right (and wrong) in the US.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:33 am to SlowFlowPro
That's not really the point. Citizenship laws were a thing since 1790, and while slaves were not counted in that number until the 14th, the slave trade was legal and therefore the residency status of those slaves was clear and in tact.
The comparison is to someone NOT here legally being granted automatic citizenship for their children under that premise is weak. Their legal status (resident or otherwise) being the distinction.
The comparison is to someone NOT here legally being granted automatic citizenship for their children under that premise is weak. Their legal status (resident or otherwise) being the distinction.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:36 am to sparkinator
quote:
We can’t pass a budget, how the hell are we gonna pass an amendment to the constitution? Those days are long gone. Our system is broken. No kings protests are openly carrrying communist flags. Illegals that are murderers are being protected by sanctuary cities. We are broken.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:36 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
That's not really the point.
Why did you bring up being here legally, if it didn't have rhetoric value?
quote:
Citizenship laws were a thing since 1790, and while slaves were not counted in that number until the 14th,
Because they weren't considered people. Has nothing to do with being here legally (which was your standard to which I replied).
quote:
and therefore the residency status of those slaves was clear and in tact.
They weren't resident as they weren't considered people. Only humans can have residency. Try again.
quote:
The comparison is to someone NOT here legally being granted automatic citizenship for their children under that premise is weak.
That was relatively common in the 1860s, as birthright citizenship existed in many states at that time. And since nobody could "not be here legally", that point is moot.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:37 am to aTmTexas Dillo
The nauseating, agenda-driven intellectualizing and naval gazing about language and text in the complete absence of common sense and context is the way the American left aims to change everything they don't like about the constitution.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:38 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
This just massively contradicts a the way this country was made
Invasion by non assimilated foreigners also contradicts how this country was founded.
The backbone of this country has always been Western-Christian.
Now it is rapidly becoming 80IQ third world opportunists.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:39 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
The nauseating, agenda-driven intellectualizing and naval gazing about language and text in the complete absence of common sense and context is the way the American left aims to change everything they don't like about the constitution.
When did you start hating Scalia?
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:45 am to SlowFlowPro
Weak. The slaves were considered people, although their status as chattel allowed them to be owned as property. They even had limited legal status as people according the the 3/5ths compromise which predated the naturalization clause, BTW. They were not considered citizens, but were people in this country with legal residency status who were (for the most part) born here, which is why the 14th was correct in its intent.
Using the slaves as an argument to support pure birthright citizenship for the Honduran baby dropper is an argument with a big hole in it.
Using the slaves as an argument to support pure birthright citizenship for the Honduran baby dropper is an argument with a big hole in it.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 8:46 am to SlowFlowPro
Here we fricking go again
Posted on 3/31/26 at 12:13 pm to Vacherie Saint
When the amendment was ratified in 1868 Democrats didn't want freed slaves or the children of former slaves to have rights guaranteed to citizenship under the constitution.
This post was edited on 3/31/26 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 3/31/26 at 12:15 pm to deuceiswild
Only like 18 to 20 countries in the world still offer 'birthright citizenship' that tells us all we need to know. Its a stupid fricking idea for many many reasons.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 12:29 pm to deuceiswild
This post was edited on 3/31/26 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 3/31/26 at 12:33 pm to deuceiswild
It’s a policy that makes sense for a growing expansionist empire. It serves as an excellent tool for incorporating new subjects into the empire and assimilating them over time. The problem is that we are no longer an expansionist empire and we are instead a declining welfare state. As such, we are simply importing more bodies into the empire rather than expanding to add anything. Those newcomers simply drain the entitlements more so than they contribute. As such, birthright citizenship is being wielded by elites as a weapon against the citizenry to replace them.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 12:35 pm to Azkiger
quote:
You are a legit idiot.
No, he's not an idiot. He's like every other progressive that will defend birthright citizenship to their death because it keeps census numbers up in blue states, which means they maintain their House seats.
Why else do you think proggies have the weird fetish with sanctuary cities and states, and have lost their minds because of increased deportations under Trump?
ETA: Just because I know someone will eventually go "AKTCHOOULY" and bring up the fact they're citizens vs. illegal immigrants, I meant this as an example of how they're anchor babies allowing the parents to remain, which inflates the census count (along with all the illegals proggies love to let in for the same reason).
This post was edited on 3/31/26 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 3/31/26 at 12:46 pm to deuceiswild
Why not just force the leaches to have abortions?
Posted on 3/31/26 at 12:46 pm to deuceiswild
Why not just force the leaches to have abortions?
Posted on 3/31/26 at 12:56 pm to TigerBaitOohHaHa
What becomes of the generation born to illegals?
They're citizens of the country their parents are from in accordance with however that country determines it.
Are they citizens of nowhere?
See answer above.
Do other countries recognize births outside their own borders and grant citizenship?
Why should we give a shite? We're not solving their problems, we're solving ours.
What about the following generations? In 200 years will there be someone who is a citizen of Bolivia because their 8th great grandparent was in the U.S. illegally?
Not sure I see the point being made here or why this of concern to anyone.
What about if one parent is legal but one is not?
The child would likely have dual citizenship. But if one of the parents is here illegally the kid can either go with them or go visit.
Happy to help
They're citizens of the country their parents are from in accordance with however that country determines it.
Are they citizens of nowhere?
See answer above.
Do other countries recognize births outside their own borders and grant citizenship?
Why should we give a shite? We're not solving their problems, we're solving ours.
What about the following generations? In 200 years will there be someone who is a citizen of Bolivia because their 8th great grandparent was in the U.S. illegally?
Not sure I see the point being made here or why this of concern to anyone.
What about if one parent is legal but one is not?
The child would likely have dual citizenship. But if one of the parents is here illegally the kid can either go with them or go visit.
Happy to help
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News