- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Judge blocks Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship
Posted on 7/10/25 at 12:35 pm to vl100butch
Posted on 7/10/25 at 12:35 pm to vl100butch
quote:
A constitutional amendment is one way to solve the problem,
It's likely the only way.
quote:
however simply legislatively defining the rules for birthright citizenship would be a big help.
Congress can't override the Constitution.
And those rules are somewhat codified already.
LINK
quote:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b)a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e)a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f)a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g)a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h)a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 12:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
You left this out...
quote:
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 12:48 pm to Hognutz
quote:
SCOTUS must of known they left the door open so now what?
Yes, Alito did. he predicted it. These class action suits will gum up the works so Trump can't proceed any time soon.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 12:51 pm to Jinks
Actually, you’ll find out your legal reasoning has no merit. A person’s immigration status can’t prevent him or her from seeking legal redress.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 12:52 pm to Jinks
quote:
Any member of this class action lawsuit has to be an illegal immigrant so just deport them since it's against the law to be here. If they are a legal citizen then they cannot be a member of the class and the lawsuit has no merit.

Posted on 7/10/25 at 12:53 pm to VOR
quote:
Actually, you’ll find out your legal reasoning has no merit. A person’s immigration status can’t prevent him or her from seeking legal redress.
Will be tough to do from Venezuela. Dummy.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 12:53 pm to VOR
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/10/25 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 7/10/25 at 12:59 pm to udtiger
quote:
You left this out...
No. I posted a law made pursuant to section 5
Those laws can't supersede the 14th Amendment though. That baseline cannot be violated by congressional statute
Posted on 7/10/25 at 1:03 pm to VOR
quote:
Actually, you’ll find out your legal reasoning has no merit. A person’s immigration status can’t prevent him or her from seeking legal redress.
A persons attempt to seek legal redress can start a chain of events which lead to said person being deported due to his/her immigration status.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 1:03 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
If you reverse it, it would be accurate. You act like we are the only country in the world with citizenship by birth. Its actually the most common form of granting citizenship in the west.
It’s retarded and destroying the fabric of the Republic. If other countries want to continue down the path of shitholery, kudos.
It’s dumb, it’s certainly not what the founders would do, and it needs to stop.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 1:05 pm to loogaroo
Trump should just ignore the judges order. The SCOTUS has already said so.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 1:12 pm to back9Tiger
quote:
I thought the USSC sorted this shite out.
They did, in a way, but not like you think.
Now the cases must be brought as regular class actions and they have to be brought all over the place. The S.Ct. ruling will actually multiply the litigation.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 1:17 pm to Goalpost
quote:
Trump should just ignore the judges order. The SCOTUS has already said so.
The only thing the Supreme Court said was that district courts can't enter a nationwide injunction without meeting certain criteria (a class-action suit being one of them).
The district courts can still enter injunctions specific to the parties, covering their own district. If a person born in the US lives in Houston, for example, and has been arrested by ICE because that person's parents were in the country temporarily when the person was born, they can file suit in the Southern District of Texas, and the court can enter an order on birthright citizenship that protects that person in the Southern District. There is a chance that the issue will reach the Supreme Court again by this route.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 1:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Those laws can't supersede the 14th Amendment though. That baseline cannot be violated by congressional statute
They can be repealed.
It also does not prevent the Congress from expressly defining the term "jurisdiction" - which is where the uncertainty lies.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 1:26 pm to udtiger
quote:
It also does not prevent the Congress from expressly defining the term "jurisdiction"
Which is an area wholly subject to the USSC, not Congress.
That's why the law just uses mimicking language.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 1:37 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
Thousand of voters harmed by election fraud
Link?
How does one link an entire 4 year Biden administration?
Posted on 7/10/25 at 1:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Those laws can't supersede the 14th Amendment though. That baseline cannot be violated by congressional statute
The amendment was specifically targeting slaves, for the purpose of establishing their citizenship, once and for all
Not for foreigners who were just passing thru. I mean its pretty clear as to its intent
quote:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Plus the forced ratification of the South is just added proof
quote:
Southerners still argued that the amendment was invalid, however, because the beaten southern states, then ruled by federal military commissions, were forced to ratify the amendment in order to regain their full legal status.
Posted on 7/10/25 at 1:41 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
Also, pregnant immigrant does not mean illegal immigrant.
It doesn't necessarily mean legal immigrant either
Posted on 7/10/25 at 2:00 pm to loogaroo
quote:
The suit was brought on behalf of a pregnant immigrant,
So a fetus in New Jersey is entitled to citizenship but can be aborted. Oh that’s a fun can of worms to open.
Popular
Back to top



1










