- 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
Levin makes it very clear about Birthright Citizenship. Jurisdiction is the key element.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:11 am
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:11 am
Another win is coming soon when the SCOTUS lets everyone know the real truth which is "there is no Constitutional basis for universal birthright citizenship to legal immigrants or illegal immigrants in the Constitution itself."
DUH!!
DUH!!
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
12
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:12 am to Timeoday
This is why a simple solution to this is for Congress to exclude illegals from jurisdiction for the purposes of birthright citizenship by statute.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:21 am to Timeoday
Levin has been on this issue for decades and he should be appointed special assistant AG or special assistant Solicitor General to help with the arguments at SCOTUS. He would be an incredible asset.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:22 am to Timeoday
SFP in 3, 2, 1...
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:23 am to udtiger
The elimination of the National Origins Quota System in 1965, which had been in place since 1921, started the engine to the vehicle that got us here today. They replaced it with the Immigration Act of 1965.
Assimilation is what is needed again. Allegiance to the USA is a given or one can get the hell out!!
Assimilation is what is needed again. Allegiance to the USA is a given or one can get the hell out!!
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:23 am to Timeoday
SFP will be here shortly to tell you why Mark Levin is wrong and he is right. And will cite Wong Kim Ark case incorrectly 5,000 times.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:23 am to FightinTigersDammit
You beat me to it....
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:25 am to Dandy Chiggins
Not by much. Someone would have done it, in any case.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:28 am to FightinTigersDammit
What does the winner get?
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:29 am to Timeoday
There is no way the court will side with the EO. I hope I’m wrong, but I seriously doubt it.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:32 am to Timeoday
quote:
Another win is coming soon when the SCOTUS lets everyone know the real truth which is "there is no Constitutional basis for universal birthright citizenship to legal immigrants or illegal immigrants in the Constitution itself."
This is why the people saying that this is a pointless exercise are wrong. Will Trump win this? I don't know. But plenty of very knowledgeable people believe it has a chance.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:33 am to Timeoday
quote:Our cowardly SCOTUS will duck the case just as it did w/ Tx v Pa.
Another win is coming soon when the SCOTUS lets everyone know the real truth which is "there is no Constitutional basis for universal birthright citizenship
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:35 am to Hayekian serf
quote:
There is no way the court will side with the EO. I hope I’m wrong, but I seriously doubt it
Why? It's pretty clear. Any person here illegally is still under the jurisdiction of their country of origin.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:42 am to Timeoday
Good segment by Levin right there. SFP will disagree citing WKA.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:47 am to GumboPot
quote:
WKA
One Wong does not make a right.
Proponents of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants who say that the Wong Kim Ark ruling has settled the issue conveniently ignore the fact that Wong’s parents were domiciled residents and thus were in the United States legally.
This post was edited on 1/27/25 at 9:51 am
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:50 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
There is no way the court will side with the EO. I hope I’m wrong, but I seriously doubt it
quote:
Why?
Amy Coney Barrett
John Roberts
That’s why.
This post was edited on 1/27/25 at 9:51 am
Posted on 1/27/25 at 9:51 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Our cowardly SCOTUS will duck the case just as it did w/ Tx v Pa.
They didn't duck Dobbs, which was a case with HUGE social implications. I think the birthright citizenship issue will be one the USSC takes a look at again given the context in which the controversy arises....people illegally entering the country and seeking to remain based upon the position their child born in the US should automatically be a citizen.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:06 am to Timeoday
Making it across the border by hook or crook and squirting out a kid is not the basis of citizenship policy. It’s ridiculous on its surface.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:09 am to Alt26
The senator from Michigan who put the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment said in speeches he gave later that it did not apply to people who are illegally in the U.S. Other politicians during that time did the same.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:20 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Making it across the border by hook or crook and squirting out a kid is not the basis of citizenship policy. It’s ridiculous on its surface.
It is an absurd proposition on it’s face. Historically and near universally, citizenship has primarily been determined by the citizenship of an individual’s parents or their parent’s country of birth, not the location where the mother gives birth to a child.
This is exemplified by the fact that children born to American citizens while they are abroad are not granted citizenship in the nation of their birth. Indeed, throughout nations across the globe, a child born to foreign nationals is considered a foreign national themselves: the few exceptions reinforce the rule.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News