- 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: Listening to SCOTUS Birthright argument: WE ARE FRICKED
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:59 am to Covingtontiger77
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:59 am to Covingtontiger77
Well yeah, illegal migrants don’t affect the daily lives of Supreme Court justices so why would they care? The fact there’s even a debate about Illegals is ridiculous and undermines the entire legal system we fall under.
1
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
Senator Lyman Trumbull who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee and the main author of the 1866 Civil Rights Act explained it that way.
I don't expect a win here.
I predict that the court will be as wrong about this as they were in Dredd Scott v Sandford.
I don't expect a win here.
I predict that the court will be as wrong about this as they were in Dredd Scott v Sandford.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 10:01 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:59 am to Covingtontiger77
quote:
The U.S. becoming the dumping ground for the dregs of the world to pop a squat and make an American citizen wasn’t contemplated
Liberals want to refer to how many people’s ancestors came through Ellis island etc, fine with me. Bring back forced assimilation. They used to change people’s names to make it more Americanized when they came here
People who don’t assimilate are invaders
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:05 am to GeauxBurrow312
quote:
People who don’t assimilate are invaders
Do we need to deport the Amish?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:05 am to Covingtontiger77
Long before this issue was nearly so politicized as it is now, I had a college prof (a liberal for sure) lecture that he did not believe birthright citizenship, which was almost universally assumed at the time, was not nearly as rooted in 14th Am text as many believed. As I recall, his belief was that Congress could define citizenship without running afoul of the 14th Am due to the latitude allowed by the Am’s less than clear phrasing and the differences between the Wong (?) decision and the modern scenario in which we have comprehensive immigration laws. I have no idea if he was “right,” but it will be interesting to see if there is any room for legislative changes short of amendment to the Constitution after the executive order is struck down as most observers expect.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:06 am to Covingtontiger77
quote:That was always a reliable bet. Roberts' immense desire to avoid controversy consistently trumps Constitutionality. Sauer acquitted himself well though, in response to obviously antagonistic questions.
Listening to SCOTUS Birthright argument:
Not winning this
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Supreme Court confirmed a broad reading of this clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), holding that it includes children born in the U.S. to non-citizen immigrant parents who are legally residing here.
We currently allow birthright citizenship to children born to parents illegally residing here.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:06 am to JellyRoll
quote:
holding that it includes children born in the U.S. to non-citizen immigrant parents who are legally residing here.
That's a bad summary
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:08 am to TBoy
quote:
"The left?" The Constitution of the United States is "the Left?"
The people who have promoted the lack of enforcement of existing immigration law which has facilitated the influx of millions of illegals who have given birth here. That’s what he’s talking about.
Good effort, though, fricking queer.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:08 am to SlowFlowPro
It's in the ruling and the "text" of the ruling. Not bad at all.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:09 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That was always a reliable bet. Roberts' immense desire to avoid controversy consistently trumps Constitutionality
This sounds like a 8-1 or 9-0 so far from what I've read
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:09 am to JellyRoll
quote:
It's in the ruling and the "text" of the ruling
Where is this?
quote:
legally residing
Specifically the "legally" part.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:10 am to Covingtontiger77
quote:
THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AT THE TIME THE AMENDMENT WAS PASSED.
This is a slippery slope. “THERE WERE NO HIGH POWERED AUTOMATIC RIFLES WHEN THE 2nd AMENDMENT WAS PASSED.” You can’t pick and choose when you use this kind of logic based on whether or not you like that particular law.
quote:
The U.S. becoming the dumping ground for the dregs of the world to pop a squat and make an American citizen wasn’t contemplated.
They contemplated a ton of things that would only become relevant centuries after they were gone. And in their wisdom, for the things they didn’t/couldn’t, they created a system by which laws could be passed/repealed.
quote:
I doubt if it was that the 14th would have been crafted in such a way.
Maybe not. Doesn’t matter. It was crafted that way. And don’t we hate activist judges? Doesn’t their job end at interpreting and enforcing laws based on how they were actually written? Now you want them to try to interpret intentions? That’s not just a slippery slope, that’s a goddamn straight fall off a mountaintop. It would give the judiciary branch way too much power and destroy the idea of checks and balances of the 3 branches.
If we don’t like how the 14th is written, repeal it and pass a new amendment that either clarifies it or changes it to reflect modern needs via the appropriate system already set up. We don’t need SCOTUS trying to ascribe intention on top of their actual job of interpreting laws by the letters in which they were actually written.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:10 am to Covingtontiger77
The Chinese birth tourism is going to really hurt one day. A China man raised in China that is "American" can run for president from China one day and get elected while living in China.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:10 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I predict that the court will be as wrong about this as they were in Dredd Scott v Sandford.
Court rulings reflect moral correctness about as often as TMZ does.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:We've had this discussion. You believe the intent in Ark was to allow the CCP to jet pregnant CCP-loyal women into the US, drop a baby, return to China, raise the child as a US hating CCP loyalist, and have him eligible to be elected POTUS, whereas Elon Musk is ineligible. I disagree.
If you read the historical analysis in WKA, this is not correct
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:12 am to the808bass
Thankfully the border is shut down
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:13 am to Covingtontiger77
What would it take to get this on a ballot for a nationwide vote?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
historical analysis in WKA, this is not correct
What did that analysis have to say about illegal aliens?????
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:15 am to TBoy
quote:
"The left?" The Constitution of the United States is "the Left?"
The constitution is a suicide pact according to you communists
Page 2 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News