- 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 11:22 am to Nurbis
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:22 am to Nurbis
quote:
What limits are on birthright citizenship?
Subject to the jurisdiction creates two exceptions. The first is the progeny of diplomats, which is still the law to this day. The second involves population under hostile occupation, which hasn't existed in the United States since 1812, but theoretically could happen in the future.
There was a third exception that was due to precedent, involving native Americans, but this is settled via Congressional legislation and doesn't have a place in the discussion today because of that.
0
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:24 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
quote:
I don’t give a frick what Heller says or frankly what you “think” the 2nd Amendment says.
You will never convince me that the framers of the 2nd meant that fricking people could own assault rifles
I subscribe to fricking common sense law,
Same thing.
Is it the same thing?
I can't legally own the current full-auto assault rifle our military uses.
So, can constitutional rights have limits or not? The 2A, even with shall not be infringed in the text, has definitely been limited.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You clearly have not read WKA
Because I read it to mean what it says?
quote:
His "work permit" is irrelevant UNLESS he was a diplomat and you're referring to some sort of paperwork reflecting that.
WKA was recognized (as were his parents) under federal immigration laws (temporarily or otherwise, and possibly with exceptions) as citizens because they had the work permits, were of age, and had already been LEGALLY permitted by the government to work in the United States.
If he had snuck in on a ship, it would be different. He had legal right to be here. His parents had legal right to be here.
The 14th Amendment cannot set the precedent (but will likely be used to do just that) in this case because we are talking about the children of non-citizens.
Those with legal right to be here for the purpose of work, whether temporary or long-term, are under the jurisdiction of the USA by virtue of being approved by the federal government to work here.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 11:31 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:30 am to SammyTiger
quote:
And at the time we may not have had illegal immigrants but we had lots of immigrants and not everyone liked them. So they had to know those kids would be getting citizenship.
Right off the bat, that is speculation and is MUCH different than the combination historical context and verbiage in law.
quote:
Interpreting the constitution to not grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants would be extrapolating.
Negative. This would only be true if we collectively ignored the fact that the word “domiciled” exists in the language.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:31 am to DByrd2
quote:
WKA was recognized (as were his parents) under federal immigration laws as citizens because they had the work permits
Cite the part of the ruling that specifically referenced work permits.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:32 am to DByrd2
quote:
Negative. This would only be true if we collectively ignored the fact that the word “domiciled” exists in the language.
You can be an illegal immigrant and be domiciled in the United States.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:33 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
There is nothing constitutional about birthright citizenship. This was never the intention.
What was the intention then?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:35 am to SlowFlowPro
Lots of freaking out over this issue. Which is weird considering the border has been closed. So I don’t get what all the handwringing is about currently.
Seems like Trump 2.0 has this board in a frenzied state. Even though the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches.
Seems like Trump 2.0 has this board in a frenzied state. Even though the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:35 am to DByrd2
quote:
Right off the bat, that is speculation
It’s not speculation.
We had large immigrant populations in the 1860s and people openly didn’t like them.
The 14th gave their kids citizenship.
These are all historical facts.
Congress didn’t use the word domicilled in the amendment. They used “subject to the jurisdiction”
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's why we have an amendment process.
This is the same concept the democrats chose for flooding the nation with illegal aliens
Their hand-picked judges across the nation insist that EVERY ONE of those 20,000,000 aliens have to be given "due process"
so that to take care of one of them we have to
- gather evidence
- get a warrant
- find the alien
- get him a public attorney
- set a trial date
- conduct the trial
- if guilty, go thru the appeal process
-
suppose there are only 5,000,000 aliens who are worth chasing
now - give me an estimate of how we could do that for every one of them -
would 1 month be an estimate of the minimum time it would take to accomplish all that - even if we stipulate there would be no intentional delays.
how many years is 5,000,000 months??
I am SURE that is what the framers would have wanted
And we KNOW what their solution would be if you demanded that they do it.
but more importantly you also KNOW that this is the Democrat strategy for their position
They KNOW it would be IMPOSSIBLE to correct THEIR criminal acts - as so they just get to reap the reward of an additional 20,000,000 names in the census for getting another couple dozen representative, and as many ballots as they can print to ensure no election will ever be out of their reach.
With all your sophistry in 'defending' the constitution - you know the intent of the democrat party (including RINOs) was to overload the system to it fail point.
you know that - we know you know that - we know that you know we know that - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
congrats =
sucks to be you
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:38 am to AUCom96
quote:
Not the left. Both sides.
Well the establishment GOP group absolutely.
I don’t think the MAGA wing of the GOP has been globalist which is why it’s gotten the response it did from the rest of the world and the existing elements of the US political system.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:40 am to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
would take Congress proposing a Constitutional amendment
So even if the majority of Americans support it, our unreliable crooked arse congress will never put it to a true vote.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:40 am to AGGIES
quote:
Even though the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches.
Trump doesn’t have real control over the legislative branch or they would’ve passed a bunch of stuff they haven’t ie the voting bill which is stalled.
Heck he can’t even get his subcabinet picks approved by Thune.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:42 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
They KNOW it would be IMPOSSIBLE to correct THEIR criminal acts - as so they just get to reap the reward of an additional 20,000,000 names in the census for getting another couple dozen representative, and as many ballots as they can print to ensure no election will ever be out of their reach.
Not to deflect, but isn't this the exact argument the admin put forward as to why tariff refunds shouldn't happen?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:43 am to Nurbis
quote:If you’re pro-gun control, just say so.
I can't legally own the current full-auto assault rifle our military uses.
quote:Literally the same argument democrats use to call for AR bans.
So, can constitutional rights have limits or not? The 2A, even with shall not be infringed in the text, has definitely been limited.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:45 am to TBoy
quote:
Since it is in the Constitution, it is absolutely consitutional.
So is "shall not be infringed."
So we are completely done with the "gun debate"?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:46 am to TBoy
quote:
Edit: But to your silly description, yes, when my children peaked their heads out of their mother's womb, they were immediately citizens of the United States.
Yes, because you or the mother had citizenship to confer onto the child. You can't give your child something you dont have yourself. Which is the true argument, if a person is not legally here, as more than a tourist, then they have no US citizenship to confer onto the child. They have the kid and return to their home of citizenship which the child will have due to parentage.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:48 am to DByrd2
quote:
The 14th Amendment cannot set the precedent (but will likely be used to do just that) in this case because we are talking about the children of non-citizens.
So was WKA. It was undisputed that his parents were always Chinese citizens.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:49 am to DeplorableTerrorizer
The answer to this is simple, tighten the borders, take away H1Bs, deport the violent criminal illegals and the pregnant criminal illegals and then you go back and get the rest of the illegals.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:49 am to TrueTiger
The Congressional record is very clear that birthright citizenship was intended to apply to the children of immigrants. One Senator objected to the proposed clause, arguing the language would grant citizenship to the children of the Chinese people who were moving in to California. Other Senators said he was right, it would grant them citizenship, and that they fully intended those children to be citizens.
The belief was that the language matched the common law as it was understood at the time: if you are born here, you are a citizen.
Since that time, congress has passed immigration laws and created a class of people who have entered or remained in the country illegally.
The question before the court is whether those immigration laws are capable of denying citizenship to children born here, even though the 14th Amendment expressly grants them citizenship.
I dont see how a law can amend the meaning of the Constitution. It just doesn't work that way.
Anchor babies suck, but we cannot just wish them away. There has to be a legal avenue to change their status, and the most direct avenue is a Constitutional Amendment.
The belief was that the language matched the common law as it was understood at the time: if you are born here, you are a citizen.
Since that time, congress has passed immigration laws and created a class of people who have entered or remained in the country illegally.
The question before the court is whether those immigration laws are capable of denying citizenship to children born here, even though the 14th Amendment expressly grants them citizenship.
I dont see how a law can amend the meaning of the Constitution. It just doesn't work that way.
Anchor babies suck, but we cannot just wish them away. There has to be a legal avenue to change their status, and the most direct avenue is a Constitutional Amendment.
Page 7 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News