- 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: Live: Supreme Court hears Trump bid to limit birthright citizenship
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:23 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I guess that depends on who gets to interpret the constitution, doesnt it?
Congress cannot override the Constitution
calm your sweaty tits. All I'm saying is that WKA is not the strongest case to cite for anchor babies.
0
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:24 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Intent to remain invisible to US jurisprudence.
In other words, these people are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:26 am to lionward2014
quote:
That's where the ACLU lawyer did a good job asking Kavanaugh and ACB's question that the 14th set the floor of who is a US citizen at birth but they can still pass legislation over who else can receive it. So even if Congress unanimously passed legislation saying that children of illegals aren't citizens, it wouldn't be constitutional because of the 14th.
It's funny because I've been arguing that for months on here and I predicted that it would be an argument made at the Supreme Court it's funny because I've been arguing that for months on here and I predicted that it would be an argument made at the Supreme Court
Congress can 100% expand who gets to be a citizen and develop the processes for that. They could award citizenship to children born of diplomats residing in the US if they wanted. The constitutional floor prevents this, but that's only the constitutional Grant of citizenship. Congress did this exact thing with Indians after WKA.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:27 am to Ingeniero
quote:Not if we don't know they are here, and if we knew, they would come under jurisdiction and be deported.
In other words, these people are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:28 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
There was an exclusion act in force at the time that would have prevented the parents from naturalizing, but not living and working here. But they were still loyal Chinese subjects and I dont believe it was their intent to ever naturalize anyway. They were living and working in the US for 20 years when WKA was born, but eventually returned to China. Their presence in the US was legal.
Exactly and that's where I think the argument the government relies on for domicile falls apart.
We use domicile as a basis in so many other areas of the law that would have to be ignored here. If a person is living in the US for some period of years, working, paying taxes, etc no reasonable person would conclude they don't subjectively and objectively intend to remain here, whether they are legal or illegally here.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:29 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Not if we don't know they are here,
I don't know of any state that defines domicile this way . Typically the discussion is based around the intent of the person. There are certain steps that you can take to display this intent (like getting a driver's license for example) but they only indicate intent. And the question is an internal one of the person claiming domicile. So whether or not the state reads their mind for their intent isn't really relevant.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:30 am to lionward2014
quote:
We use domicile as a basis in so many other areas of the law that would have to be ignored here. If a person is living in the US for some period of years, working, paying taxes, etc no reasonable person would conclude they don't subjectively and objectively intend to remain here, whether they are legal or illegally here.
Yeah unwinding the concept of domicile for this specific argument would do a lot of damage and I don't think the Supreme Court is going to take those steps.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
I forgot which Justice addressed that, but one asked if we are supposed to go down that path of dissecting and analyzing domicile/intent on every birthright citizenship case going forward. It’s a ridiculous scenario, practically speaking.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:34 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Not if we don't know they are here, and if we knew, they would come under jurisdiction and be deported.
You are saying that like there aren't pathways to go from illegal -> legal. The INA expressly provides numerous pathways for it.
The child is born to parents who are in the process of applying for asylum. That person is now 2-3 years into the process. That person has subjective intent to create domicile here, and objective intent based on taking affirmative steps to remain in the US. Under the administration's argument, it is unclear whether that child should be a citizen or not, and it is damn sure not going to be clear to the people filing out paperwork at the hospital.
Let's take it a step further, the parents are granted asylum when the child is 6 months old. Is that child now a US citizen or do they have to naturalize? Explain under this theory how the child wasn't always fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Relevance?
I don't know of any state that defines domicile this way
Do you know of any state with the right to deport illegals?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:38 am to loogaroo
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
"They have the duty of military service. It seems that makes them subject to a FOREIGN POWER!" ??
Gosh he is so good.
"Not subject to any foreign power is pretty straightforward. So let me give you these examples. A boy is born here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally."
"That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth and he has a duty to provide military service to the Iranian government, is he not subject to any foreign power?"
"What I said about a boy born to an Iranian father is true of children born here to parents who were nationals of other countries. It's true to a child who's born here to Russian parents."
The framers of 14A did not intend for this!
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:40 am to Ailsa
Yet Roberts will still pass the buck if he can...
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:40 am to loogaroo
SCOTUS simply needs to rubber stamp the constitution; not make laws. Birthright citizenship is illegal. Never, the intent of founding fathers. Read it.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:42 am to lionward2014
quote:No.
You are saying that like there aren't pathways to go from illegal -> legal.
quote:are known residents ... until they miss their courtdate.
in the process of applying for asylum
If they are in the legal process, I've no problem with contention of BRC.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:44 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
If they are in the legal process, I've no problem with contention of BRC.
What happens if it is ultimately denied? Not trolling, think that's an interesting take.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:44 am to Ailsa
Accepting Daugherty's interpretation for anything, especially legal argument, is retarded
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:48 am to Ingeniero
I agree, he should be no more trusted than most any influencer/ writer journo--star.
Yet Alito"s words are a nudge of hope...
Yet Alito"s words are a nudge of hope...
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:49 am to lionward2014
I don't think domicile, legal or otherwise holds up.
If there's a win here for the right, it'll have something to do with legal status - and that's probably the best you can hope for.
If there's a win here for the right, it'll have something to do with legal status - and that's probably the best you can hope for.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Relevance?
Keep reading
quote:
Typically the discussion is based around the intent of the person. There are certain steps that you can take to display this intent (like getting a driver's license for example) but they only indicate intent. And the question is an internal one of the person claiming domicile. So whether or not the state reads their mind for their intent isn't really relevant.
quote:
Do you know of any state with the right to deport illegals?
You're pivoting. Do you want to discuss domicile or something else?
You gave an interpretation of what "domicile" is that isn't supported by any state that I know of. The argument is that your interpretation is therefore bad.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:51 am to loogaroo
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News