- 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 11:53 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:53 am to cajunangelle
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
She has to freaking go. This is absurd. Actually.
"I was thinking, you know, I'm a U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It's allegiance, meaning can they control you as a matter of law?"
"So there's this relationship based on—even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that sense. Is that the right way to think about it?"
"And if so, doesn't that explain why both temporary residents and undocumented people would have that kind of, quote-unquote, allegiance, just by virtue of being in the United States?"
I guess it is April Fools
4
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:59 am to Ailsa
quote:
"I was thinking, you know, I'm a U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It's allegiance, meaning can they control you as a matter of law?"
"So there's this relationship based on—even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that sense. Is that the right way to think about it?"
"And if so, doesn't that explain why both temporary residents and undocumented people would have that kind of, quote-unquote, allegiance, just by virtue of being in the United States?"
She is an idiot, and asked some dumb questions today, but that actually distills down the issue today at play very well. Either you are subject to the US's power while on US soil are you aren't, and the 14th only lays out a very small amount of people who aren't.
Wang addressed it directly talking about the problem when the British occupied parts of Maine saying that children born in that occupied territory weren't subject to the jurisdiction at the US at the time because it wasn't under the control of the US.
10000% part of invoking the AEA was for if/when they lose the argument here. Now you argue they are enemy invaders under a legal sense and that is an explicit excluded class in the 14th.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:01 pm to Ailsa
quote:Doe she not understand what the word “allegiance” means?
"I was thinking, you know, I'm a U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It's allegiance, meaning can they control you as a matter of law?"
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:02 pm to lionward2014
quote:
10000% part of invoking the AEA was for if/when they lose the argument here. Now you argue they are enemy invaders under a legal sense and that is an explicit excluded class in the 14th.
The hostile occupation part will make that clever argument fail, too.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:07 pm to Ailsa
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
JACKSON: "Are we bringing pregnant women for depositions?!"
SAUER: "No. The EO turns on lawfulness of status. If you give birth to a baby, it gets the birth certificate, and there is a computer system—"
JACKSON: "So there's no opportunity, then, for the person to prove or say they intended to stay in the US?"
SAUER: "The OPPOSITE is true. There are opportunities to dispute if they think they are wrongfully denied, which only happens in a tiny minority of cases."
JACKSON: "After their baby has been denied citizenship, we go through the process?"
SAUER: "The system automatically checks the immigration status of the parents, which there are robust databases for. It appears NO DIFFERENT to the vast majority of birthing parents."
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:09 pm to lionward2014
quote:
What happens if it is ultimately denied?
Asylum could be stipulated as a discretionary benefit. The government has enormous latitude in immigration matters. On entry, conditions of conferred BRC could be stipulated. Entry would be conditional on agreement to the stipulation. ITR, the applicant would not be waiving BRC so much as accepting a condition of a voluntary status, i.e., that if asylum is denied, the child's situation is no different from that of any other child of someone unlawfully present.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:11 pm to lionward2014
quote:
She is an idiot, and asked some dumb questions today, but that actually distills down the issue today at play very well. Either you are subject to the US's power while on US soil are you aren't, and the 14th only lays out a very small amount of people who aren't.
I'm looking forward for the the auto-pen hires to be un-hired.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:34 pm to Ailsa
quote:
I'm looking forward for the the auto-pen hires to be un-hired.
If it turns out that there was massive voter fraud and Brandon's presidency was illegal, does Jumanji Jackson Browne get a ticket for the next Greyhound home?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:46 pm to Athis
That’s the $64 dollar question. Every human here is in some manner subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So why include such an obvious qualifier, unless it has been long since misinterpreted.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Asylum could be stipulated as a discretionary benefit. The government has enormous latitude in immigration matters. On entry, conditions of conferred BRC could be stipulated. Entry would be conditional on agreement to the stipulation. ITR, the applicant would not be waiving BRC so much as accepting a condition of a voluntary status, i.e., that if asylum is denied, the child's situation is no different from that of any other child of someone unlawfully present.
I see that as an administrative nightmare, but it's at least a thought out alternative.
As an immigration attorney, in a world where that is the law now I will be very busy.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:47 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Every human here is in some manner subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Except diplomats
quote:
So why include such an obvious qualifier
To exclude children of diplomats, primarily (But also those born in areas of hostile occupation)
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:56 pm to Ingeniero
Pardon the typos was on phone and battery dying.
Corrected...
Corrected...
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
There are limitations on diplomatic immunity. You know this.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:09 pm to lionward2014
quote:
As an immigration attorney, in a world where that is the law now I will be very busy.
So everybody's happy.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:17 pm to Ailsa
quote:
, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan
Leave it to BLACK justice to entertain stealing on foreign soil.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:49 pm to loogaroo
I think issue, particularly the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is rooted in the unique way the country was formed.
North America wasn’t a blank slate. It was divided among multiple colonial powers, primarily Britain, France, and Spain. The people living in those territories were subjects of those respective nations. Regions like Texas, Florida, and California were once populated by Spanish citizens, while areas like Louisiana were under French control.
This creates a natural question: what happens to those populations when sovereignty changes? When Texas gained independence, when Florida was acquired from Spain, or when the Louisiana Purchase transferred vast territory from France to the United States, the land changed hands, but the people didn’t suddenly cease being Spanish or French overnight.
That’s where the concept of being “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” becomes important. It wasn’t simply about geography, it was about legal authority. For example, Spanish citizens living in Florida after it became U.S. territory remained who they were, but their children, born under U.S. jurisdiction, could be recognized as citizens because they were born under American legal authority.
Over time, however, this idea seems to have been simplified into the broader notion that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically receives citizenship. Imo this interpretation overlooks the original context, which was tied more specifically to questions of allegiance and jurisdiction following territorial transitions, not a blanket rule detached from those historical circumstances.
North America wasn’t a blank slate. It was divided among multiple colonial powers, primarily Britain, France, and Spain. The people living in those territories were subjects of those respective nations. Regions like Texas, Florida, and California were once populated by Spanish citizens, while areas like Louisiana were under French control.
This creates a natural question: what happens to those populations when sovereignty changes? When Texas gained independence, when Florida was acquired from Spain, or when the Louisiana Purchase transferred vast territory from France to the United States, the land changed hands, but the people didn’t suddenly cease being Spanish or French overnight.
That’s where the concept of being “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” becomes important. It wasn’t simply about geography, it was about legal authority. For example, Spanish citizens living in Florida after it became U.S. territory remained who they were, but their children, born under U.S. jurisdiction, could be recognized as citizens because they were born under American legal authority.
Over time, however, this idea seems to have been simplified into the broader notion that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically receives citizenship. Imo this interpretation overlooks the original context, which was tied more specifically to questions of allegiance and jurisdiction following territorial transitions, not a blanket rule detached from those historical circumstances.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:56 pm to loogaroo
Greg Price
@greg_price11
·
3h
Jackson: "How does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents determining a newborn child is a citizen of the United States?... Are we bringing in pregnant women for depositions?"
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:08 pm to loogaroo
Is it just me or does it look like Trump is going to lose this one 5-4 with Roberts and ACB joining the liberal justices?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:10 pm to WeeWee
I'm going to listen later but I think 7-2 or worse is more likely.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:11 pm to MorbidTheClown
quote:
Greg Price
@greg_price11
·
3h
Jackson: "How does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents determining a newborn child is a citizen of the United States?... Are we bringing in pregnant women for depositions?"
That's the biggest challenge to the amendment itself.
How does one enforce it, practically.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News