- 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
Muh Wong 
0
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:08 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Still not seeing the “effective laughter”
quote:
I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” Coughenour said. “It just boggles my mind.”
If you're a lawyer, you don't want to ever hear this.
This is "get reported to the bar" territory.
quote:
But I guess you’ll have to learn this the hard way.
Like with the last Supreme Court ruling that popped this MAGA-infused bubble?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
So illegality didn't exist prior to the 14th?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:09 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
He's a Republican or are you assuming that because he was appointed by Reagan?
Fair point.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:10 pm to Jbird
quote:
So illegality didn't exist prior to the 14th?
That's not what I said.
"Illegal immigrants" as we conceive of the term today, is a function of Congressional action that occurred after WKA.
And Congress cannot create a class of person to overrule a Supreme Court ruling.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Fair point.
I had Sotomayor locked and loaded.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The concept of "being here illegally" did not exist at the time.
The fact his parents were here legally was literally 1 of the key facts in the case.
But; if I follow your made up logic; if the concept
Of being here illegally wasn’t around then; (which is absurd) then you admit WKA doesn’t apply.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
Ok then alien didn't exist?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Like with the last Supreme Court ruling that popped this MAGA-infused bubble?
Or maybe the ones that obliterated Roe or solidified presidential immunity?
Keep denying there’s a case here.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's not how people of the time understood the words
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:13 pm to Jbird
Based on what was meant at the time, foreigners and aliens along with diplomats were to be excluded.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:13 pm to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
But; if I follow your made up logic; if the concept
Of being here illegally wasn’t around then; (which is absurd) then you admit WKA doesn’t apply.
Not at all.
WKA established 2 exceptions to the rule. You have to fit illegal immigrants into one of the boxes, which is not possible.
They are clearly not diplomats.
They are clearly not a hostile force occupying areas of the US.
You're adding a layer of analysis on top of these exceptions that the court never did ("legal presence"), nor does it even make sense. How are people occupying American land in a hostile manner here legally?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:13 pm to ell_13
But legality didn't exist per slow fanni
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:14 pm to ell_13
I'm making the textualist argument. Legislative intent is irrelevant
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
Irrelevant!
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:15 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Or maybe the ones that obliterated Roe
I felt that was likely
quote:
or solidified presidential immunity?
Least controversial opinion ever. I never disputed Presidential immunity
Try again.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Then how is this currently applied to diplomats and no one else if intent isn’t relevant? You have yet to answer that. You talk about it being applied to diplomats because that’s how it was understood at the time. Then you say you’re a textualist. You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You’re being a hypocrite.
Legislative intent is irrelevant
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 10:18 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:17 pm to Jbird
quote:
But legality didn't exist per slow fanni
In the way we understand the terms, that started with the 1920s (Quota Law and Immigration Act).
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:18 pm to ell_13
quote:
False. If you are a textualist as you claim, then the jurisdiction piece wouldn’t only apply to diplomats as it currently does. It would apply to anyone here temporarily: people visiting on vacation, people here illegally,
are people here illegally here temporarily if they don’t intend to leave?
the idea that they have an allegiance to a foreign sovereign relies heavily on them wanting to still be citizens of that country.
something Tourists, Diplomats, and Native american have in common.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 10:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The concept of "being here illegally" did not exist at the time.
This is an incredibly stupid take. Of course it was. Post-revolutionary migration was always legally sanctioned and controlled at the state or territorial level. But the issue isn’t necessarily who is here illegally, but what constitutes citizenship.
Page 17 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News