- 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: No issue bothers me quite like the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:21 am to GoblinGuide
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:21 am to GoblinGuide
quote:
Truly, no one has it as hard as the straight white Christian.
The ones that settled America struggled mightily and endured unbelievable hardship.
Their descendants have become soft.
0
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Well that’s impossible since we have one party that is actively trying to bring in millions of third worlders into the country to use them to bolster their congressional numbers and illegal votes.
The actual defenders of the Constitution understand that there's a process to amend it and that's the proper way to solve this problem
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:44 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
Well that’s impossible
How is that relevant to defending the Constitution?
You want to ignore it because the part that was intentionally made hard is exactly what it was designed to be by our Founders.
Yeah, it's hard. That's the point. Exactly as the Founders intended.
You trying to attack the Constitution and Founders is the opposite of defending it. That's the point.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:31 am to Riverside
quote:
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is pretty simple. This is only a hard issue if you want our country to be overrun by foreigners
If an illegal isn't an American citizen, they remain a citizen of thier native country and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
The same basic reason American Indians were not granted citizenship under the 14thA.
Also, at the time the 14A was written, the idea of complete or incomplete allegiance was discussed. When the first thing a person does upon entering the US is break an existing immigration law, I'd label that as incomplete allegiance!
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 10:39 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:13 am to TriStateAreaFootball
quote:
entitled to the same voting rights and protections as my children who are US citizens.
Well they are US citizens too. Why would some citizens get more rights than others?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:17 am to bluewatersailor
quote:
Truth. I'm disappointed that the Supremes are so myopic. The industry of bringing pregnant women in on "vacation " just to have a baby that is then a US citizen is huge.
Do you know the solution to this? It's to have CBP deny entry to women who are clearly multiple months pregnant. Even with a valid visa you still need to be inspected and admitted. CBP has broad authority, with decisions that can't be judicially challenged, to deny entry into the US.
Issuing an EO that attempts to circumvent the Constitution isn't the solution.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"Current" as in almost 130 years old? The majority of the time that we have existed as a country has relied on this interpretation.
Is what is important the misinterpretation, or the interpretation that was meant when it was written?
Starr Decisis only looks to keep the worst “interpretations.” It’s the reason we can never get rid of the commerce clause reasoning for the income tax. 150 years of bad law doesn’t justify it on its face.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:18 am to BarnHater
tell me how you have been personally persecuted?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:24 am to Gator5220
quote:
Only citizens can give birth to citizens.
Marco Rubio’s parent weren’t citizens when he was born…
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:26 am to big_red_one
quote:
tell me how you have been personally persecuted?
That's a dumb argument. Whether the poster has personally experienced something or not doesn't make it true or untrue.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The actual defenders of the Constitution understand that there's a process to amend it and that's the proper way to solve this problem
Meanwhile - people with a logical brain know that this "amend the constitution" bullshite cannot posslbly be a consideration considering the time it takes to implement, and the degree to which the democrats have already used the 'uncertainty" of the interpretation for decades now - illegally ushering tens of millions of illegal aliens into the country and insurrection riots to dampen any attempts to solve the problem by rational discussion.
You would be good entertainment in mock trials where trivial matters as given outrageous emphasis. You remind me of the lawyers in the mock trial we attended at Boy's State = funny as hell - but a lot of "law" was discussed - and all the points were valid - but in a real situation any housewife (at that time) could have solved the REAL problem in 10 seconds.
but go ahead - sometimes you are entertaining - just like that mock trial
Only problem is that we are using that technique now on real problems of critical importance time-wise.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"Current" as in almost 130 years old? The majority of the time that we have existed as a country has relied on this interpretation.
How long had we defined marriage as a man and a woman?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Wong Kim Ark was in 1898
Wong was born to parents who had already aquired legal resident status.
But, you say that we can apply that ruling, which is a correct ruling for that example and others like it, and apply it to any who have illegal status or "just passing through".
Quite the mental stretch, but I am sure enough legal scholars feel the same. Is why no one likes lawyers.
Disclaimer...original intent of the framers of any amendment means nothing if they did not include language in said amendment to make intent clear. For the 14th, they did not include any such language.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:36 am to UtahCajun
quote:
Wong was born to parents who had already aquired legal resident status.
/\ THIS /\ I the salient point that reduces his oft repeated 'citation' to mock trial status. entertaining when absurd 'issues' are being discussed but entire bullshite when critical issues are at stake.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:45 am to jp4lsu
quote:
Lets also consider what is driving the South and Central America people and ME and Africa here?
For the most part, it is the socialist benefits. Medicaid, welfare, school, while many of them make money, don't pay taxes or send it back home.
If they didn't have access to that, they wouldn't want to come. The ones just wanting to work would come and would maybe just be transient and not permanent. But the freebies draws them here.
As conservatives who are against socialism, we have allowed socialism to creep further and further into our country. Now we are stuck with with it.
Incorrect, these people come here because there are jobs that will pay them a lot more than what they could make in their home country (even if it's much lower than what the typical American would accept).
If you want to stop these people from coming here, crack down on the people who are employing them.
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 10:45 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:46 am to UtahCajun
quote:
Wong was born to parents who had already aquired legal resident status.
Not a correct statement.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:46 am to TriStateAreaFootball
quote:
No issue bothers me quite like the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment
Some historians look at the 14th as a rewrite of the Constitution.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:47 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
/\ THIS /\ I the salient point that reduces his oft repeated 'citation' to mock trial status
You say this about a statement that isn't factual?
There was no "legal resident status" to acquire at the time. That didn't exist for a few more decades.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not a correct statement
Very correct statement
quote:
Sauer agreed, noting that the majority in that case had indicated that (unlike the people who would be covered by Trump’s executive order) Wong Kim Ark’s parents were lawful permanent residents in the United States and domiciled there, even if they were not U.S. citizens
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 10:50 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:55 am to UtahCajun
Assuming the text reflects his words, that phrasing is still not correct. It's framing.
There was no such thing as "lawful permanent residents" at the time of that case, just as the concept of being "illegally present" really didn't exist, either.
Here is the text from the case
There is no reference to "lawful permanent" status, as it didn't exist at the time, and they even went back to China prior to the ruling (so "permanent" becomes even worse usage).
Having a "permanent domicile and resident" is not the same thing as a "lawful permanent resident", which is a status created by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
There was no such thing as "lawful permanent residents" at the time of that case, just as the concept of being "illegally present" really didn't exist, either.
Here is the text from the case
quote:
The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873, in the city of San Francisco, in the state of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China. They were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and are still enjoying a permanent domicile and residence therein at San Francisco. They continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China; and, during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China.
There is no reference to "lawful permanent" status, as it didn't exist at the time, and they even went back to China prior to the ruling (so "permanent" becomes even worse usage).
Having a "permanent domicile and resident" is not the same thing as a "lawful permanent resident", which is a status created by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News