- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: President Trump promises to end birthright citizenship
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
Just to be clear:
A diplomat on US soil, here legally, has a child in the US and that child is not granted citizenship under the 14th amendment.
BUT an illegal alien crossing our border through Mexico, here illegally and abusing our laws, gives birth and that baby now is granted US citizenship.
I feel quite sure that this should be and can be challenged and/or amended to fix this abuse of our laws to the detriment of our country.
A diplomat on US soil, here legally, has a child in the US and that child is not granted citizenship under the 14th amendment.
BUT an illegal alien crossing our border through Mexico, here illegally and abusing our laws, gives birth and that baby now is granted US citizenship.
I feel quite sure that this should be and can be challenged and/or amended to fix this abuse of our laws to the detriment of our country.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 9:23 am
2
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:25 am to Paddyshack
Now do children of American Indians at the time
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 9:26 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:29 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Which EVs specifically?
LINK
BYD is backed by Warren Buffet. Protectionism stifled American innovation and let China take the lead.
Our govt spend billions retooling plants for these massive American corporations and we are still losing.
Chinese EVs are 40% less than ours, have equal or better quality and more advanced technology.
We are losing due to protectionism
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:29 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
That needs to happen
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:31 am to Paddyshack
quote:
A diplomat on US soil, here legally, has a child in the US and that child is not granted citizenship under the 14th amendment.
Correct. This is the specific case for the phrase subject to the jurisdiction of. Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as I've explained a few times. They can commit crimes in the US and we can't do anything about it. Diplomatic immunity is a real thing and that is why they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
At the time of these rulings Indians were also within this purview because they were subjected to the jurisdiction of their tribal Nations. I posted the excerpt from the case describing the controlling case talking about that issue. This was not remedied for some time until they passed a congressional statute that declared Indians born on tribal lands were citizens of the US. The ability to expand citizenship is within congressional power, but the power to restrict citizenship is a determination made by the Supreme Court pursuant to this Constitutional amendment. This is the bare minimum
quote:
BUT an illegal alien crossing our border through Mexico, here illegally and abusing our laws, gives birth and that baby now is granted US citizenship.
They are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I always use this example and I'll use it here again, but if they were not then we could not prosecute them for criminal Acts. Clearly we can prosecute them which means clearly they are subject to our jurisdiction.
Was this specific case anticipated at the time of writing? No because this concept of illegal status did not really exist at that time. But that's irrelevant to the point of what the amendment says and how the Supreme Court has interpreted it. The Constitution also has a method to fix these gaps and that's the amendment process, which is what would need to happen to close this Gap and stop the abuse
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:37 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
BYD
How many were sold here in the US?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
how the Supreme Court has interpreted it. The Constitution also has a method to fix these gaps and that's the amendment process, which is what would need to happen to close this Gap and stop the abuse
So you agree this needs to be brought to the Supreme Court so we can put an end to it? Or do you not agree with that?
Seems with the current Supreme Court and Republicans holding all branches of power, there couldn’t be a better time.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:40 am to SDVTiger
quote:
How many were sold here in the US?
They dont sell here due to unstable government, but they are taking over Mexico.
quote:
According to BYD executive vice president and CEO of BYD Americas, Stella Li, the Chinese automaker has no plans to sell passenger EVs in the US. The leader called the market “interesting” but too complicated due to conflicting politics.
Li sat down for an interview with Yahoo Finance Anchor Akiki Fujita to discuss the global EV market.
After confirming that BYD will officially announce a new manufacturing facility in Mexico, likely in the second half of the year, Li shut down rumors the automaker was planning to enter the US.
Earlier this month, the head of BYD Mexico, Zhou Zou, told Nikkei the automaker was considering building a plant in the country. Zou said overseas production is critical, and Mexico has significant potential.
The comments sparked speculation that the automaker would use the facility as an export hub to the US.
Li confirmed BYD is not planning to launch EVs in the US. She said the Mexico facility will “only mainly support the Mexican market.” Li explained, “We’re not planning to come to the US.”
LINK
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:40 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Your efforts to traduce Trump and tariffs are noted. As is your deliberate disregard of the economic impact of eight Fed rate hikes on the growth you're citing.
Trumps economy was a myth created by influencers. He met his 3% growth goal only once.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:40 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
They dont sell here
Oh so they arent dominating anything
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:42 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
. As is your deliberate disregard of the economic impact of eight Fed rate hikes on the growth you're citing
Trumps tariffs did nothing, he ran his economy on DEBT just like Joetato and Obama.
Yall keep chasing ghosts.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:43 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Oh so they arent dominating anything
BYD is the largest EV seller in the world.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:45 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
BYD is the largest EV seller in the world.
And why don’t they sell to the US?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:46 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
BYD is the largest EV seller in the world
Dominating Chyna is a big win for them
Imagine simping for Chyna
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:48 am to Paddyshack
quote:
And why don’t they sell to the US?
Muh Tariffs!!!!!
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:49 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Wait!
Trumps tariffs did nothing
Either they were turrrible, horrrrrrrible, awful economic and innovative drags ... or they did nothing.
Which is it?
BTW, your continued disregard of the economic impact of eight Fed rate hikes is noted.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:49 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Muh Tariffs!!!!!
Roger, for some reason, HATES that we don’t allow Chinese domination across all industries in our own country. And it seems this was an effective use of tariffs, despite his claim that they do nothing.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 9:51 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:51 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Res ipsa loquitur
“We’re not planning to come to the US.”
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:53 am to Paddyshack
quote:
Roger, for some reason, HATES that we don’t allow Chinese domination across all industries in our own country. And it seems this was an effective use of tariffs, despite his claim that they do nothing.
Hes so stupid that he falls directly into his own trap
Such a clown and hes simping for Chyna like a good kommie he is
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You're getting there. Congrats.
Was this specific case anticipated at the time of writing? No because this concept of illegal status did not really exist at that time.
quote:It is "irrelevant to the point of what the amendment says." However, it is quite relevant as to how the Supreme Court has interpreted it, as is the native American issue BTW. In 1898, NA's fell under the jurisdiction of the US, at least in part. So SCOTUS logic implying NA birthright exclusion did not pass muster.
But that's irrelevant to the point of what the amendment says and how the Supreme Court has interpreted it.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 10:01 am
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News