- 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 12/8/24 at 11:22 am to Ponchy Tiger
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:22 am to Ponchy Tiger
quote:
I have a different opinion. If you are not a legal resident or citizen you should have any constitutional rights.
You'll need a Constitutional Amendment to change this, as well.
0
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:23 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It has nothing to do with congress
Wrong
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Exactly what Leftists say about the 2nd Amendment
What's that made up word you like to use so much?
It's escaping me at the moment.
Oh yeah - "Whataboutism"
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:31 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Orange Man with the 2024-D Chess clinic.
Brilliant move to ID swamp-arse.
Brilliant move to ID swamp-arse.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:31 am to tonydtigr
quote:
What's that made up word you like to use so much?
It's escaping me at the moment.
Oh yeah - "Whataboutism"
That only works if I'm defending the point of Leftists.
I'm not. I'm showing hypocrisy of MAGA. There are lots of things in the Constitution that are outliers internationally, typically giving more freedoms to persons in our borders. This is why we win and keep winning.
Saying we're the only country to do-x is Leftist rhetoric that should be given exclusively to the emotional-irrationality they thrive in.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you disagree with the ruling
Oh, I don't. The ruling is very clear.
Speaking of clear precedents, the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals do not have constitutional rights at the border until they are legally admitted to the United States.
Which begs the question, what if they're just...never legally admitted to the United States?
So many fun questions!
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:47 am to POTUS2024
quote:
Anchor babies are not in the Constitution.
I wasn't talking about that specific example. You have opened my eyes to the POSSIBILITY that anchor babies aren't covered by the 14th Amendment.
I'm talking about advocacy of obviously unconstitutional measures. For instance, stripping due process rights of illegal aliens accussed of murder in the United States.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:50 am to Stealth Matrix
quote:
Speaking of clear precedents, the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals do not have constitutional rights at the border until they are legally admitted to the United States.
Dang! I might have some more homework to do. I just posted that an illegal alien would have due process rights in a murder trial held in the US. Are you saying that might not be true?
Citation, please and thanks!
Posted on 12/8/24 at 12:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If this argument was true, then if they committed crimes here we could not prosecute them. Does that make sense to you?
I think it's a valid argument, but I don't think it has actually been through the courts. There was a case some time in the late 1800's that tested the citizenship of an Asian born in the US and found that he was a citizen because he was born here, but immigration laws were different back then. The issue with that case was that he moved to China then moved back to the US. I don't think illegal immigration was an issue in the 1890's, but became as issue in the 1930's, so that 1890 ish finding might be a little different today based on who is subject to our jurisdiction.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 12:04 pm to Ostrich
quote:Negative.
Wrong
It is a simple Constitutional issue. The 14th Amendment says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." That is the sole basis for assumed birthright citizenship.
The issue simply needs to be raised in a way SCOTUS is forced to hear it. That could be done via legislation. It could be done via executive action. The latter, which is being discussed here, has zilch to do with Congress. Either way, SCOTUS will be the final arbiter.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 12:06 pm to 19
quote:
Brilliant move to ID swamp-arse.
Everything he does supposedly is done to identify the swamp. Ain't he got that shite figured out by now?
When is going to do something about it? He didn't first go around.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 12:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Exactly what Leftists say about the 2nd Amendment
So.
frick em'
Posted on 12/8/24 at 12:16 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Whatever happens get it in front of the Supreme Court and get a ruling, at that point we can actually know the law.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:00 pm to Stealth Matrix
quote:
the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals do not have constitutional rights at the border until they are legally admitted to the United States.
What case?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:03 pm to CharlesUFarley
quote:
There was a case some time in the late 1800's that tested the citizenship of an Asian born in the US and found that he was a citizen because he was born here, but immigration laws were different back then. The issue with that case was that he moved to China then moved back to the US. I don't think illegal immigration was an issue in the 1890's, but became as issue in the 1930's, so that 1890 ish finding might be a little different today based on who is subject to our jurisdiction.
If you read that case, it gets into a very deep textual and historical analysis of the words of the Amendment and maintaining that analysis would change nothing today.
The fact that we have different labels about legal/illegal immigration and status doesn't change these words:
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
You have one qualifier: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:07 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Hes claiming he will do something he cant do.
It's not that he can't, it's the avalanche of opposition that will fight this in Court every step of the way, and the 2/3 of the States hurdle. It will take years and the prospects of future President's and Congress not following through.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:11 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Also, I thought our side was the one that cared about the Constitution, yet he's suggesting that he can suspended the 14th Amendment through Executive Orders?
The Supreme Court rules on Constitutional issues all the time. There is nothing wrong with challenging vague verbiage and asking the Supreme Court to rule on it. That is their purpose.
Plenty of constitutional scholars disagree with birthright citizenship.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:21 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
yet he's suggesting that he can suspended the 14th Amendment through Executive Orders?
Ridiculous!
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Does the ruling extend to illegals having kids on US soil?
Is a child who was born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents who are lawful permanent residents of the United States a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:42 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Good
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News