- 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 1:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You have one qualifier: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Seems directly related to legal status.
1
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:45 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
If 5 Supreme Court justices agree than its gone 
not sure why at least 5 wouldn’t agree if they look at how the 14th amendment was passed, the current interpretation is bizarre
not sure why at least 5 wouldn’t agree if they look at how the 14th amendment was passed, the current interpretation is bizarre 
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:46 pm to AU86
quote:
We are about the only country that is stupid enough to allow this.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't get what you think will occur with people declaring they're not crazy or grifters.
It would be a statement they don't like birthright citizenship.
I agree with you that it has been decided by the US. However, I suspect the majority of the country would be OK changing the constitution.
Now does a 2/3rds majority of congress agree? Probably not. But still worth pushing the issue.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There are grifters who claim that the 14A doesn't really say this and ignore USSC precedent, and this is oft-repeated within the MAGA echo chamber.
The guy who wrote the amendment is a grifter, then. quote:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.
Maybe one day you'll figure out what the word grifter actually means.
When you say it ignores precedent, is this the precedent you are referring to?
quote:
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Or this one?
quote:
This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Maybe this one?
quote:
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
The problem is that many people don't understand the meaning of "the jurisdiction of." Someone hears that it means every soul born on our soil, and they falsely repeat it as if it is the truth. It's no different than the simpletons who think the 2A militia refers to the national guard.
quote:
Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."
Here is those grifters at the heritage foundation discussing the issue if you want to learn more: heritage.org
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:55 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
For instance, stripping due process rights of illegal aliens accussed of murder in the United States.
Where is this happening?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:59 pm to Jake88
quote:
Does the ruling extend to illegals having kids on US soil?
I already said that language isn't the best.
Nothing in the ruling should not apply to children of illegals on US soil.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:00 pm to shinerfan
quote:
Seems directly related to legal status.
Only if we can't prosecute them for crimes while on US soil.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only if we can't prosecute them for crimes while on US soil
Thank you for your anally retrieved opinion.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:03 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Maybe one day you'll figure out what the word grifter actually means.
When you say it ignores precedent, is this the precedent you are referring to?
No
quote:
Or this one?
No
quote:
Maybe this one?
Yes.
The phrasing of the summary used is not really descriptive of the ruling, as I have stated.
quote:
The problem is that many people don't understand the meaning of "the jurisdiction of."
If you read Wong Kim Ark, you would. The court goes into an extremely in-depth textual and historical analysis of the term.
quote:
But the original understanding referred to political allegiance.
You obviously didn't read Wong Kim Ark.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:05 pm to shinerfan
quote:
Thank you for your anally retrieved opinion.
It's not even my opinion.
That phrase refers primarily to diplomats, who are not subject to US jurisdiction, which is why they can't be prosecuted for crimes while in the US
At the time, the other primary population it applied to was Indians, who were not subject to US jurisdiction as they were subject to various Tribal jurisdictions (which was changed in time).
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:05 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Aren’t democrats pushing abortion for those born in the US?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:08 pm to Paddyshack
quote:
Where is this happening?
It's not that I know of. I was referring to people on TD arguing for removal of due process for the trial of Laken Riley's murderer.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:08 pm to Ostrich
quote:
Won’t pass congress
It doesn’t have to for there to be a change.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:09 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
It's not that I know of. I was referring to people on TD arguing for removal of due process for the trial of Laken Riley's murderer.
There is a sizeable population on here who honestly believe that if you're not legally present in the US you have no constitutional protections. They're crazy.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:16 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
It's not that I know of. I was referring to people on TD arguing for removal of due process for the trial of Laken Riley's murderer.
Okay, so it's not happening.
A few goobers on TD don't represent 78 million MAGA voters.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There is a sizeable population
Define 'sizable population' for us
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nothing in the ruling should not apply to children of illegals on US soil.
So should illegal immigrants be able to abuse our laws without us changing them?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
The USSC does what it pleases. Just because there is precedent doesn’t mean it can’t be overturned. Or ruled differently due to the circumstances presented. Roe v Wade anyone.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 2:24 pm to SlidellCajun
quote:
Aren’t democrats pushing abortion for those born in the US?
That's an oxymoron, but I get your point.
Page 4 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News