- 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 7:24 pm to Kjnstkmn
Posted on 12/8/24 at 7:24 pm to Kjnstkmn
Why won’t SFP answer a simple question?
Avoiding it like the plague
If our laws, specifically the 14th amendment, are being abused by illegals, why can’t we change the law to prevent it?
Avoiding it like the plague
If our laws, specifically the 14th amendment, are being abused by illegals, why can’t we change the law to prevent it?
2
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:13 pm to Paddyshack
Because principled conservatives don’t actually care about the country and get off more on being “right” about the best way to hand the country over to the left.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:22 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Way up on the list of 'non-critical ASAP' items.
You can't be serious
one of the biggest drivers of illegal immigration is birthrigth citizenship
Ending this farce would be massive
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:25 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
It's interesting that you so often cling to technical drivel, procedure, and throw around words like precedent, but then act as though this arbitrary and whimsical footnote is of such a quality as to bind a nation to accept an invasion and violation of its sovereignty.
You don't even understand the argument and are just parroting talking points. I didn't discuss a "footbnote", bubba.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:33 pm to tadman
quote:
How so?
Because our Constitution says (via the 14th Amendment) that birthright citizenship is proper and legal.
quote:
We have laws limiting firearm ownership and possession when the second amendment says "shall not".
Sadly, that's a different analytical scheme (I say sadly as there should not be these regulations)
The difference is more like saying that the 2nd Amendment exists. That's more the comparison with the citizenship declarations in 14A.
EVEN IF you could apply some regulations, this is a fundamental right and it would fall under strict scrutiny, and those sorts of regulations wouldn't cut it.
That standard is
quote:
The government must demonstrate that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means possible.
Also there would be major issues regulating the rights of a child based on the status of the parent.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:34 pm to Paddyshack
quote:
why can’t we change the law to prevent it?
Nobody has said amending the Constitution is illegal
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nobody has said amending the Constitution is illegal
That’s not the question I asked.
If the 14th amendment is being abused by illegals, shouldn’t we change it to prevent further abuse?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:42 pm to Paddyshack
quote:
If the 14th amendment is being abused by illegals, shouldn’t we change it to prevent further abuse?
If you can get a Constitutional Amendment passed, be my guest.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you can get a Constitutional Amendment passed, be my guest.
Do you believe the 14th amendment was intended to allow birthright citizenship for people entering our country illegally when it was written?
This post was edited on 12/8/24 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:36 pm to Fububutsy
quote:
They are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that their parents are citizens of.
6 Supreme Court Justices disagree
If they wanted it to mean what you said, they would have written it like you said.
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a lot different than “having one or more parent who is an american citizen”
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:04 am to SammyTiger
quote:That is debatable. The 14th Amendment is poorly written with imprecise and/or superfluous language.
If they wanted it to mean what you said, they would have written it like you said.
E.g.,
Does "jurisdiction" refer to theoretical or actual jurisdiction? IOW, is Brian Thompson's assassin actually under US jurisdiction? Could someone the US does not even know is in the country, be subject to US jurisdiction as long as they remain unknown to the system?
The pat answer is "yes," they are still "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But the problem is (perhaps, whith the exception of Diplomats), US jurisdiction in those terms is nearly totally unlimited. Osama Bin Laden was subject to US jurisdiction. So was James Earl Ray in London.
A second problem with the birthright argument arises in 14th Amendment's treatment of Native Americans or Indians. Indians, on or off the reservation, were excluded from any birthright citizenship until The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Given the simplistic interpretation of 14th Amendment language laid out by some here, the Indian Citizenship Act should not have been required.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 5:35 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:40 am to Paddyshack
Supreme Court pretty much settled that argument in 1898.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Exactly what Leftists say about the 2nd Amendment
The left lies and is wrong about almost everything
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:38 am to KiwiHead
quote:You may have missed the post just above yours.
Supreme Court pretty much settled that argument in 1898.
Again, for a quarter century subsequent to the 1898 ruling, aboriginal Americans were excluded from what you imply is a very straight-forward birthright. If it were so straight-forward, that should not have been an issue.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:45 am to SammyTiger
we’ve roped in SFP and our local Tranny representative to fight the good fight FOR auto-birthright citizenship.
just need the UGA fan on the OT who dreams about dudes creampie’ing his daughter to complete the OT Centrist roster
just need the UGA fan on the OT who dreams about dudes creampie’ing his daughter to complete the OT Centrist roster
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 6:51 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That is debatable. The 14th Amendment is poorly written with imprecise and/or superfluous language.
E.g.,
Does "jurisdiction" refer to theoretical or actual jurisdiction? IOW, is Brian Thompson's assassin actually under US jurisdiction? Could someone the US does not even know is in the country, be subject to US jurisdiction as long as they remain unknown to the system?
The pat answer is "yes," they are still "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But the problem is (perhaps, whith the exception of Diplomats), US jurisdiction in those terms is nearly totally unlimited. Osama Bin Laden was subject to US jurisdiction. So was James Earl Ray in London.
A second problem with the birthright argument arises in 14th Amendment's treatment of Native Americans or Indians. Indians, on or off the reservation, were excluded from any birthright citizenship until The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
These questions have already been answered in Wong Kim Ark.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:50 am to Paddyshack
quote:
Do you believe the 14th amendment was intended to allow birthright citizenship for people entering our country illegally when it was written?
If you read Wong Kim Ark, that is a distinction without a difference
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:53 am to Klark Kent
quote:
we’ve roped in SFP and our local Tranny representative to fight the good fight FOR auto-birthright citizenship.
There is no fight or personal preference going on. I'm telling you what the law is, and not what grifters lie and say it is.
I'm sorry reality offends you so much and you prefer to live in a fantasy land
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:55 am to SlowFlowPro
yes, it’s total fantasy that you always manage to end up defending the Left, via your interpretation of the law. total coincidence, i believe it.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:58 am to Klark Kent
quote:
it’s total fantasy that you always manage to end up defending the Left,
This isn't a partisan issue and I'm "defending" no group or side.
Just because the MAGA echo chamber repeats stupidity that needs correction doesn't mean anything about me. I don't known if you know this, but I don't control that.
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News