- 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: Reagan era judges shoots down Trump 14th amendment EO
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
Lol of course champ
0
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
There’s your white flag.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
SFP; WKA leaves a lot to be desired.
WKA parents were Chinese laborers who were legal residents who had entered the country legally; but not citizens.
Illegal aliens are not legal residents, and have not entered legally. That’s a pretty big difference.
In WKA the Court reasoned that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" meant being within the complete allegiance and obedience of the United States, which included those present legally in
While the court may not take it up; questions for those here illegally aren’t resolved by WKA case.
WKA parents were Chinese laborers who were legal residents who had entered the country legally; but not citizens.
Illegal aliens are not legal residents, and have not entered legally. That’s a pretty big difference.
In WKA the Court reasoned that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" meant being within the complete allegiance and obedience of the United States, which included those present legally in
While the court may not take it up; questions for those here illegally aren’t resolved by WKA case.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:18 pm to the808bass
quote:
There’s your white flag.
You don't even know what a white flag is.
I quoted you for him already.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:19 pm to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
SFP; WKA leaves a lot to be desired.
WKA parents were Chinese laborers who were legal residents who had entered the country legally; but not citizens.
Illegal aliens are not legal residents, and have not entered legally. That’s a pretty big difference.
In WKA the Court reasoned that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" meant being within the complete allegiance and obedience of the United States, which included those present legally in
While the court may not take it up; questions for those here illegally aren’t resolved by WKA case.
WKA is clear there are only 2 exceptions to birthright citizenship:
1. Children of diplomats
2. Children born in areas of hostile occupation (which was about Indians and the potential for another War of 1812, but is not relevant today as there hasn't been an occupation on US soil since the War of 1812).
Which of those 2 classes do illegal aliens fall under?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
You selectively quoted me.
I said it is insurmountable. “Is” is what we know as a present tense verb.
Later in that same post, I said we will have to remake the party with the implication that this is how we will have to deal with the issue. Lots of people who read English would have been able to follow the bouncing ball. Downsy lawyer couldn’t.
I said it is insurmountable. “Is” is what we know as a present tense verb.
Later in that same post, I said we will have to remake the party with the implication that this is how we will have to deal with the issue. Lots of people who read English would have been able to follow the bouncing ball. Downsy lawyer couldn’t.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
You also claimed no illegality concerning birth tourism.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:25 pm to the808bass
quote:
Later in that same post, I said we will have to remake the party
And I was sure to add "starting a conversation" is Leftist silliness in the post, in case you tried to pivot here.
I already covered this part of your script, too.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:26 pm to Jbird
quote:
You also claimed no illegality concerning birth tourism.
No. I asked if it was even illegal prior to the EO that is a few days old.
Asked is not "claiming"
Didn't Biden rescind that EO, ergo, it was not illegal until Trump re-instated it?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
None of that post made sense. White flag.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
WKA is clear there are only 2 exceptions to birthright citizenship
Yes, 2 exceptions to those who are here lawfully.
Children of illegal immigrants are not here lawfully. They are here illegally.
I’m being civil; simply saying the case isn’t as cut and dry as you imply.
To hold an opinion, and related exception, based on parents here legally;
to those here illegally isn’t apples to apples.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
No I posted about birth tourism to which you claimed you highly doubted it was illegal.
I linked to legal action in California concerning doj actions with respect to Chinese tourism.
Additionally concerning Russian tourism in Florida.
I linked to legal action in California concerning doj actions with respect to Chinese tourism.
Additionally concerning Russian tourism in Florida.
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 9:31 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:29 pm to RaoulDuke504
quote:
Reagan era
What's this?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:35 pm to Jbird
quote:
No I posted about birth tourism to which you claimed you highly doubted it was illegal.
Because you relied on a Trump-era EO that I'm quite positive Biden rescinded (as posted above).
quote:
I linked to legal action in California concerning doj actions with respect to Chinese tourism.
From 2020, right?
Who was President?
quote:
Additionally concerning Russian tourism in Florida.
Who was President when that happened?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
Birth tourism from the 90s?
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:27 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Do you have a consistent point
Not really, just poking holes in the bullshite. EOs may seem like tyranny when they come from politicians you don't like, but not when they come from someone you like
I'm sorry I've upset you so much.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:51 am to Harry Boutte
quote:
EOs may seem like tyranny when they come from politicians you don't like, but not when they come from someone you like
That was definitely the original point you tried to make, but it didn't hold up and you couldn't defend it because the only example you gave was an EO in keeping with passed legislation. You then proceeded to declare the legislation tyrannical, which could very well be true but would be completely irrelevant to a discussion about EOs being tyrannical.
quote:
I'm sorry I've upset you so much.
Not sure how you could possibly believe you being wrong and being unable to defend your position would upset anyone but you.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:54 am to the808bass
quote:
You selectively quoted me.
a registered trademark of Slotard Incorporated
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:10 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
the only example you gave was an EO in keeping with passed legislation.
Why does that matter? Assemblies have voted in tyrants since the Roman Republic. I didn't bring up the bill allowing Nixon Shock because it's irrelevant. Nixon issued the EO telling people how much they could charge for goods and services.
Now imagine if Obama or Biden had issued such an EO after getting a similar bill through Congress. Price controls? I don't care what the law said, this place would go absolutely apeshit. They would've been accused of socialist tyranny. Nixon? Not so much. It's always the Other Guy's EOs that are tyrannical.
Personally, I don't really have a problem with Trump's EOs, as I trust the courts to sort out what is Constitutional or not.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:11 am to the808bass
Its been a rough week.
Page 15 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News