- 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: SCOTUS to decide on taking appeal of birthright citizenship
Posted on 11/24/25 at 9:27 am to TigerAxeOK
Posted on 11/24/25 at 9:27 am to TigerAxeOK
quote:
something must be done to issue a correction.
When society presents problems that the authors of our Constitution did not anticipate, then we are supposed to rely on the Amendment process to deal with these issues.
quote:
In this particular scenario, the constitution itself acts as an arbiter of fate with a big loophole for law-breakers
Well "law breakers" in this instance are due to Congressional statute, which can't override the Constitution. Remember when the 14A was issued, the concept of these people being "law breakers" for coming into our country was largely non-existent. Even with WKA, that was a pretty foreign concept, generally. It took a few decades after WKA for Congress to create that general, hardline law on status.
0
Posted on 11/24/25 at 9:43 am to retired_tiger
quote:
But if they do decide to take it up, trump won't be happy with the decision.
The vast majority of Americans will, however
You think the vast majority of Americans support giving citizenship to any baby an illegal can crap out?
You're delusional.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 9:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's been ruled that way at every step and the Supremes may not even take the case up
If SFP says that it is unconstitutional and that SCOTUS will not take it up then there is a 98% chance that SCOTUS takes the case and a 87% it is constitutional.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 9:52 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Anyone who supports giving citizenship to illegal babies is a moron. You are advocating for the death of your country. You are choosing a very poorly misinterpreted law, whose own writers said it was not for illegals, over the preservation of our country and culture.
There is nothing more retarded than supporting your own demise. I've noticed that none of the people choosing to muddy America's DNA are willing to live in the shitholes the people they want here created. They are too stupid to understand the consequences of their own actions.
There is nothing more retarded than supporting your own demise. I've noticed that none of the people choosing to muddy America's DNA are willing to live in the shitholes the people they want here created. They are too stupid to understand the consequences of their own actions.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 9:55 am to WeeWee
quote:
If SFP says that it is unconstitutional and that SCOTUS will not take it up then there is a 98% chance that SCOTUS takes the case and a 87% it is constitutional.
Don't ever go full retard.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 9:56 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Anyone who supports giving citizenship to illegal babies is a moron. You are advocating for the death of your country. You are choosing a very poorly misinterpreted law, whose own writers said it was not for illegals, over the preservation of our country and culture.
You're conflating arguments.
Discussing the court case is separate from the policy you're discussing. Your discussion is one for a Constitutional Amendment, which is the proper path for the concerns/policies you posted about.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If SFP says that it is unconstitutional and that SCOTUS will not take it up then there is a 98% chance that SCOTUS takes the case and a 87% it is constitutional.
Don't ever go full retard.
Well you are the board's resident expert on going full retard so I will take your advice.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:06 am to retired_tiger
quote:
The vast majority of Americans will, however.
The same "vast majority" who elected DJT largely on the immigration portion of his platform? Those people? You think they favor a child being born to parents who are here on vacation, or to parents who are here illegally, should be a US citizen?
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So Congress can usurp the Constitution?
It is how it is "interpreted". It was never intended to become the absolute mess it has become. If we take the same approach........
The 2nd amendment gives me the right to a nuclear weapon.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:10 am to CDawson
Common immigration policy used to be that the child was deported with the parent since they are the legal guardian. If they chose to return when they were 18 it was legal.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:14 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
It is how it is "interpreted". It was never intended to become the absolute mess it has become. If we take the same approach........
Anywhere else if a child is born to citizens of their country anywhere in the world they are citizens of THAT country.
Anywhere but here.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Okay, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt when you claimed to be non-partisan, but with this statement, that’s all gone now.
especially with how Thomas has become so partisan and less about his textualist roots.
Quit fricking pretending you’re not a fricking leftist tool. Because you are.
This post was edited on 11/24/25 at 10:28 am
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:21 am to thejudge
Sadly I chuckle about border patrol having to help a woman stuck on the top of the fence, got her down, put her in an ambulance to head to the hospital and have the newest US citizen.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:25 am to CDawson
[quote]DUI
rob a bank/quote]
This sounds like a really fun weekend.
rob a bank/quote]
This sounds like a really fun weekend.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well unless WKA is going to be effectively reversed, which of the 3 categories of excluded persons discussed at length in WKA would you argue they fall under?
WKA’s parents were legal residents. We’re talking about illegals, baw. That’s the distinction.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:29 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
It is how it is "interpreted". It was never intended to become the absolute mess it has become.
Again, assuming this point is true, that's why we have the amendment process.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:30 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
Okay, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt when you claimed to be non-partisan, but with this statement, that’s all gone now.
Quit fricking pretending you’re not a fricking leftist tool. Because you are.
what the frick?
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:31 am to Masterag
quote:
WKA’s parents were legal residents. We’re talking about illegals, baw.
OK, and?
Which of the 3 categories of excluded persons discussed at length in WKA would you argue that illegals fall under?
Are they diplomats? No.
Are they Indians? No.
Are they born in US territory under hostile occupation? No.
This post was edited on 11/24/25 at 10:31 am
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:32 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
Roe was "settled law".
Not only that - Roe was based on jurisprudential gloss on the 14th amendment. Ironically, that always lacked any historical or logical underpinnings.
SFP thinks a footnote and a case based on totality different facts are infallible should bind Congress forevermore, and further contorted beyond the original meaning and historical underpinnings of the 14th Amendment - much like Roe was.
Congress makes the laws. SCOTUS interprets them. We wouldn’t be in thos position if Congress hadn’t abdicated its legislative function the executive branch sometime in the early 20th century.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
OK, and? Which of the 3 categories of excluded persons discussed at length in WKA would you argue that illegals fall under? Are they diplomats? No. Are they Indians? No. Are they born in US territory under hostile occupation? No.
Who gives a shite about dicta. Dicta don’t make precedent, baw. It’s not binding and wasn’t material to the decision, no stare decisis argument from the retard section of the court need even be addressed.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News