- 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 vote on birthright citizenship...Trump is concerned as to their ruling.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 12:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/21/26 at 12:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think there is a solid shot they do rule you have to be domiciled here, which would hurt birth tourism but not illegals having children, for the most part.
Funny thing about that is that the left would hate it as an erosion of the 14th, and the right would hate it because it leaves about 99% of non-US person births unaddressed.
2
Posted on 4/21/26 at 12:07 pm to Indefatigable
Correct, and I'm here for all the melts.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:28 pm to beaux duke
no i worded it incorrectly. That is all the reps fault. The dems are at fault for not being able to field any choices other than the same old Reps.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:33 pm to statman34
quote:
2 years will have gone by and we will have very little accomplishments with a majority in all 3 branches of govt. It's a shame and quite disappointing to think what could have been done. And all of it is the Dems fault
Majority in all three branches, and you blame the democrats?
Maybe it's just me but I blame those republicans who can't get out of their own way and just accept a few wins now and then.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So, for instance, defining "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in a way that conflicts or limits that Constitutional baseline would be illegal.
Seems to me a previous court has already defined that term. And I don't agree with their definition.
So why can't a subsequent court also not agree with their definition?
To my understanding, that term had a different meaning when the 14A was ratified. And then an activist court (IMO) interpreted it to mean something more modern.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:40 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Funny thing about that is that the left would hate it as an erosion of the 14th, and the right would hate it because it leaves about 99% of non-US person births unaddressed.
Roberts seems to live for little more than believing he's able to split the baby.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:42 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
That's why we can still arrest illegal aliens for murder. It's a legal boundary on all people within our borders beyond diplomats.
Maybe I'm confused, but are you suggesting that the 14A is the reason we are allowed to arrest illegal aliens who commit murder?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:45 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
udtiger
Pure birthright citizenship is an awful idea. Which is probably why almost no countries do it.
Bingo
Glad we don't have it.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correct, and I'm here for all the melts.
Maybe I've missed it, but why do you shy away from ever answering a question that's been asked of you several times...
The question(s) being...
If SFP could make the ruling all by himself, should a child born on American soil to parents who illegally crossed the border (regardless of how long ago) be granted American citizenship?
And just to try to remove your slippery nature, what about the same situation as above, except the parents crossed over yesterday and gave birth today?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:50 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
Bingo
Glad we don't have it.
This is what's called being intentionally obtuse.
We may as well have it. There is no doubt that you fully understand the argument that's being made here.
You are either arguing just for the sake of arguing, or you actually favor the 14A as it is currently written and interpreted.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:57 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
Seems to me a previous court has already defined that term. And I don't agree with their definition.
So why can't a subsequent court also not agree with their definition?
Congress =/= the USSC
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:58 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
If SFP could make the ruling all by himself, should a child born on American soil to parents who illegally crossed the border (regardless of how long ago) be granted American citizenship?
My "ruling" based on the words of the 14A? Clearly those children would be citizens.
There were no "illegals" in the US when the 14A was passed.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:01 pm to TDsngumbo
Maybe - just maybe - Americans need to get off their collective asses and actually interact with the government process in some way besides simply voting every 4 years for which dictator will serve as President. Maybe we need to actually put in an amendment that changes the intent of/clarifies the 14th and quits allowing anchor babies. Maybe a "well educated" citizenry - or at least a citizenry that will get up off it's arse and be political - is what is needed, more than another EO.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
I still want to know how many illegals live with you, that you support 100% financially?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:12 pm to Ailsa
This birthright citizenship is getting out of hand! It was meant to protect children of the slaves who were freed by the Republicans and the army of the north.
It should be eliminated or re-worded to where it stops our enemies from taking over our country in the future. We don't need a few million chinese kids to come over and effect an election when they get older. Or hold office!
It should be eliminated or re-worded to where it stops our enemies from taking over our country in the future. We don't need a few million chinese kids to come over and effect an election when they get older. Or hold office!
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
That is where I am at. "Subject to the jurisdiction" in my opinion should mean that you voluntarily placed yourselves in the United States and under the auspices of US law. You placed yourself in the governance of the US.
I don't think someone who has never interacted with "the United States," much less its laws, other than sneaking in the country inside a gas tank and picking avocados---should be included.
Seems I read many at the time only wanted it to apply to the black slaves and not the Chinese (coolies) out west like the ones working on the railroad or the gypsies. Some were afraid the Chinese would start flooding America.
Bottom line the writers did not make it specific enough.
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
My "ruling" based on the words of the 14A? Clearly those children would be citizens.
Intentionally obtuse. That's what you are. And that's why most threads you get involved in turn to shite.
It's a simple f**king question!
IDGAF about what the 14A says or doesn't say or what you think it says or don't think it says.
I'm asking if YOU think such people should be citizens of this country. If YOU could make the law. But you already knew that. You just choose to be a douchebag.
Or maybe you were born that way.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:39 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
Intentionally obtuse.
You didn't ask a good question and I did my best to clarify which version if it I was answering (and also implying to you that the question was bad).
What's wrong with my question? I gave you what I feel is the clear interpretation of the 14A, which is the origination of this legal discussion. What were you relying on instead?
quote:
IDGAF about what the 14A says or doesn't say or what you think it says or don't think it says.
So we're just making shite up? That sounds productive.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:44 pm to Ailsa
"Birthright citizenship" isn't even a question or a debate - everyone who has an IQ above a 3 knows this. The only question is whether our SCOTUS is filled with activist outright traitors or not. If they are, they deserve a traitor's 'reward'.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:45 pm to Melkor
quote:
"Birthright citizenship" isn't even a question or a debate - everyone who has an IQ above a 3 knows this. The only question is whether our SCOTUS is filled with activist outright traitors or not. If they are, they deserve a traitor's 'reward'.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News