- 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: SCOTUS will hear Birthright Citizenship case
Posted on 12/7/25 at 8:12 am to retired_tiger
Posted on 12/7/25 at 8:12 am to retired_tiger
It’s about time. This nonsense has gone on far too long, The world is laughing at this stupidity.
0
Posted on 12/7/25 at 8:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
To bring that factor in consideration makes the Constitution a "living document", which is the crutch of people who want to amend the Constitution without having the political will to do so, a common tactic of Leftists
That's a double edged sword. I agree always viewing the Constitution as a living document definitely has it's downside, but in instances such as this...
its helpful.
Its still simple, as I stated above. A person here illegally is under the jurisdiction (owes allegiance to) his country of birth, therefore isn't a citizen.
Neither should the offspring.
You often mention Wong. Those parents had been here 20+ years. I have no problem with folks being here 20 years, have jobs, never been convicted of crimes, pay taxes, speak English, to become legal citizens.
They have demonstrated allegiance to the US. IMHO
This post was edited on 12/7/25 at 8:25 am
Posted on 12/7/25 at 8:27 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
I agree always viewing the Constitution as a living document definitely has it's downside, but in instances such as this...
its helpful.
Again, it's helpful because you lack the political will to do things properly and amend the Constitution.
You reject textualism for living document analysis and there goes the 2A. You can apply the same "unintended modern absurdity" rhetoric much more strongly with firearms.
quote:
A person here illegally is under the jurisdiction (owes allegiance to) his country of birth, therefore isn't a citizen.
Then illegals can't be prosecuted by US courts, just like diplomats.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 8:34 am to lake chuck fan
quote:unfortunately that's not how the 14A was written.
Call me simple, but it seems a simple issue. If a person is here illegally, they are still under the jurisdiction of their native country and aren't citizens. Logically, it follows that a non citizen offspring would also be a non citizen.
When the 14th a.endwas written, the illegal immigration crisis we face today was not part of the thoughts or conversations.
With some exceptions (e.g. diplomats) if they are born here they are citizens.
The mistake was not including illegals (by whatever means- crossing, visa overstay, etc.) as one of those exceptions.
They were relying on other laws that would prevent this exception from being needed such as detaining and deporting illegals in the first place. Their thinking was why do you need an exception for something the law prevents in the first place. It's like throwing a hissy fit because the sandwich shop refused to cut the mayonnaise off your sammitch because it doesn't come with mayonnaise in the first place.
They didn't account for the executive branch deciding not to enforce some federal laws such as allowing for (and promoting) illegals crossing en masse at non-points of entry.
This post was edited on 12/7/25 at 8:36 am
Posted on 12/7/25 at 8:37 am to I20goon
quote:
The mistake was not including illegals (by whatever means- crossing, visa overstay, etc.) as one of those exceptions.
"Illegals" didn't exist as a concept when the 14A was drafted.
We had open borders. The real restrictive immigration laws that created the concept of "illegals" didn't occur for decades.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 8:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Illegals" didn't exist as a concept when the 14A was drafted.
We had open borders. The real restrictive immigration laws that created the concept of "illegals" didn't occur for decades.
This is the real issue to me. When the 14th was ratified, it clearly granted citizenship to anyone born on US soil, other than Indian reservations. The children of immigrants were intentionally included.
Decades later, immigration laws were enacted, and we began to see a new class of resident, the "illegal immigrant". The question, of course is whether the 14th grants citizenship to the children of this new class of resident?
Like it or not, I think it has to. Congress cannot change the meaning of the Constitution by passing new laws.
Prior to the immigration laws being enacted, if a Mexican couple wandered across the border and took up residence in the US, then the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to their children. So there shouldn't be any way for Congress to deny citizenship to the children of immigrants by passing immigration laws
Posted on 12/7/25 at 8:50 am to I20goon
quote:
The mistake was not including illegals (by whatever means- crossing, visa overstay, etc.) as one of those exceptions.
Thats my very point. At the time it was written, they had no concept or understanding of the illegal crisis we have today.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:people forget that children of slaves weren't the only reason for this amendment.
"Illegals" didn't exist as a concept when the 14A was drafted.
We had open borders. The real restrictive immigration laws that created the concept of "illegals" didn't occur for decades.
They were looking at expansion too. If an area became a territory and that territory became a state, the children became citizens.
Not everyone wanted to become citizens. Too bad, our laws became 'imposed' in a way as nations have done throughout history.
Without that we would have created whole populations who believed they could do as they please and not pay taxes.
It's as much about the responsibility of being a citizen as the benefits of being a citizen in that expansion westward.
People didn't cross the border to us during this period. We moved the borders over them. Albeit through a voting process.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 8:52 am to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
Decades later, immigration laws were enacted, and we began to see a new class of resident, the "illegal immigrant". The question, of course is whether the 14th grants citizenship to the children of this new class of resident?
Like it or not, I think it has to. Congress cannot change the meaning of the Constitution by passing new laws.
I have made this argument about 1000 times on here, at this point, and I don't think anyone has really given a response to it.
There actually IS a good example of how Congress has created a class of persons to supersede the Constitution, and I'm just waiting for the people to cite it. Now, I am fully prepared to respond, but I've been waiting for over a year without any response (even with multiple lawyers on this board trying to argue opposed to me).
quote:
Prior to the immigration laws being enacted, if a Mexican couple wandered across the border and took up residence in the US, then the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to their children. So there shouldn't be any way for Congress to deny citizenship to the children of immigrants by passing immigration laws
Correct. And WKA specifically addresses this, too.
quote:
The power of naturalization, vested in congress by the constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. 'A naturalized citizen,' said Chief Justice Marshall, 'becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.' Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of congress, a fortiori no act or omission of congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
*ETA: this is why you have to watch for dishonest talking points mis-stating the holding in WKA and using terms like "legal" to describe his parents. It's a dishonest framing.
This post was edited on 12/7/25 at 9:23 am
Posted on 12/7/25 at 10:07 am to lake chuck fan
quote:as SFP the idea didn't exist, legally, because those laws were not even in place. Which is a very valid point. Not only did they not envision it, they haven't even created the idea on paper. It's hard to be "illegal" when there is no law discriminating between legal and illegal.
Thats my very point. At the time it was written, they had no concept or understanding of the illegal crisis we have today.
The solution is for Congress to amend the constitution because that is the question. Not more immigration laws, because the root problem is a constitutional amendment for which "Congress shall pass no law..." in contrary to the constitution.
So this is a "new problem", historically, both practically and legally. New problems require new laws.
A) the founders designed a solution for that laying out a process to update the constitution
B) They fixed the problem(s) in 1866 with a constitutional amendment setting future bars very high.
In my view this should have been done in 1907 (when OK became a state) and our borders became fixed. In a practical sense, not legal, this is the moment "illegal aliens" became a thing because at this moment we were no longer absorbing populations.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 10:10 am to Sassafrasology
quote:
Until Congress steps in the executive branch should have full authority to define “jurisdiction”.
Congress should have defined "jurisdiction" a long time ago so that illegal aliens are considered the same as foreign diplomats on the birthright citizenship issue.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 10:10 am to I20goon
quote:
So this is a "new problem", historically, both practically and legally. New problems require new laws.
This is EXACTLY why the Amendment process was created.
The alternative is "Living Document" analysis to legislate from the bench.
quote:
In my view this should have been done in 1907 (when OK became a state) and our borders became fixed. In a practical sense, not legal, this is the moment "illegal aliens" became a thing because at this moment we were no longer absorbing populations.
Ellis Island was processing millions of "illegal" immigrants long after 1907
Posted on 12/7/25 at 10:13 am to Auburn1968
quote:
Congress should have defined "jurisdiction" a long time ago
They legally cannot. It's not something Congress has the Constitutional authority to do.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 10:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:my point that 1907 was the final "nail in coffin" of expansion, especially considering prior to that it was called (and I still do to this day) the Indian Territory.
Ellis Island was processing millions of "illegal" immigrants long after 1907
If you just set immigration aside and look at the other side which is expansion and absorbing and assimilating populations resulting from us expanding our borders then things become much clearer.
If we had made laws barring "illegal immigrants" we would have had to relocate entire populations, sans citizens moving there (and voting for statehood) every time we added a state to stay within these theoretical immigration laws (at the time).
Posted on 12/7/25 at 10:27 am to Auburn1968
quote:it almost defies definition. And I mean that literally.
Congress should have defined "jurisdiction" a long time ago so that illegal aliens are considered the same as foreign diplomats on the birthright citizenship issue.
If we send in a Marine Expeditionary Force and they occupy a city uncontested the UN (and us) would regard that as subject to the jurisdiction of US laws.
There are several laws that state US corporations are subject to US laws even overseas. That is making them subject to the jurisdiction (limited however) based on where they were created.
These Venezuelan narco boats are not subject to our jurisdiction because we do not control the ground (or water) they are in. If we surrounded the area with warships and told other ships they could not enter (or leave) that area instead of just a drone overhead that would be subject to the jurisdiction.
It's so case or context sensitive I don't think you can define it on paper and account for every case.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 12:56 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You sure? So you think that if an illegal drives drunk, kills a family, they should not be subject to being charged for DWI? You sure you want that?
As I'm sure you know - that's not what is stated
There are actual residency laws and requirements for every state - ie jurisdictional requirements none of which apply to illegals to get the benefits
All criminal laws apply to every person unless a diplomat
Posted on 12/7/25 at 1:01 pm to dafif
quote:
There are actual residency laws and requirements for every state - ie jurisdictional requirements
Are those requirements for jurisdiction? Or requirements for access to those programs?
quote:
All criminal laws apply to every person unless a diplomat
Because every person is subject to the jurisdiction of the US EXCEPT diplomats.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 1:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then illegals can't be prosecuted by US courts, just like diplomats.
You are awesome - live this argument - yep no court jurisdiction to stop from being picked up and removed without any hearings or court intervention !!
Posted on 12/7/25 at 1:02 pm to dafif
quote:
You are awesome - live this argument - yep no court jurisdiction to stop from being picked up and removed without any hearings or court intervention !!
In your prior post you confuse/conflate jurisdiction with statutory eligibility for statutory programs
In this post, you confuse/conflate jurisdiction with due process
Posted on 12/7/25 at 1:05 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:OK. You are simple. Very much so, in fact.
Call me simple
quote:A jperson can be "subject to the jurisdiction" of more than one nation.
If a person is here illegally, they are still under the jurisdiction of their native country
quote:No, it does not. The governing principle here is the language of the 14th Amendment, NOT your simplistic understanding of "logic."
Logically, it follows that a non citizen offspring would also be a non citizen.
quote:Of course not, because the entire concept of "illegal immigration" did not even yet exist.
When the 14th a.endwas written, the illegal immigration crisis we face today was not part of the thoughts or conversations
Page 15 of 17
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News