- 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: Supreme Court Live re Birthright Citizenship and Nationwide Injunctions
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:37 pm to Turbeauxdog
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:37 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Which part of the constitution lists them?
We're talking about those words right now.
Here's the case that can probably answer your next question.
1
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
The case?
I thought we were talking about the constitution?
I thought we were talking about the constitution?
Posted on 5/16/25 at 8:08 pm to Turbeauxdog
This bullshite is stickied but absolutely nothing on the raw truth that we had 4 years of the worst fraud in the history of this country.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 8:33 pm to David_DJS
quote:
What data do you have to support the position that we don't have enough illegals in the country?
US birthrate for one.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 8:35 pm to the808bass
quote:
So when this was passed, everyone born in the US was a citizen. Correct?
July 1868 when the 14th Amendment was enacted everyone born in the US became citizens. Before July 9, 1868 former slaves that were born in the US weren’t considered citizens. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 said that children of former slaves could not become American citizens, but the 14th Amendment changed that decision too
Posted on 5/16/25 at 9:10 pm to MizzouBS
quote:
July 1868 when the 14th Amendment was enacted everyone born in the US became citizens.
Bzzzt. No, they didn’t.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:26 am to MizzouBS
quote:
14th Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”.
This was upheld 7-2 by the SC in 1898. It was a case and decision made about a Chinese-American man who left the country and was denied re-entry because of the Chinese Exclusion Act. United States v. Wong Kim Ark
2 problems with Wong Kim... first, nobody has an idea what a person "born" ... not the parents... becomes subject to the jurisdiciton of... how does an infant become subject to the jurisdiction thereof... as an extreme example... do post birth abortions or partial birth abortions violate this???
Second...if neither parent is here legally, how can the child just born be subject to anything?
Also, the court relies on english common law from the 1600's yet, in england, you cannot be a citizen if born there unless one of the parents is a citizen. shaking my head ... we rely on a law that is not in effect in the country we are copying...
And, simply put...if congress passed a simple law...those who enter illegally are considered enemy combatants, it eliminates all of the injunctions and birthright citizenship issues at the same time.
This post was edited on 5/17/25 at 8:28 am
Posted on 5/17/25 at 8:31 am to dafif
if neither parent is here legally, how can the child just born be subject to anything?
With normal logic this should end it all.
With normal logic this should end it all.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:54 am to themunch
quote:
if neither parent is here legally, how can the child just born be subject to anything?
The "subject to the jurisdiction of" really applies to the parents, not the child.
Parental status + geographic location of birth determines the analysis of the 14A.
The arguments are about parental status.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:57 am to dafif
quote:
2 problems with Wong Kim... first, nobody has an idea what a person "born" ... not the parents... becomes subject to the jurisdiciton of... how does an infant become subject to the jurisdiction thereof... as an extreme example... do post birth abortions or partial birth abortions violate this???
Post/partial birth abortions don't change the analysis of KWA, and the case answers your other issues.
quote:
Second...if neither parent is here legally, how can the child just born be subject to anything?
The parents "being here legally" is a function of Congress and that function came about decades after the ruling. The question is how Congress can create a law that invalidates/supersedes the Constitution?
The reason WKA isn't written in terms of "illegal" status is because that status effectively did not exist at the time of writing. It was created much later.
quote:
Also, the court relies on english common law from the 1600's yet, in england, you cannot be a citizen if born there unless one of the parents is a citizen. shaking my head ... we rely on a law that is not in effect in the country we are copying...
The question is the meaning of the text at the time of writing.
Not the text from the mid-19th century compared to the legal scheme of our forefather country in the early 21st century.
quote:
if congress passed a simple law...those who enter illegally are considered enemy combatants, it eliminates all of the injunctions and birthright citizenship issues at the same time.
How?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The arguments are about parental status.
And the parents don't qualify.
So the answer is the kids aren't citizens.
Done.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:04 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
And the parents don't qualify.
Which parents? Why?
Which diplomats are we discussing?
*ETA: for those who don't understand, there are 3 populations "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, per WKA:
1. Diplomats
2. People born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory
3. Indians born as a subject of an Indian nation within the sovereign jurisdiction of an Indian reservation (based on a prior case, Elk v. Wilkins)
2 and 3 do not exist, currently.
2 has not happened since the War of 18212. It could theoretically happen again, but has no applicability today. Functionally irrelevant.
3 is literally irrelevant. Indians were granted birthright citizenship via Congress after these cases, so that option doesn't exist anymore.
So all that's left is the diplomat status.
This post was edited on 5/17/25 at 10:21 am
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The "subject to the jurisdiction of" really applies to the parents, not the child.
Except the language specifically refers to the child... hmmm - did they just skip over that part ?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if congress passed a simple law...those who enter illegally are considered enemy combatants, it eliminates all of the injunctions and birthright citizenship issues at the same time. How?
Because enemy combatants are not subject to the jurisdiction of...
Posted on 5/17/25 at 11:09 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
And the parents don't qualify.
they aren’t citizens
but they are subject to our jurisdiction.
Technically so is the baby but babies don’t really commit crimes or do anything that requires them to follow the law
This post was edited on 5/17/25 at 11:11 am
Posted on 5/17/25 at 11:28 am to SammyTiger
quote:
but they are subject to our jurisdiction.
How? Specifically?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 11:30 am to SammyTiger
quote:
but they are subject to our jurisdiction.
Which is irrelevant to the meaning this phrase had when it was written.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 11:53 am to Rip Torn
quote:
If you thought they were going to end birthright citizenship then you will be disappointed, it’s never going to happen
Birthright citizenship was never a thing to begin with, why should it be now? That it’s a thing at all was based on a misunderstanding:misinterpretation, which is clearly pointed to.
On its face it makes ZERO logical sense to allow any foreigner who pops out of their mother’s vagina citizenship to the United States of America.
Let the pretzeling continue.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 12:22 pm to dafif
quote:
Except the language specifically refers to the child.
The concept at the time was clearly a tomato tomato scenario.
But hey I'm willing to listen to how you'd define the term without referencing the parents. I imagine it will result in a polarized scenario (either universal birthright citizenship or no citizenship status at all) that most everyone will reject, but feel free to try.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 12:23 pm to dafif
quote:
Because enemy combatants are not subject to the jurisdiction of...
1. That portion of WKA requires more than just that
2. Congress can't supersede the Constitution via statute
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News