- 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 5/17/25 at 12:25 pm to Warfox
Posted on 5/17/25 at 12:25 pm to Warfox
quote:
Birthright citizenship was never a thing to begin with, why should it be now?
Now?
Birthright citizenship has been a concept for centuries, and even prior to WKA and the 14A it was settled in many states. Post-WKA has been almost 130 years, mind you. More than half the age of our nation.
quote:
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.
It hasn't been absurd for almost 130 years, and we've built much more case law, statutory law, and administrative law around that concept without much friction, if any.
2
Posted on 5/17/25 at 12:51 pm to Warfox
quote:
Birthright citizenship was never a thing to begin with, why should it be now?
it was always a thing.
Immigrants came to america.
their kids could vote.
quote:
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.
it make perfect sense to a bunch of colonists who just formed a country by doing that and has ambitions to continue expanding said country.
and I am not trying to use colonist pejoratively here.
This post was edited on 5/17/25 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 5/17/25 at 1:01 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
it was always a thing.
Immigrants came to america.
their kids could vote.
LEGAL immigration was a thing. LEGAL immigrants giving birth.
Read about places like Ellis Island, we literally accepted people and turned away pregnant women at times because they wouldn't be a producer but a consumer.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 1:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Birthright citizenship has been a concept for centuries, and even prior to WKA and the 14A it was settled in many states. Post-WKA has been almost 130 years, mind you. More than half the age of our nation.
Absolutely, to people that by and far were welcomed or allowed here legally.
The main difference is the vast amount of people that have broke into our country unregistered and illegally.
That's never been an issue in the past and NEVER allowed. We have literally turned away legal immigrants in the 1900s.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 1:10 pm to baldona
quote:
LEGAL immigration was a thing. LEGAL immigrants giving birth.
The concept of "legal immigration" came decades after WKA.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 1:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It hasn't been absurd for almost 130 years, and we've built much more case law, statutory law, and administrative law around that concept without much friction, if any.
Doesn’t make it right. We also didn’t have hordes of illegals invading and hotels for wealthy Chinese to pop out babies in.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 1:47 pm to Warfox
quote:
Doesn’t make it right.
The "friction" referenced in my post was directed at this.
Most everyone agrees it is the correct reading and is "right", and have for almost 130 years.
quote:
We also didn’t have hordes of illegals invading and hotels for wealthy Chinese to pop out babies in.
The Constitution has an amendment process to change as society changes.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 1:54 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
it was always a thing. Immigrants came to america. their kids could vote.
This isn’t true for all of our history.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 3:54 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
but they are subject to our jurisdiction.
They are also subject to their homelands jurisdiction , which goes to the original intent which was to distinguish sovereignty.
Textualism is almost as retarded as living document.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 3:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Constitution has an amendment process to change as society changes.
Or we could just reject retarded jurisprudence.
But you're so emotionally invested in the retard oligarchy protecting you from scary Christians that you will defend absurdity.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 4:48 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Textualism is almost as retarded as living document.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 5:39 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
They are also subject to their homelands jurisdiction , which goes to the original intent which was to distinguish sovereignty.
No it’s to distinguish children born of armed combatants
and diplomats and another HUGE population of native americans.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 5:40 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
No it’s to distinguish children born of armed combatants and diplomats and another HUGE population of native americans.
Oh. So Indians were born here but weren’t “subject to the jurisdiction.”
Posted on 5/17/25 at 5:47 pm to the808bass
quote:
Oh. So Indians were born here but weren’t “subject to the jurisdiction.”
You think we could trail of tears citizens?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 6:41 pm to SammyTiger
And yet we still tried them for crimes. Not all the time, mind you. Just when it seemed the right thing to do.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 6:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
1. That portion of WKA requires more than just that
So, hypothetically, we are in a declared war and we capture a female who happens to be pregnant and gives birth on us soil - that child is a us citizen? You going with that?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Post/partial birth abortions don't change the analysis of KWA, and the case answers your other issues.
So you are saying that a child born is a citizen but can be terminated by the parents. seems like some very twisted logic...
Posted on 5/18/25 at 6:02 am to dafif
That would be murder of a US citizen
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:53 am to SlowFlowPro
Here we go with the Wong Kim Ark stuff again.
WKA isn’t the legal precedent.
While I agree that official “legal immigration” came later; the Parents were still here legally. They were allowed to be here via Burlingame treaty and were legally domiciled in the US. In modern day context basically a “work visa”. Even if we concede they were simply here and that legal immigration came later, then fine; they were just “here”. But they certainly weren’t here ILLEGALLY.
Fast forward to 2025 we DO have immigration laws and children are born to immigrants who are here ILLEGALLY.
The parents broke laws to be here; and are currently on US soil ILLEGALLY.
Thus WKA isn’t relevant. We’re not asking about a British CEO’s son born while he’s here on a 6 year work Visa. We’re not even asking about the Children of parents who are of uncertain legal status;
We’re specifically talking about the children of parents who broke laws to be here and are currently here illegally. Unlike WKA.
Maybe SC won’t care; but I think the question needs to be answered.
WKA isn’t the legal precedent.
While I agree that official “legal immigration” came later; the Parents were still here legally. They were allowed to be here via Burlingame treaty and were legally domiciled in the US. In modern day context basically a “work visa”. Even if we concede they were simply here and that legal immigration came later, then fine; they were just “here”. But they certainly weren’t here ILLEGALLY.
Fast forward to 2025 we DO have immigration laws and children are born to immigrants who are here ILLEGALLY.
The parents broke laws to be here; and are currently on US soil ILLEGALLY.
Thus WKA isn’t relevant. We’re not asking about a British CEO’s son born while he’s here on a 6 year work Visa. We’re not even asking about the Children of parents who are of uncertain legal status;
We’re specifically talking about the children of parents who broke laws to be here and are currently here illegally. Unlike WKA.
Maybe SC won’t care; but I think the question needs to be answered.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 9:06 am to Dandy Chiggins
Along the same path as you have taken for example Florida to be a resident or domicile requires you to follow certain laws all of which require you to be in the state of Florida legally
I think it is an argument that you are not subject to the laws of the state of Florida if you are not domicile or a resident of the state
and by laws I mean the benefit not the punitive ones
I think it is an argument that you are not subject to the laws of the state of Florida if you are not domicile or a resident of the state
and by laws I mean the benefit not the punitive ones
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News