- 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: Trump has officially petitioned the SCOTUS to allow him to END birthright citizenship
Posted on 9/27/25 at 12:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/27/25 at 12:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes. Read Wong Kim Ark for a historical-textual analysis as to why.
Ark's parents were legal residents, even though they were barred from becoming citizens.
There is a difference between LPRs and illegal aliens.
2
Posted on 9/27/25 at 12:54 pm to DaveyJones12
quote:
if a mexican comes into the US, they are under US jurisdiction...if they weren't then we couldn't arrest them!
Legal or illegal entry? Again, the Constitution and amendments assume a moral and lawful well meaning nation. Not the BS we put up with now.
We once hung horse thieves at sundown. I wish we would do the same for car thieves.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 12:54 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Sounds exactly like what the founders, who only allowed white male property owners to vote, would implement.
Sounds like you are undercutting your own argument. Unless you also think only white male property owners should be allowed to vote today.
Oh wait a minute…I forgot where I was posting
Posted on 9/27/25 at 12:56 pm to SallysHuman
Don't expect in the knowledgeable from SFP. He knows there's a difference he's just doing his usual dig in and die on another stupid hill.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 12:59 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Ark's parents were legal residents,
Which was not relevant at all to the historical-textual analysis.
And "illegal immigrant" wasn't really a status at the time, anyway. That came along a few decades later via Congress.
quote:
There is a difference between LPRs and illegal aliens.
Within the historical-textual analysis, not a significant one
Posted on 9/27/25 at 12:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're using words you don't understand within the context of the conversation.
You do not understand the context of the conversation.
Outside your mental prison, the words "founders' intent" is presumed to mean that the constitution they established actually revealed their intent.
It is NOT a treatise on the evolution of the language.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:04 pm to dalefla
quote:
He knows there's a difference
Yes, but the distinction does not matter.
quote:
he's just doing his usual dig in and die on another stupid hill.
No I'm showing I can read English. Read the case and tell me where in the actual analysis that status distinction matters.
quote:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 28 U. S. 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
and before we get into muh dicta, here is the ruling:
quote:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed.
So the "birth tourism" scenario may have issues (Despite being here legally) based solely on this case, but how would any of the bold exclude illegal immigrants whose domicile and residence are within the US?
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:05 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
You do not understand the context of the conversation.
quote:
Outside your mental prison, the words "founders' intent" is presumed to mean that the constitution they established actually revealed their intent.
And their intent is literally irrelevant to this discussion.
The 14th Amendment is exclusively relevant to this discussion.
The founders had nothing to do with the 14A. Nothing.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Ark's parents were legal residents,
Which was not relevant at all to the historical-textual analysis.
I quote from wiki on what the court considered
quote:
The Supreme Court considered the "single question" in the case to be "whether a child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."[3] It was conceded that if Wong was a U.S. citizen, "the acts of Congress known as the 'Chinese Exclusion Acts,' prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him."[
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:08 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
I quote from wiki on what the court considered
Having a permanent domicile/residence doesn't require legal status.
...and considering that illegal status did not exist in the manner you're using it when the ruling was handed down, domicile can't be twisted to mean "legal"
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:10 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:11 pm to TrueTiger
His bigger issue is his potential ideological hypocrisy.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Having a permanent domicile/residence doesn't require legal status.
This is still very different when compared to illegal border crossing aliens who are NOT PERMITTED to be here.
The Arks were PERMITTED to be here.
8mo pregnant illegal Maria is NOT.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:13 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
This is still very different when compared to illegal border crossing aliens who are NOT PERMITTED to be here.
It's literally what I just addressed.
I'll say it again
quote:
Having a permanent domicile/residence doesn't require legal status.
quote:
The Arks were PERMITTED to be here.
Again, there was not a similar distinction at the time of the ruling as the one you're referencing. That came about a few decades later.
How could the Supreme Court have considered a status that wasn't in existence at the time of their ruling?
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Again, there was not a similar distinction at the time of the ruling as the one you're referencing. That came about a few decades later.
The fact that the Arks were here legally is in fact addressed in the ruling.
We literally BOTH quoted it in this thread.
quote:
How could the Supreme Court have considered a status that wasn't in existence at the time of their ruling?
Well, they did.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:21 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Sounds like you are undercutting your own argument. Unless you also think only white male property owners should be allowed to vote today. Oh wait a minute…I forgot where I was posting
Ohhh, moral relativism. Edgy. I too remember middle school.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:22 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
The fact that the Arks were here legally
Again,
quote:
there was not a similar distinction at the time of the ruling as the one you're referencing. That came about a few decades later.
quote:
We literally BOTH quoted it in this thread.
yes and you need explanation, clearly.
quote:
Well, they did.
They did not.
The court describes his parents as "domiciled" here, but never describes their status as "legal".
Domiciled is not the same thing as "legal"
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:23 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Ohhh, moral relativism.
The same as you referencing what "the founders" wanted
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The founders had nothing to do with the 14A. Nothing.
oh for Pete's sake -
WHO IN HELL SAID IT DID?? -== OBVIOUSLY the founder had nothing to do with the 14A - nobody has said that it did!!!
But the 14A had EVERYTHING to do with the "founder's intent"
YOU are the only one wasting pages of discussion with that bullshite - which I I think is your intent -
You are obviously either too stupid to understand the topic of conversation - or you are just trying our patience.
You win
- I am done with you on this one. This post was edited on 9/27/25 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Domiciled is not the same thing as "legal"
Were they removed upon discovery they lived and worked here?
Maria's arse, once discovered, would be deported.
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News