- 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 1:28 pm to SallysHuman
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:28 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Were they removed upon discovery they lived and worked here?
No because that wasn't how things worked because, as I have said 5x before, that status distinction really didn't exist, especially on a federal level.
quote:
Maria's arse, once discovered, would be deported.
The absolute first real federal law that permitted deportation was the Chinese Exclusion act of 1882, only 6 years prior to WKA's ruling.
And, even then, WKA was declared a citizen having non-citizen, Chinese parents. Think about that.
Marias within the US were fully legal in 1888 without a mechanism to deport them.
2
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:29 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
But the 14A had EVERYTHING to do with the "founder's intent"
Not really.
Rejecting/modifying founder's intent? More accurate description.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 1:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Marias within the US were fully legal in 1888 without a mechanism to deport them.
Maybe in practice, okay, mostly in practice... but there were removals of non citizens and legal methods of doing so prior to 1900.
quote:
Prior to 1900, removals of non-citizens from the U.S. were limited but included the 1798 Alien Friends Act, which allowed the President to deport anyone deemed dangerous, although no one was actually deported under it. State governments also authorized the removal of non-citizens, with Massachusetts officials empowered to deport "foreign paupers" in 1850. The focus of federal deportation efforts was on national security, and there was no broad federal system for removing immigrants, as the U.S. generally encouraged immigration during this period.
And yes, I read the last line of my copypasta... just because they didn't remove Marias doesn't mean they couldn't.
ETA... thanks for digging in to the meat and potatoes, I was hoping you would and I really enjoy the back and forth.
This post was edited on 9/27/25 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 9/27/25 at 2:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The same as you referencing what "the founders" wanted
My point was that the 14th is incongruous with the framework of our founding principals.
It would appear that to you it is incumbent on our founding principals to twist themselves into compatibility with the 14th amendment thus establishing a devious order of operations whereby the exceptions can conveniently become the rule.
I married to a lawyer and her arguments are often structured similar to yours, “it’s legal therefore it’s right”. Whereas most nonlawyers would look at something and say “that’s doesn’t sound right, why is it legal”. The arguments between these two state of mind usually has the same effect as two ships passing in the night. Don’t ask me how I know.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 2:09 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Ohhh, moral relativism. Edgy. I too remember middle school.
Hey, you started it buddy.
I was just responding in kind
Posted on 9/27/25 at 2:19 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:This may be answered, but is this a way for him to just thru the years of court cases?
Trump has officially petitioned the SCOTUS to allow him to END birthright citizenship
Hope so, cause we don't need this lingering any longer. He should do the same if needed still when it comes to tariffs. Just get to it, so we/he can figure out the plan for next few years
Gawd I pray they argue how our enemies are having babies here to take them back to then send them back. No logical person can deny his that will destroy our future if anchor babies like that get into our leadership control. All the way up to the WH, courts, etc.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 2:25 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Hey, you started it buddy. I was just responding in kind
I did no such thing.
I looked at their actions to determine their intent. You judged their actions to discredit their intent.
This post was edited on 9/27/25 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 9/27/25 at 2:34 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
My point was that the 14th is incongruous with the framework of our founding principals.
And that matters only in emotional thinking and moral relativism.
quote:
It would appear that to you it is incumbent on our founding principals to twist themselves into compatibility with the 14th amendment
No
No need when our founding principles are literally irrelevant to the discussion.
quote:
Whereas most nonlawyers would look at something and say “that’s doesn’t sound right, why is it legal”
The 14th Amendment
Posted on 9/27/25 at 2:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And that matters only in emotional thinking and moral relativism.
Wrong. Quite the opposite really.
quote:
No No need when our founding principles are literally irrelevant to the discussion. quote:
Right on cue. It’s exists ergo it is right!
quote:
The 14th Amendment
There you go again.i mean i told you how your were going to respond and you didn’t anyway!
Enjoy the rest of your afternoon! Cheers
This post was edited on 9/27/25 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 9/27/25 at 2:41 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
It’s exists ergo it is right!
This issue is not about right (or wrong)
It's about facts. Does our Constitution have an amendment process? Yes
Do any amendments become the force or our law, replacing the original/older Constitutional provisions? Yes
Posted on 9/27/25 at 2:44 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
If you like this country as it is or as it was before, then you will like this measure, as the filth coming here under the Democratic invite are the ignorant servile miscreants of countries more than happy to unload them.
Our environment and natural treasures are in jeopardy because of this filth and pox bestowed by social pariahs.
Our environment and natural treasures are in jeopardy because of this filth and pox bestowed by social pariahs.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 2:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This issue is not about right (or wrong)
At issue with all laws is whether or not they are just (right or wrong).
Posted on 9/27/25 at 3:49 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
At issue with all laws is whether or not they are just (right or wrong).
If THAT is your argument, then use the amendment process to change the 14A.
We are discussing the 14A as it is, now, which has nothing to do with the founders or their intent.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 3:52 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
But what happens if they go against it? Now you've opened the flood gates. There's not enough immigration enforcement agents to stop that.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 4:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If THAT is your argument, then use the amendment process to change the 14A.
Don't need to, just unwind retarded juris(non)prudence
Posted on 9/27/25 at 4:44 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
This needs to happen. No other country does this.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 7:22 pm to Turbeauxdog
That would make the Constitution a "living document" and reject textual analysis.
We all lose if that happens.
It will only be a matter of time until the muh muskets silliness nerfs the 2A, using the same retarded analysis
We all lose if that happens.
It will only be a matter of time until the muh muskets silliness nerfs the 2A, using the same retarded analysis
Posted on 9/27/25 at 7:43 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
How about require all congressmen to be US born citizens, too.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That would make the Constitution a "living document" and reject textual analysis.
No, it would make it less so, and textualism is asinine.
This post was edited on 9/28/25 at 2:27 am
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What do our founders have to do with the 14th Amendment?
The Arguments of those seeking to ratify the 14th amendment are well known, the arguments are entered unto the record in the Library of Congress they specifically argued you had to be under the Jurisdiction thereof, meaning you had to be a Citizen of one state in which you were under the Jurisprudence of said state and thus you were also a U.S. Citizen. If your loyalties lay with a foreign power, you were not a citizen, nor were your children, even diplomats who had kids whilst in the US, kids were not US Citizens.
Page 5 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News