- 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 Signs EO To Change The Definition Of Birthright Citizenship
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:06 pm to Sizzle_DAWG
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:06 pm to Sizzle_DAWG
quote:
Typical leftist. Moving the goal post.
I think you may need to read the 14th Amendment to understand what is being discussed.
0
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That would ignore the actual text of the Constitution and make it a "living document"
Then thats what has to happen at this point so we save this place since we are in the 4th turning
You use the same logic for illegals to arm up. It will be just like the fall of rome
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:09 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Then thats what has to happen at this point so we save this place since we are in the 4th turning
You're the only one allowed to make this argument sincerely (like with big spending policies).
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
Was he subject to the jurisdiction of US law before being taken into custody? Don't spazz out and answer that without thinking.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:13 pm to Sizzle_DAWG
He’s just a lawyer. Words have no meaning to them except the meaning that helps their case.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:13 pm to SDVTiger
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:13 pm to the808bass
quote:
Was he subject to the jurisdiction of US law before being taken into custody?
Yes, or else he couldn't be taken into custody.
There are only 2 classes of people not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and only one is relevant after Wong Kim Ark (diplomats).
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:15 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents
Using the term "Legal" is an anachronism being inserted via dishonest argument, which isn't shocking considering how they ignore the text of the case itself.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
Its common sense and an easy sell to the American ppl to go all out "dictator"
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 9:17 pm
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:18 pm to HailToTheChiz
quote:
Individuals can be taken into custody. Jurisdiction is based on the court's reach.
If the court has no jurisdiction, there is no power to hold you.
If he was able to be prosecuted by that court, he was subject to the jurisdiction of that state and however they break up their state jurisdictions (county, district, etc.).
quote:
Police can pick up and deport all day long
We're not talking about deportations. We're talking criminal prosecutions.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Using the term "Legal" is an anachronism being inserted via dishonest argument, which isn't shocking considering how they ignore the text of the case itself.
Wong Kim got blown to shite a long time ago in this context. Cry all you want - 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to the babies of invaders. Wong Kim doesn't help the case. Nothing does. The meaning of the 14th is very clear and the only argument ever put forward to extend that citizenship was a footnote which means nothing. You have no tenable position here.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:19 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Its common sense and an easy sell to the American ppl
You are correct.
That's exactly why we have a constitution that limits the immediate will of the people (this is both the federalist and republic v. democracy debates)
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There are only 2 classes of people not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and only one is relevant after Wong Kim Ark (diplomats).
There are two classes of diplomats though. With two different levels of immunity. If the 14th says that diplomats aren't subject to our laws, then why are some diplomats only immune when acting on official duties? Why aren't they given blanket immunity?
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes, or else he couldn't be taken into custody.
This is a nonsensical answer.
Can a foreign spy be taken into custody? Yes. Are they “subject to the jurisdiction” even in your asinine interpretation? No.
Now, the real question is what did the people who authored the amendment mean when they said “subject to jurisdiction.” If it just means subject to law, how did Native Americans draw the short straw?
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
I removed my post and you still had it quoted
I don't even know what the hell you are arguing at this point.
People that illegally cross into America can and are prosecuted and can be deported.
I don't even know what the hell you are arguing at this point.
People that illegally cross into America can and are prosecuted and can be deported.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:22 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
You have no tenable position here.
This is no roadblock to any SFP argument.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:22 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
Wong Kim got blown to shite a long time ago in this context.
It did not.
You're out of your depth here. You post from the same sources every time.
quote:
The meaning of the 14th is very clear
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" is very clear, yes, and the only modern application where this doesn't apply is diplomats.
quote:
was a footnote which means nothing.
WKA goes into great detail, in the case itself, what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. That ruling has been upheld for 130-ish years with no real dispute.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
How does allowing illegal immigrants into our country benefit the American tax paying citizen?
Answer me that. Please.
Answer me that. Please.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 9:23 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
. If the 14th says that diplomats aren't subject to our laws
The 14th doesn't say this, just to be clear. The 14th was just written around the meaning of what being a diplomat implied, legally, regarding jurisdiction.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News