- 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 to sign Executive Order ending birth right citizenship for kids of illegals on Day 1
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:40 pm to Born to be a Tiger1
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:40 pm to Born to be a Tiger1
quote:
If what you say is true then why were the Native Americans not given instant citizenship when the 14 Amendment was ratified in 1868?
The answer, again, lies in Wong Kim Ark (Discussing Elk v. Wilkins)
quote:
The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State, but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen, either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a person born in the United States, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the clause in question.
quote:
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
0
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:40 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
Welp, that criteria has been met
Update: it has not
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:41 pm to RLDSC FAN
quote:
No way he can do that on his own
Wait, what created "birthright citizenship" in the first place?
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:42 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
frick 'em. See you in SCOTUS, anchor babies.
Agree. I don't THINK he has the authority but I'd like to see what SCOTUS says and then go from there and use that as a baseline if a bill needs to be passed.
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:42 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
He needs to give local authorities the power to detain and intern illegal aliens. Put a bounty on each one and the people will round them up.
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:42 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
what created "birthright citizenship" in the first place?
An Amendment
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:43 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
quote:
No way he can do that on his own
didn't slow Biden down
A raft of Biden's EO's are going to be erased on day one.
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:43 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
“Under the correct interpretation of the law”
He’s saying that the law already exists and his executive order will make it clear he wants them to follow the law.
Crossing the border to push out a baby doesn’t make you or it a citizen of any country.
He’s saying that the law already exists and his executive order will make it clear he wants them to follow the law.
Crossing the border to push out a baby doesn’t make you or it a citizen of any country.
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
An Amendment
And what was the clear, unambiguous intent of that amendment?
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:44 pm to Bard
quote:
SCOTUS likes to rule narrowly, they would likely rule solely that a Presidential EO does not cover this.
Agree, but I could see Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch giving guidance as to what WOULD pass Constitutional muster...and then do that.
Posted on 11/7/24 at 1:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Specifically, the phrase was meant to exclude only: (1) children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and (2) children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State:
Couldn't the CiC simply declare the disposition of illegal aliens in the country with the purpose of having an anchor baby as "hostile"?
Posted on 11/7/24 at 2:05 pm to GumboPot
He could try.
I doubt that would work.
I doubt that would work.
Posted on 11/7/24 at 2:06 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
And what was the clear, unambiguous intent of that amendment?
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, 18 b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
Posted on 11/7/24 at 2:29 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Yall should really pay attention and research these x.com clips.
This is at best a year old video and at worst an AI fake compilation. We cannot dismantle the legacy media and then absolutely fail to vet any information ourselves
This is at best a year old video and at worst an AI fake compilation. We cannot dismantle the legacy media and then absolutely fail to vet any information ourselves
Posted on 11/7/24 at 2:29 pm to Nguyener
quote:
We cannot dismantle the legacy media and then absolutely fail to vet any information ourselves
laughs in Black Insurrectionist
Posted on 11/7/24 at 2:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
Has the Supreme Court specifically ruled in a case confirming that a child born by illegal immigrants are US citizens?
Posted on 11/7/24 at 2:38 pm to Cobbvol
No, but that doesn't distinguish the reasoning from precedent. The illegal status has no bearing on the exclusions listed in the 14A.
Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They are also not enemy combatants of a war (although you could argue terrorists could fit that bill with our current declarations active)
Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They are also not enemy combatants of a war (although you could argue terrorists could fit that bill with our current declarations active)
Posted on 11/7/24 at 2:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
Were Wong Kim Ark's parents in the US legally?
This post was edited on 11/7/24 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 11/7/24 at 2:42 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Boom
Posted on 11/7/24 at 2:46 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
but there's never been unfettered illegal invasion of the United States by foreign nationals
Correct this has never happened
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News