- 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 trying to end birthright citizenship
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:33 am to BRTigerDad
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:33 am to BRTigerDad
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
"[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens..."
LINK
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
"[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens..."
LINK
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 7:36 am
1
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:33 am to VoxDawg
quote:
Failure to clarify the 14th Amendment has been a terminal illness to our nation. There's a "birth tourism" business, FFS.
Well, now that we've loaded the supreme court. Lets get it on the docket
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 8:44 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:34 am to papasmurf1269
This seems like a second term issue. Surprised Trump is taking it on in his first term.
:bow: 
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:36 am to Boatshoes
quote:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Pretty cut and dried imo.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:36 am to papasmurf1269
There is an endless stream of pregnant women who are transported across the Rio Grande just to have their American baby who is then a citizen and immediately eligible for benefits which they grab quickly. And forever.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:37 am to VoxDawg
quote:
While I agree with your sentiment, don't forget that Dems argue against that because they believe on an institutional, party-wide basis that Black America is too dumb to pass a citizenship test and/or get a free, verified state ID.
That’s strange. It’s only right wingers, like you, who say stuff like this.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:41 am to BRTigerDad
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to former slaves.
On June 2, 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.
If in fact the 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship to any person born on American soil then why weren't the Native Americans consider American citizens on July 9, 1868? This includes Natives born on Reservations as well as outside of Reservations. Why weren't Natives included in birthright citizenship?
On June 2, 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.
If in fact the 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship to any person born on American soil then why weren't the Native Americans consider American citizens on July 9, 1868? This includes Natives born on Reservations as well as outside of Reservations. Why weren't Natives included in birthright citizenship?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:41 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
"Well regulated Militia" has never been interpreted as the Constitutional container of arms, but rather a justification of the general population's possession of and familiarity with them.
True - the 'well regulated militia" was just an intro expressing the axiom that in order to have people who knew how to use firearms, the people must have firearms to gain that familiarity. THEREFORE - the right of the people shall not be infringed.
In order to debate that you need the skills to find the penumbra within some umbra somewhere.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:42 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
would say any Reconstruction Amendments would have been done by the (Radical) Republicans, not Democrats.
I don't want to get bogged down on an ignorant semantics argument.
Those amendments were passed my a party which was Republican in name only when considering historical context and today's definition. They would be completely unrecognizable as Republican today. The northern radical republican reconstruction party of the mid 1800s is the big federal government Democratic party of today. There is little to no difference in big picture ideology.
Taking an honest interest in sudying American History and the shaping of its policy and politics is extremely important.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 7:49 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:47 am to BRTigerDad
Saying this Literally just makes you look worse as it shows he’s ending it for Russians too which makes the whole Russian collusion lie worse
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:48 am to Nguyener
quote:
Republican in name only when considering historical context. Unrecognizable as republican today. The northern radical republican reconstruction party of the mid 1800s is the big federal government Democratic party of today.
While I don’t entirely disagree with this statement, right wingers frequently argue exactly the opposite here. I look forward to you helping correct the flow of idiocy when it comes up in the future.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:48 am to VoxDawg
quote:
we now know you neither understand American History, nor the Constitution. What else do you not know?
His head from a hole in the ground.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:49 am to TBoy
quote:
That’s strange. It’s only right wingers, like you, who say stuff like this.
Really? Which ones argue that Voter ID laws are racist and disenfranchise minorities, righties or leftists?
Explain the logic behind this argument without inferring that minorities aren't educated enough to obtain a free ID.
We'll wait
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:53 am to TBoy
quote:
look forward to you helping correct the flow of idiocy when it comes up in the future.
I appreciate the sentiment but I don't have time to respond to every one of your ignorant nonsensical posts. I will keep an eye on you though if you like.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:54 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Pretty cut and dried imo.
Agreed. So you agree Trump can’t do anything here?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:57 am to Haughton99
quote:
So if they kill someone while here they are free to leave without being held responsible?
Wait. Is that what you think that clause means? Someone who can be punished by a us criminal code? I haven’t looked into interpretation of that amendment...at all...but I really doubt that is the meaning.
Is it more or less clear than “shall not be infringed”? Very rarely are constitutional discussions as cut and dried as you are trying to make this.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 7:58 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:57 am to ohiovol
quote:
Agreed. So you agree Trump can’t do anything here?
What do you mean?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:58 am to NewOrleansBlend
I’ve got a pen and a phone
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:59 am to ohiovol
quote:
Is it more or less clear than “shall not be infringed”? Very rarely are constitutional discussions as cut and dried as you are trying to make this.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:59 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
His head from a hole in the ground.
You've cleaned that up from my father's intonation - he referred to the other end of the alimentary canal being indistinguishable from a hole in the ground.
You must have had a more cultured dad than I.
Page 5 of 12
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News