- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 9:12 am to ohiovol
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:12 am to ohiovol
quote:
Just like a democratic president can “clarify the language” of the second amendment.
Keep reading. The congress that passed the law disagrees with you. The Supreme Court has stated your laymen’s interpretation of the phrase isn’t the only one. In fact that said there are too many definitions. Despite your desires...there is a lot of room for interpretation here. And very possible children born here to parents who are citizens of another country may not be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US as applied to the 14th amendment.
0
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:12 am to Dale51
quote:
Thats nice. So was Prohibition. Should it have been overturned or ..nah?
Prohibition was overturned with another amendment to the constitution.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:13 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Like a child born of two parents who are citizens of another nation?
Precisely. As linked earlier in the thread, the authors of the amendment only wanted it to apply to the children of citizens, slaves, and immigrants who had come here legally and were going through the naturalization process. The idea was to keep to a minimum "servants of two masters", i.e. people with dual citizenship. The other issue, was they didn't want political kerfuffels where one country demands the U.S. turn their citizen over to them, while that person is also a U.S. citizen and demands the U.S. protect them as such.
Thus, those who do not subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States (citizens or legal immigrants trying to become so) are still subjects of someone else's jurisdiction. A British person who comes here illegally is still a subject of the British Crown, not the United States.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:13 am to papasmurf1269
This is what SCOTUS is for, interpret original meaning of the Constitution. Next up, Natural Born Citizen.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:14 am to Dale51
quote:
Thats nice. So was Prohibition. Should it have been overturned or ..nah?
Wasn't overturned by EO.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:15 am to ohiovol
quote:
Just like a democratic president can “clarify the language” of the second amendment.
Yeah...no. That issue has already been up in the Supreme Court more than once, making an EO already null.
Birthright "citizenship" hasn't. Are you against using the same process...if so, why?
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:26 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:17 am to BRTigerDad
quote:
So just to clarify...it's your position that the child of an illegal who is born and resides in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are under no obligation to follow US laws, since they are not under US jurisdiction.
That is not what I'm saying, nor could any rational person interpret my words to have such a meaning.
Go play semantics with someone else.
That's exactly what you're saying, and you know it.
He said this:
"Clearly unconstitutional."
You said this:
"So we now know you neither understand American History, nor the Constitution."
So let's check that Constitution as it relates to the newborn:
1. Born in the US...obviously the newborn was.
2. Residing in the US? Again, the newborn obviously is.
3. Under the jurisdiction of the US? You tell me. This is the only remaining factor.
So spare us the bullshite about what a "rational person" would interpret.
Go play your bullshite face saving game somewhere else.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:19 am to BRTigerDad
Stick to drive by trolling about orange man bad. You got pwned ITT
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:21 am to redneck hippie
quote:
Prohibition was overturned with another amendment to the constitution.
So what?
That process had to start somewhere, don't you agree? Trump is loading that round into the chamber. Gonna make it go "Blewy!"
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:21 am to Dale51
quote:
Yeah...no. That issue has already been up in the Supreme Court more than once, making an EO already null.
Birthright "citizenship" hasen't. Are you against using the same process...if so, why?
Trump is about to get raped by his own court if he tries this shite.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:22 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:21 am to kingbob
quote:
Thus, those who do not subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States (citizens or legal immigrants trying to become so) are still subjects of someone else's jurisdiction. A British person who comes here illegally is still a subject of the British Crown, not the United States.
So if this person who is here...legally or illegally...commits a crime in the US you're saying that they are not under US jurisdiction.
Here's a clue...coming from someone who lived in 7 other countries over almost 20 years...still filing a`US tax return every year and voting in US elections...when you set foot inside another country, you are subjecting yourself to the jurisdiction of that country, whether you like it or not. Jurisdiction and allegiance aren't the same thing. If you don't believe that, get in touch with some of the Americans in foreign prisons.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:27 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:24 am to ohiovol
quote:
Trump is about to get raped by his own court if he tries this shite.
Look at the timing here, just after Kavabaw gets seated. You don't think this might have been planned?
In the interviews for the nominee to determine who Trump would nominate, you don't think he asked each justice: Suppose I challenged the 14th interpretation. How would you rule?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:25 am to BRTigerDad
quote:You're such a dumbfrick.
What an absolute fricking idiot. Again.
We literally have an entire industry where pregnant foreigners "vacation" to the US to purposely give birth here so they can have anchor babies!
Go frick yourself libtard.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:26 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:25 am to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
Wasn't overturned by EO.
And neither would BC be. The EO starts the process of amendment to be pushed.
How else would you suggest it rapidly be addressed?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:26 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
So if this person who is here illegally commits a crime in the US you're saying that they are not under US jurisdiction.
They are entitled to be defended by their nation's embassy. If that nation demands that the U.S. turn their citizen over to them we have to do so, absent some agreement otherwise. It's their citizen. Now, if their embassy chooses not to help them, we can prosecute them, as we could anyone else, just as if you went to Thailand and made fun of the King, they could throw you in prison. However, being an American citizen, you could petition the embassy to help get you out. The U.S. could demand Thailand turn you over to them. You are a subject of the U.S., not Thailand.
When they say "subject to the jurisdiction therein" they don't mean "they can be punished by that country in criminal court. They mean whether or not that person is considered a "subject" of another country. A French "subject" or British "subject". They are asking if that person has made their self an American "subject". If you don't apply to be one, if you don't notify the United States that you are here, apply to come here and establish residency, start the process to become a citizen, you are still the exclusive subject of your home country.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:29 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:27 am to kingbob
quote:
On the other hand, if one of Trump's "subject matter experts" in the State department were to issue this administrative change in the form of a guidance document and a proposed rule change, then the court would have to examine it as a Chevron deference case: whether the administration's interpretation was "reasonable" rather than "correct". According to the Chevron doctrine, administrative agencies are considered to be subject-matter experts, and when a statute is vague, they are entitled to make their own interpretation. When a conflict arises between the administrative agency and stakeholders, the Chevron doctrine demands that courts give deference to the administrative agency to determine the proper interpretation as long as said interpretation is "reasonable". That means, unless the challenger can prove that no "reasonable" person possibly could have read a statute to mean what the administration says it means, the government wins.
This is very interesting.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:29 am to Dale51
quote:
And neither would BC be. The EO starts the process of amendment to be pushed.
How else would you suggest it rapidly be addressed?
You're out of your element, Dale. Just stop, man.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:30 am to cokebottleag
quote:
This is very interesting.
Comparing a statute to a constitutional amendment is like the epitome of comparing apples and oranges.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:31 am to kingbob
So how likely do you think it is that the SCOTUS will rule in favor of Trump's interpretation?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:32 am to ohiovol
quote:
Trump is about to get raped by his own court if he tries this shite.
He doesn't have a court.
What makes you so sure SCOTUS would rule in favor of illegal criminal aliens?
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News