- 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: What's the argument FOR birthright citizenship?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:17 am to Robin Masters
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:17 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Feudalism It’s based on English common law whereby if you were born on the kings land you were his subject (slave).
The dissent in Wong Kim Ark points out that America was founded on ideas antithetical to those proposed by the decision.
0
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:17 am to Robin Masters
That solution means teenagers and adults who are born in America to illegal immigrants after birthright citizenship is ended can be deported. I frankly don't morally agree with deporting grown people who have only known America to their parents' home country.
Also, I get the sense that some of y'all think immigrants will stop having kids here if birthright is ended. That's a fantasy.
Also, I get the sense that some of y'all think immigrants will stop having kids here if birthright is ended. That's a fantasy.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 11:19 am
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:18 am to Yokelhoma
quote:you believe someone born the day after birthright citizenship was ended could evade deportation for 25 years? presumably without an documentation that he’s residing in the US legally?
If we get rid of birthright citizenship, and an illegal immigrant gives birth on US soil, that child wouldn't have citizenship and (as I understand it) could be eligible for deportation even if he's 25 years old and only speaks English.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:20 am to MMauler
quote:
You mean like the Chinese who send women over here who are nine months pregnant to have their babies on American soil and then bring them back and raise them in China? Then, years later, they send them over here as US citizens to be Chinese spies.
Solution there is to say "Prove that was you".
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:21 am to FearlessFreep
quote:
you believe someone born the day after birthright citizenship was ended could evade deportation for 25 years? presumably without an documentation that he’s residing in the US legally?
Well, yeah, tons of people evade deportation in the US for long stretches of time.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:26 am to Yokelhoma
Can we ban pregnant foreign women?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:26 am to lionward2014
much better stated than my attempt... assimilation to prevent stateless individuals with no rights, basically.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 11:28 am
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:32 am to DeathValley85
quote:Do you?
I understand the argument(s) behind the SCOTUS ruling...
Be so kind as to explain it to me. By this court's interpretation, a Chinese national born to a birth tourist, then returning to China to be indoctrinated in communism, is qualified to be president of the United States, whereas Elon Musk is not.
It seems to me there is no rational argument in which the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment can be justified given the citizenship clause in Article II.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:35 am to TBoy
quote:
For those that are born here, this is their homeland, and the only homeland they know.
Perhaps you have a different understanding of birth tourism than most folks?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:35 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:you could make that same argument for gun ownership in 2026. sure the normal person needed a gun in 1778 people don't need them now.
It made sense in a growing burgeoning huge country that still needed an increasing population to be a productive place.
It makes no sense in our current welfare state.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:39 am to lionward2014
quote:
. Ending it causes children, who through no fault of their own, to be potentially stateless or subject to civil consequences in the US that they did not contribute to.
So the parents get to stay too? Why?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:41 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It seems to me there is no rational argument in which the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment can be justified given the citizenship clause in Article II.
Requirements to be POTUS in order to interpret the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment is literally irrelevant.
Does it create an absurd situation, absolutely, but that's not SCOTUS's job to prevent.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:41 am to DeathValley85
Chew on this factoid.
Since 1990 an estimated 1.5-2 million Chinese babies have been born to non citizens in the US. Many of these babies are then returned to China for their upbringing and when they turn 18 they can legally vote in US federal elections.
Since 1990 an estimated 1.5-2 million Chinese babies have been born to non citizens in the US. Many of these babies are then returned to China for their upbringing and when they turn 18 they can legally vote in US federal elections.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:42 am to KingofthePoint
quote:
So the parents get to stay too? Why?
No? Who said that? If this is an "anchor baby" gotcha attempt, I need you to explain to me, with cites, how "anchor babies" work and confer legal status to the parent.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:43 am to lionward2014
quote:
Requirements to be POTUS in order to interpret the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment is literally irrelevant.
So if the meaning “subject to the jurisdiction” shifts semantically, do we get to relitigate the case based on new definitions?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:49 am to lionward2014
quote:
No? Who said that? If this is an "anchor baby" gotcha attempt, I need you to explain to me, with cites, how "anchor babies" work and confer legal status to the parent.
It’s not that it would confer legal status to the parents. My assumption was that you’d also have a problem with deporting the parents in this scenario. Therefore, you’d be in favor of letting them stay.
If that’s not the case, then I stand corrected.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 11:51 am
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:49 am to DeathValley85
Dem Votes.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:54 am to KingofthePoint
quote:
It’s not that it would confer legal status to the parents. My assumption was that you’d also have a problem with deporting the parents in this scenario. Therefore, you’d be in favor of letting them stay.
If that’s not the case, then I stand corrected.
Depends on the situation. I dislike the idea of mass deportations, but I am not opposed to deportations generally. I am very much in favor of deportations for people with criminal history.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:55 am to the808bass
quote:
So if the meaning “subject to the jurisdiction” shifts semantically, do we get to relitigate the case based on new definitions?
Sure, why not? If suddenly we agree illegals aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US anymore then SCOTUS would be bound to overturn the case today would they not?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:56 am to wookalar1013
quote:
Have you ever worked with a Mexican?
Yes, too many to count.
quote:
Lazy is one of the last words I’d choose
Really? Lazy does describe, not all but many of them. Uneducated is another good one. Still loyal to Mexico is another.
Now, Hispanics who have been in America longer than America has existed is something totally different.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News