- 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 12:39 pm to DeathValley85
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:39 pm to DeathValley85
No good policy argument. Simply the words of the constitution seem to allow it. It’s not good policy.
0
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:43 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Where was this logic when Roberts voted against tariffs that were already collected?
That was hate for the love of the game.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:44 pm to the808bass
quote:Question: When is a fee (specifically designated by Congress as not being a tax) actually a "tax"?
Do the shifts in understanding govern the interpretation of the law?
Answer: When John Roberts interprets it that way.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:47 pm to Byron Bojangles III
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.
So what is your plan Mr. Goose-stepper? Confiscation?
You leftists are all the same…
Confiscation
Subjugation
Elimination
Communazis is truly an appropriate term.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I asked a question. You avoided it. I'll ask it again. What is the premise of the constitutional requirement for natural born citizenship in Article II?
Sure, to avoid dual allegiances.
Now answer mine, how is it a contradiction or relevant?
The Constitution sets the baseline to be POTUS, and as long as Congress doesn't set any other requirements that violate the Constitution there is nothing stopping them from adding requirements. That is a political policy question though, not a matter of constitutional interpretation.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:48 pm to NC_Tigah
What the tweets from @_TheMAGAkrakenAwakens1776_ fail to point out is that the quote from Senator Howard was simply a part of the floor debate during the writing of the 14th amendment. The majority opinion even points out that Howard's stance is directly and explicitly refuted multiple times throughout the floor debate, which is why the language is written as we see it today.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:49 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
What is the premise of the constitutional requirement for natural born citizenship in Article II?
How do we just the Constitution:
1. The actual text
2. The premise
?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:49 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
What the tweets from @_TheMAGAkrakenAwakens1776_ fail to point out is that the quote from Senator Howard was simply a part of the floor debate during the writing of the 14th amendment. The majority opinion even points out that Howard's stance is directly and explicitly refuted multiple times throughout the floor debate, which is why the language is written as we see it today.
Yes. It's such a silly argument.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:49 pm to supatigah
quote:
I dont think TBoy believes in any of this BS
Low-t is a true believer.
I feel quite confident that he would press the button to deliver the gas if a “non-believer “ were in the chamber.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:56 pm to lionward2014
I would suggest that a Commie citizen being imported to become president is a national security matter.
Then again, I’m no leftist.
I have stated repeatedly in the past that China doesn’t work in 4 and 8 year increments.
This decision gives them a pathway to take over down the road.
Then again, I’m no leftist.
I have stated repeatedly in the past that China doesn’t work in 4 and 8 year increments.
This decision gives them a pathway to take over down the road.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:58 pm to DeathValley85
quote:
What's the argument FOR birthright citizenship?
If we had a secure closed border it would make sense.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 1:49 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
I would suggest that a Commie citizen being imported to become president is a national security matter.
Then again, I’m no leftist.
I have stated repeatedly in the past that China doesn’t work in 4 and 8 year increments.
This decision gives them a pathway to take over down the road.
2 things.
1) SCOTUS's job isn't to legislate from the bench.
2) This isn't some recent development, especially in regards to China. Cite to 1 example in the last 160 years where a person who is a only a citizen because of birthright citizenship has risen to power in the US. The best example I can think of is Marco Rubio.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 1:58 pm to boogiewoogie1978
you could have made an argument for it hundreds of years ago, as colonized European settlements were in dire need of people, which is likely why you only see a handful of nations practicing this today - virtually all of them in the "new world".
Posted on 6/30/26 at 1:59 pm to DeathValley85
Birthright citizenship made some sense when most immigrants arrived by ship to a country that wasn’t always keen on respecting the rights of everyone born here.
It makes much less sense now that people fly here for birth vacations or walk across the border so that their kids can get free American schooling and healthcare.
But it’s in the Constitution and there’s a process to change the Constitution.
It makes much less sense now that people fly here for birth vacations or walk across the border so that their kids can get free American schooling and healthcare.
But it’s in the Constitution and there’s a process to change the Constitution.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 2:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Obviously, the latter, else we'd never have changed the meaning of jurisdiction.
How do we just the Constitution:
1. The actual text
2. The premise
?
One could argue in behalf of the Ark ruling that Ark's family was here legally, with full knowledge of the United States, fully participating in the above board economy, and perhaps with the intention to stay here permanently at the time of Ark's birth. Such a position might fall within the scope of jurisdiction in its original intent.
Whereas a birth tourist in no way does. Nor does birth to an illegal alien loyal to her originating country, but taking advantage of lax US law-enforcement, an open border, and a better economy.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 2:04 pm to lionward2014
quote:Given today's ruling, Article II is now undercut so as to no longer avoid dual alliances. Simple as that.
Sure, to avoid dual allegiances.
Now answer mine, how is it a contradiction or relevant?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 2:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Given today's ruling, Article II is now undercut so as to no longer avoid dual alliances. Simple as that.
Today's ruling didn't change anything that has been happening for 160 years though. Again, Congress can, and should, restrict dual nationals from holding elected office. Pretty sure one of the reps from Ohio already proposed a bill for it.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 2:31 pm to lionward2014
quote:Change? No it didn't change anything. It codified it. Until recently, birth tourism was not a thing. It is now, and Roberts & Co clarified it as perfectly legal. Authors of the 14th amendment would vomit.
Today's ruling didn't change anything that has been happening for 160 years though
Posted on 6/30/26 at 2:32 pm to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
sure the normal person needed a gun in 1778 people don't need them now.
Please tell me what reason did the normal person need a firearm in 1778 that does not exist today?
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News