- 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: Why Trumpsigned EO to end birthright citizenship
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:38 am to prplhze2000
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:38 am to prplhze2000
quote:
so how come 14th didn't apply to Indians?
It shows how there is not certainty on the issue.
The Elk case which said Indians were not citizens followed the dicta in the Slaughterhouse cases where SCOTUS wrote that "subject to its jurisdiction" did not apply to citizens or subjects of foreign states. Elk held that Indians were not subject to its jurisdiction since the Indian owed allegiance to his tribe.
The majority in Wong Kim Ark got out of this by noting
quote:
It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.
Hence, by its own words the holding of Wong Kim Ark only applies to the case presented - namely a person born in the US to a parent permanent domiciled and residing in the US - where they exercise their political rights.
It does not go beyond that.
1
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:38 am to VoxDawg
quote:
Nicely stated.
Then Laken Riley's killer needs to be freed from his illegal detention, as "US law doesn't apply to him" and we have no jurisdiction to prosecute him for killing Laken Riely.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:43 am to JimEverett
quote:
Elk held that Indians were not subject to its jurisdiction since the Indian owed allegiance to his tribe.
The majority in Wong Kim Ark got out of this by noting
This is what the case actually says on the issue:
quote:
That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance'; that by the constitution, as originally established, 'Indians not taxed' were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives in congress and direct taxes were apportioned among the several states, and congress was empowered to regulate commerce, not only 'with foreign nations,' and among the several states, but 'with the Indian tribes'; that the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States; that the alien and dependent condition of the members of one of those tribes could not be put off at their own will, without the action or assent of the United States; and that they were never deemed citizens, except when naturalized, collectively or individually, under explicit provisions of a treaty, or of an act of congress; and, therefore, that 'Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or otehr public ministers of foreign nations.' And it was observed that the language used, in defining citizenship, in the first section of the civil rights act of 1866, by the very congress which framed the fourteenth amendment, was 'all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.' 112 U. S. 99-103, 5 Sup. Ct. 44-46.
How does that not comply with the ruling in WKA?
WKA didn't even make this ruling. It relied on prior precedent that in no way was in opposition to their analysis/ruling.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
historical analysis (like what Scalia preferred).
Except the part where she discusses the court ignoring the Congressional record.
That part absolutely disputes your contention that the case used extensive historical analysis.
quote:
The majority barely addressed the legislative history, except to note without context Senator Cowan’s remarks that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause would be applied equally to all U.S.-born children, regardless of the race of the parents. It refused to address, however, the rest of the debates, which evidence that the equal application of citizenship regardless of race did not equate to the universal application of citizenship regardless of whether the parents were subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:52 am to SlowFlowPro
I actually meant that that was a response to the language used in the Slaughterhouse Cases, not Elk.
Nonetheless, Elk was born in the USA. He was not born to parent of an invader, and he was not born to an ambassador.
There is an argument there that the US did not consent to him to being a citizen for various reasons (legislation, taxes, etc), which is a necessary part of being subject to its jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, Elk was born in the USA. He was not born to parent of an invader, and he was not born to an ambassador.
There is an argument there that the US did not consent to him to being a citizen for various reasons (legislation, taxes, etc), which is a necessary part of being subject to its jurisdiction.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:52 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
The EO is simply what triggers the lawsuit.
Yes, but in a better world, Presidents would not issue EOs they know are wrong. Unfortunately, that weapon is wielded by Democrats, so the Republicans have to do it, too, otherwise we are at a disadvantage.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:59 am to Penrod
quote:
Yes, but in a better world, Presidents would not issue EOs they know are wrong. Unfortunately, that weapon is wielded by Democrats, so the Republicans have to do it, too, otherwise we are at a disadvantage.
If Congress passed legislation denying birthright citizenship then we would almost certainly get an opinion from SCOTUS on the merits.
With the EO it is likely to be struck down for the reason that the President does not have the power to do this via EO.
We will soon see.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:04 pm to JimEverett
quote:
If Congress passed legislation denying birthright citizenship then we would almost certainly get an opinion from SCOTUS on the merits.
A bill has been introduced so maybe there will be movement here. Although it would likely be a major fight in both houses.
Congressman Brian Babin Introduces Bill to End Birthright Citizenship
quote:
Washington, January 21, 2025
Washington, D.C. — Congressman Brian Babin (R-TX), Chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee introduced The Birthright Citizenship Act to restore the 14th Amendment to its original purpose and end the misuse of birthright citizenship. This legislation ensures that automatic citizenship is granted only to children born in the United States with at least one parent who meets one of the following criteria:
A citizen or national of the United States
A lawful permanent resident whose residence is in the United States; or
A lawful immigrant performing active service in the United States Armed Forces.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:05 pm to JimEverett
quote:
If Congress passed legislation denying birthright citizenship then we would almost certainly get an opinion from SCOTUS on the merits.
With the EO it is likely to be struck down for the reason that the President does not have the power to do this via EO.
We will soon see.
I would expect Trump to lose in either case. If the law was passed it would be unconstitutional, or it would not do what Trump wants.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:09 pm to Penrod
I have a little more confidence that if Congress passed a well written law then SCOTUS would uphold it.
Not slam dunk by any means, but a decent chance.
Not slam dunk by any means, but a decent chance.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:13 pm to JoeHackett
with that law - at least the reporting of it - would not require overturning Wong Kim Ark under at least the idea that "subject to its jurisdiction" requires something like "mutual consent" to jurisdiction. Which fits in with the Elk case as well.
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:16 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:Nope. I’ll post it again for ya
Problem with this is that all of those defending this like SFP would rather keep bad laws on the books rather than fix the problem to match the intent.
quote:
I'm no fan of birthright citizenship, for people here illegally. That *badly* needs to be clarified or established. But that can't be done with an EO, any more than the the 2A can be repealed by EO. This is going to require at least a legislative fix, but more likely a constitutional amendment. Let's get *that* done!
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:19 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
When SFP is proven right, they respond with ad homs
quote:Good job proving him right.
You haven’t answered and dodging the question if you’d let illegals in your house ,,,
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:24 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Because it would imply that foreign nationals in the US aren't subject to the jurisdiction of state laws. It would mean that anyone that's not a citizen wouldn't have to follow our laws and be immune from them.
Foreign nationals here legally have to abide by our laws. Implied consent with visas, just as we are subject to host country laws as tourists or expats.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:24 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I have little problem with the "citizenship" of the child born here. But that should have zero impact for the parents or relatives. They have to go back.
I mean that is essentially how the world is now minus a very limited caveat.
Anchor babies are a massive myth, especially under Trump’s first term and the last year of Biden when they realized they were getting slaughtered in the polls over immigration.
Would be happy to do a whole thread about immigration when I have a little more time. Lots of myths and misinformation from both sides about everything.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:26 pm to FedTiger
quote:By this “reasoning” anyone that got caught speeding could use their violation of the traffic laws to show they aren’t subject to murder laws. Seems like a bad idea to me to exempt people from the law for for violating the law.
How about this line of reasoning,
By entering the US illegally, or remaining longer than authorized, the Alien has willfully - by his willful action - declared that US law ("jurisdiction") doesn't apply to him. Therefore, he has placed himself out side of the intended scope of the 14th Amendment relating to jus Soli.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:29 pm to JimEverett
quote:
I have a little more confidence that if Congress passed a well written law then SCOTUS would uphold it.
Not slam dunk by any means, but a decent chance.
A well written law to do what? Contravene the United States Constitution? I think if they passed a law saying that from now on the 14th Amendment shall be interpreted to mean that illegal immigrants are not covered by our jurisdiction, then SCOTUS would respond that Congress was trying to do SCOTUS’ job.
Maybe I’m missing something, but the purpose of the Constitution is to prevent Congress from passing such laws.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:29 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
Except the part where she discusses the court ignoring the Congressional record.
As I said (and you did not quote)
Textualism specifically rejects this. See Scalia quote above.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:34 pm to Penrod
quote:
A well written law to do what? Contravene the United States Constitution? I think if they passed a law saying that from now on the 14th Amendment shall be interpreted to mean that illegal immigrants are not covered by our jurisdiction, then SCOTUS would respond that Congress was trying to do SCOTUS’ job.
Maybe I’m missing something, but the purpose of the Constitution is to prevent Congress from passing such laws.
Simply put - a law that Congress believes complies with the Constitution.
Perhaps like the one talked about above. At a minimum you are likely to get SCOTUS to rule on such a law on its merits.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 12:36 pm to SaintsTiger
Well considering it was written and added in the context of confirming slaves born in America were citizens, I don't see how it applies to Maria or Ling Ting who just snuck over the border.
Page 15 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News