- 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 2:53 pm to Penrod
Posted on 1/22/25 at 2:53 pm to Penrod
quote:
No, there does not have to be a way. The Constitution of the United States says that they are citizens. We have ample precedent that they are citizens. An EO would be defeated 9-0 at SCOTUS, because it is plainly wrong.
Interpreting the constitution is one of the jobs of the Supreme Court.
Many constitutional scholars believe the wording is imprecise and needs to be clarified. If it is defeated, then so be it, but this is how the system works.
2
Posted on 1/22/25 at 2:58 pm to SaintsTiger
Posted on 1/22/25 at 3:23 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Interpreting the constitution is one of the jobs of the Supreme Court.
Many constitutional scholars believe the wording is imprecise and needs to be clarified. If it is defeated, then so be it, but this is how the system works.
Congress can pass a law clarifying the definition relative to the 14th's original intent and define legal immigrants getting birthright citizenship and illegal aliens not.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 3:31 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
Congress can pass a law clarifying the definition relative to the 14th's original intent and define legal immigrants getting birthright citizenship and illegal aliens not.
They can try, but if it differs from what SCOTUS believes was the intent of that amendment, then it will be struck down.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 3:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
"to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people."
That makes sense. Something written in the 18th century against the backdrop of English law and legal thought, should be interpreted that way.
Death penalty / 8th Amendment case
6th Amendment case
2nd Amendment case
It seems reasonable to consult English sources when asked to discern the meaning of a constitutional text written against the backdrop of 18th-century English law and legal thought in these particular cases.
However...
quote:
It is of course true that we share a common history with the United Kingdom, and that we often consult English sources when asked to discern the meaning of a constitutional text written against the backdrop of 18th-century English law and legal thought
That makes sense. Something written in the 18th century against the backdrop of English law and legal thought, should be interpreted that way.
quote:
Roper v. Simmons
Death penalty / 8th Amendment case
quote:
Crawford v. Washington
6th Amendment case
quote:
Heller
2nd Amendment case
It seems reasonable to consult English sources when asked to discern the meaning of a constitutional text written against the backdrop of 18th-century English law and legal thought in these particular cases.
However...
Posted on 1/22/25 at 3:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They did no such thing.
Control Substance Act is still federal law.
Marijuana is still regulated by the CSA.
Marijuana is legal in California.
So, no technically they haven't, but they ignore the CSA and do whatever they want and the FED does nothing to correct them. This isn't technically nullification, but it's as good as.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 3:53 pm to Penrod
quote:
The Constitution of the United States says that they are citizens. We have ample precedent that they are citizens.
The 2nd Amemdment also says, "shall not be infringed" but I guarantee there's been infringement by the state irrespective of the state in which you reside.
And I know... shall not be infringed doesn't REALLY mean shall not be infringed.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 3:55 pm to Kjnstkmn
quote:Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Wow a discount divorce scholar told us this was never a thing and illegals have rights. Shocked I tell ya !
Posted on 1/22/25 at 4:00 pm to Salviati
quote:
They agreed that the Citizenship Clause does not apply to Indians. Specifically, Senator Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law.
Right.
quote:
Trumbull argued Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction for the reason the United States deals with them through treaties. This is also exactly how the United States deals with aliens from other nations as well; they enter into treaties with other countries to define legal rights of their citizens while within the limits of the United States and vice versa. Example: A treaty with China prohibited the United States from naturalizing Chinese citizens.
Is there a treaty between the U.S. and Mexico or any other country that states if a foreign national is within the borders of the U.S. when their child is born, that child is a U.S. citizen? Because there are historical documents that state otherwise. Including the Revised Statutes.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 4:35 pm to Salviati
quote:
and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law.
Except they were subject to US law, even when they were on reservations under specific circumstances.
quote:
For many years the policy of the United States was to give the Indians themselves jurisdiction of crimes committed by one Indian against another of the same tribe, and accordingly it was uniformly held that the United States courts had no jurisdiction of such crimes. United States v. Rogers, 4 How. 567, 11 L.Ed. 1105 (1846) ; Nofire v. United States, 164 U.S. 657, 17 Sup. Ct. 212, 41 L.Ed. 588 (1897). Neither the federal or state courts had jurisdiction of these offenses, such offenses being punishable solely by the laws of the tribe. Ex parte Kan-gi-shim-ca, 109 U.S. 556, 3 Sup. Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030 (1883) ; Act March 3, 1885 (23 St. at L. 385) ; Pen. Code § 328. This original policy was changed in 1885 when Congress conferred jurisdiction on the federal courts of the more serious crimes committed by an Indian against another Indian or other person within the limits of an Indian reservation located within a state, and on territorial courts when the reservation was located within the limits of a territory Kitto v. State, 98 Neb. 164, 152 N.W. 380 (1915); United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 6 Sup. Ct. 1109, 30 L.Ed. 228 (1886).
Posted on 1/22/25 at 6:53 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
The 2nd Amendment also says
That’s an excellent point. Technology made the second amendment an anachronism, and SCOTUS let it ride.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 7:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[125] the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[1] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[3][126][127] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).[2][63] The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China".[128]
Can't the court add a fifth exception to include children born to parents illegally inside the United States?
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 7:32 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:28 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Can't the court add a fifth exception to include children born to parents illegally inside the United States?
And/or asylum seekers.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:34 am to SaintsTiger
The EO will not overturn the 14th Amendment and subsequent court decisions and federal legislation.
Reality
Reality
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:38 am to VOR
VOR with a chubby over anchor babies.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:43 am to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
And/or asylum seekers.
Assuming that a Cout is willing to say that those here illegally are not covered by the 14th Amendment then the issue of asylum seekers could be problematic.
Are they here illegally? There is good evidence that the U.S. government over the last 4 years actively invited them to the U.S. and acknowledged their presence without kicking them out. In fact, they gave them all sorts of welfare.
Might be a case where you need something even stronger if you want to deny birthright citizenship to the children of that entire class of aliens.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:53 am to JimEverett
quote:
Assuming that a Cout is willing to say that those here illegally are not covered by the 14th Amendment then the issue of asylum seekers could be problematic.
An asylum seeker is still a subject to a foreign power. Until they are naturalized, they aren't citizens.
I wouldn't mind actual asylum seekers having a carve out in the system, but that individual must meet the definition of a refugee as established by the Immigration and Naturalization Act to be considered for asylum.
And if the refugee is granted asylum and becomes a citizen, they should have to have their children naturalized as well. End chain migration.
My cousin was adopted from a foreign country when he was 9 months old. My uncle had to have my cousin naturalized. He didn't become a citizen just because my uncle adopted him. This is the way for asylum seekers as well.
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 8:56 am
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:55 am to VOR
quote:
The EO will not overturn the 14th Amendment and subsequent court decisions and federal legislation.
It won't be overturning the 14th Amendment. The EO will birth a court case that will hopefully bring some clarity to the 14th Amemdment.
Our founders didn't ascribe to birthright citizenship.
Our SCOTUS today shouldn't either.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:02 am to Gideon Swashbuckler
Yeah - I get that and agree.
I guess what I was getting at is whether t is possible to deny the asylum seekers birthright citizenship given the Supreme Court rulings.
An asylum seeker - basically by definition - is trying to set up the US as a permanent domicile. Combine that with the fact (assuming this just for the argument) that the U.S. has consented to them being here then their case seems to be just like that of Wong Kim Ark.
Certainly SCOTUS could overturn that case and others - I should have been a little more clear in my point.
I guess what I was getting at is whether t is possible to deny the asylum seekers birthright citizenship given the Supreme Court rulings.
An asylum seeker - basically by definition - is trying to set up the US as a permanent domicile. Combine that with the fact (assuming this just for the argument) that the U.S. has consented to them being here then their case seems to be just like that of Wong Kim Ark.
Certainly SCOTUS could overturn that case and others - I should have been a little more clear in my point.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:08 am to SaintsTiger
quote:
He knows it will get overturned
Why? Clearly the intent of the language in the constitution was not to allow an invasion under “legal” pretense.
Page 17 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News