- 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 8:02 am to momentoftruth87
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:02 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
ILLEGALS SHOULD NOT BE HERE. STOP DEFENDING IT!
0
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"The Second Amendment was written when 'arms' were muskets"
This is like saying the 1st amendment was written before the internet
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:04 am to roadGator
quote:
Warning. Giving me a compliment is dangerous for your e cred here.
LOL
Credit where credit is due.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:05 am to Boss
Nah easier to have things done by decree (EO) we don't like having constructive conversations in this country about immigration on either side , Republican and Democrat. Both sides want the issue....and they want it largely unresolved.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:06 am to texag7
quote:
This is like saying the 1st amendment was written before the internet
Exactly. Terrible arguments.
Society changing and the facts changing don't disrupt the legal analysis at hand.
When you start to rely on that argument, you're making the Constitution a "living document" and ignoring textualism and history. This is a Leftist trope that I reject, along with Scalia, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, etc.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:06 am to Penrod
quote:
The object of that exception was to exclude foreign diplomats.
And foreigners and aliens.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:06 am to the808bass
quote:
And foreigners and aliens.
Can you cite the appellate case that states this?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:07 am to texag7
quote:That is EXACTLY what he is saying.quote:This is like saying the 1st amendment was written before the internet
"The Second Amendment was written when 'arms' were muskets"
The Constitution does not change merely because technology or policy changes.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:07 am to momentoftruth87
But if someone is born here they aren’t an illegal according to the constitution and case law.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:09 am to swamptiger99
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.
Why wouldn't his EO be held up?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:11 am to the808bass
quote:
And foreigners and aliens.
Those people ARE subject to our jurisdiction, so no, it was not meant for them.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:12 am to SaintsTiger
He did it because a lot of illegals have US citizen children and bleeding hearts start wailing about separating families when the illegals enter deportation proceedings. Never mind the fact that they knew that they have no legal right to be here when they decided to have kids and that deportation is always a possibility. If the kids are not citizens, then the family can be deported together which should stop the whining about tearing families apart.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:12 am 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.
They are subject to our laws while here just like tourists. Tourists don’t have rights, neither do illegals.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:12 am 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.
They don't like to hear this.
momentum just broke his keyboard having this explained.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:13 am to SlowFlowPro
You're applying modern interpretation to language used over a hundred years ago. What were they really describing with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
The idea of being a documented legal citizen with a drivers license and social security number obviously didn't exist back then so how would they have described the idea of being a "legal US citizen" as we know that term to mean today?
I would say going out of there way to say "subject to the jurisdiction" was them basically saying a person who "belongs" to our government, they didn't have a way to describe modern citizenship as we know it today so the language used in the amendment is wonky when read with a modern understanding of citizenship but its clear they were trying to add caveats to who was and wasn't guaranteed citizenship by birth.
The idea of being a documented legal citizen with a drivers license and social security number obviously didn't exist back then so how would they have described the idea of being a "legal US citizen" as we know that term to mean today?
I would say going out of there way to say "subject to the jurisdiction" was them basically saying a person who "belongs" to our government, they didn't have a way to describe modern citizenship as we know it today so the language used in the amendment is wonky when read with a modern understanding of citizenship but its clear they were trying to add caveats to who was and wasn't guaranteed citizenship by birth.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:13 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
They are subject to our laws while here just like tourists.
Exactly.
That means they're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Which means the text of the 14A says if they have a kid here, it's a citizen.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:15 am to roadGator
This is the way
quote:
Make it as hard as you can for as long as you can.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:15 am to Boss
quote:
But if someone is born here they aren’t an illegal according to the constitution and case law.
With case law doing the really heavy lifting.
The real question is not “what does case law say?” The real question is what is the best path forward for our country?
I believe that it is self-evident and obvious that birthright citizenship is a huge detriment to the fiscal health of our country.
Do you agree? If you do, the real question is how do we get to that destination?
To be clear, it is very obvious that Congress did not write the amendment to have it interpreted it the way the Supreme Court interpreted it and the Supreme Court knew that.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:15 am to SlowFlowPro
And it will be challenged. Idk why you’re so mad that Trump is doing this. As much as you’re arguing for illegals Trump has the right to implement this and be challenged. You keep forgetting that and putting illegals rights over our own.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:17 am to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
You're applying modern interpretation to language used over a hundred years ago.
Of course he is. And he’s explicitly ignoring what they said when they wrote it. “That’s not important.” It’s only not important to people who don’t care about meaning while simultaneously appealing to meaning. This is what is known as sophistry.
Page 4 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News