- 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 8:18 am to BuckeyeGoon
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:18 am to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
You're applying modern interpretation to language used over a hundred years ago.
No.
I'm applying the language of a Supreme Court ruling from 1898.
quote:
What were they really describing with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
For today's contexts, it's anyone who isn't a full diplomat. The case has another class of person but it's not relevant today.
quote:
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?
Now you're trying to make the Constitution a 'living document' and making the argument that Leftists use with the 2A ("The 2A only protects muskets of the time the 2A was written")
quote:
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
That's not what it means, and I doubt you'd like the result of this being the meaning. For example, Laken Riley's killer would be let free.
quote:
they didn't have a way to describe modern citizenship as we know it today
Just because Congress has changed our immigration laws doesn't mean the Constitution changed for citizenship.
Again, this is the "assault weapon" of your argument (as gun technology also changed over time after the 2A was passed).
quote:
so the language used in the amendment is wonky when read with a modern understanding of citizenship
No we still have diplomats and ambassadors today who are not subject to US jurisdiction (and whose children born here are not US citizens).
Nothing has changed.
2
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:18 am to momentoftruth87
It’s not at all clear he even cares about the outcome or the issue. He is just getting his endorphins moving.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nothing has changed.
Sure it has. American Indians are citizens.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:19 am to the808bass
quote:
With case law doing the really heavy lifting.
The US is a common law system. That's how it works.
quote:
The real question is not “what does case law say?” The real question is what is the best path forward for our country?
"The constitution is a living document"
quote:
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?
Amendment.
quote:
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.
Assumption not in evidence.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:20 am to SaintsTiger
One of those things right now that the SC could probably agree with.
I generally like immigration as long as it's done legally.
But, the birther thing, we're no longer at a point (and haven't been for a long time) where we can instantly offer the same benefits of citizenship to these people.
It needs to end.
We are literally the easiest country to immigrate to if done legally.
Why should it be any easier to come here than it is to go to Canada, UK or any country that isn't yet a shite hole in Europe?
I generally like immigration as long as it's done legally.
But, the birther thing, we're no longer at a point (and haven't been for a long time) where we can instantly offer the same benefits of citizenship to these people.
It needs to end.
We are literally the easiest country to immigrate to if done legally.
Why should it be any easier to come here than it is to go to Canada, UK or any country that isn't yet a shite hole in Europe?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:21 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
Idk why you’re so mad that Trump is doing this.
I'm not mad Mr. "posted in all caps in a rage a few pages back"
quote:
. As much as you’re arguing for illegals
I'm not. I'm explaining the law.
If you want the law changed, the Constitution needs to be amended.
quote:
Trump has the right to implement this and be challenged.
I never have said otherwise.
quote:
You keep forgetting that
I have not. You're just lyign in frustration
quote:
putting illegals rights over our own.
The rights apply to everyone, legal or illegal, citizen or non-citizen. There is no "over"
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The US is a common law system. That's how it works.
I’m aware. Thanks.
quote:
Assumption not in evidence.
The frick it isn’t. Have a good day, crazy boy.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:21 am to SlowFlowPro
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.
That's like saying if I'm a resident of Arizona and I commit a crime in Ohio I'm not "under the jurisdiction" of Ohio.
Anyone who is in our country IS subject to our laws but that doesn't make them citizens.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:23 am to the808bass
quote:
Of course he is.
I'm literally not.
quote:
And he’s explicitly ignoring what they said when they wrote it.
Because, even if it said what you claim it did, which is in dispute, it is irrelevant. One person in the process making a claim doesn't invalidate Supreme Court precedent.
quote:
. This is what is known as sophistry.
This is what's known as you disliking a law and trying to rage on the legal system because you're unable to understand how it works, so you devolve to ad hom attacks.
It's your thing now. Raging ignorance and then insulting out of the frustration of loss. Maybe you'lll get back to reality one day.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:23 am to Penrod
quote:Call me crazy... but asserting that illegal aliens aren't subject to state jurisdictions seems like a bad idea.
Those people ARE subject to our jurisdiction, so no, it was not meant for them.
I mean, imagine having 20 million people here that are immune from state laws and cannot be charged with any crime. I mean, we kinda have that now and it's not working out very well. 
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:24 am to SaintsTiger
The author of the 14A specifically stated that what we now know as anchor babies were not included in their decision:
Edited to correct author note
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Edited to correct author note
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 8:43 am
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:24 am to the808bass
quote:
It’s not at all clear he even cares about the outcome or the issue.
It's not about caring. I'm explaining the law.
More evidence of your devolution. Conflating these things is for people like momentum who are slow.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:24 am to VoxDawg
quote:
The author of the SCOTUS opinion
On brand as usual
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not about caring.
Thanks for confirming.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It's tough interrupting the reality show experience. I've long said this is why Trump needs a legislative agenda, not an EO agenda. But that just gets me labeled a Biden voter.
They don't like to hear this.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:25 am to texag7
quote:
This is like saying the 1st amendment was written before the internet
Indeed. Whenever they carry on that the Founders could never imagine modern weaponry, it's usually a good time to remind them that they also couldn't imagine a nation where women could vote, either.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:25 am to the808bass
quote:
Sure it has. American Indians are citizens.
What does that have to do with this issue?
That wasn't decided by an overruling precedent. WKA specifically discusses that path, which happened decades after the ruling.
There is no conflict.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:26 am to JBlutarsky
quote:
That's like saying if I'm a resident of Arizona and I commit a crime in Ohio I'm not "under the jurisdiction" of Ohio.
That's what the people making that argument are saying, yes.
See how silly it is?
quote:
Anyone who is in our country IS subject to our laws but that doesn't make them citizens.
No it doesn't. But if they have kids while here, those kids are citizens.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because, even if it said what you claim it did, which is in dispute, it is irrelevant.
It is legally irrelevant because Chief Justice Gray declared it to be irrelevant. It is not in dispute that it was their intent. You can read all about it in books where real stuff happens.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:27 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
It's tough interrupting the reality show experience. I've long said this is why Trump needs a legislative agenda, not an EO agenda.
yep.
Its a dog and pony show. The next guy will undo all Trumps EO's like trump undid Joes.
Its no way to govern, but it excites the masses.
Page 5 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News