- 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
1
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:52 am to SaintsTiger
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
Legal question - why is it written "and" but interpreted "or"?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:53 am to the808bass
quote:I mean, but it' obvious. If BIden had said "I'm siging and EO that bans assault weapons"... A ruling for SOCTUS could confirm that has to be done through amendment. But what's the point? Why waste the time, when we could be doing something that will work? Have we learned nothing? Look at what Scott Pressler accomplished in PA. Trump has the momentum get the damn amendment done! We need to get isht done, not some pointless showmanship.
But a ruling from the Supreme Court could confirm that it has to be done through amendment.
quote:Unfortunately not much.
Should Congress pass a law instead to see if would get through the Supreme Court? What would be the practical difference between that and an EO?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:55 am to Rex Feral
SCOTUS will indeed rule but it will be against him, probably 7-2 or 8-1. The language in the 14th is unambiguous.
Federal courts will probably stay the executive order as it winds its way through the courts.
Federal courts will probably stay the executive order as it winds its way through the courts.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:56 am to the808bass
quote:
Oh. I thought you meant the original amendment. My bad. You meant the text of the ruling on the amendment.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:58 am to Jbird
No one says they have to be separated. The offspring can remain with parents in their mother country.
Unless part of US citizenship requires citizens to stay in the US indefinitely, which we know it doesn’t.
Unless part of US citizenship requires citizens to stay in the US indefinitely, which we know it doesn’t.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:59 am to 4cubbies
Anchor Babies are a thing Cubbies, if not why pay to birth in America?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:01 am to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
We're talking about a time period where a good amount of the US population was still 1st or 2nd generation immigrants from Europe
"We're talking about a time period when the only personal arms were muskets"
quote:
The whole idea of who was and wasn't a citizen based on the modern idea of being a citizen of country didn't really exist.
You should read WKA. It gets into the history of this (and you're wrong).
quote:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
quote:
In Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: 'The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicile.' Page 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage rei ed on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: 'The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions,—one by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.' And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicile (domicilium), the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which 'the personal rights of the party—that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy— must depend,' he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country (patria), and his 'nationality,—that is, natural allegiance,'—'may depend on different laws in different countries.' Pages 457, 460. He evidently used the word 'citizen,' not as equivalent to 'subject,' but rather to 'inhabitant'; and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.
13
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: 'By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.' Cockb. Nat. 7.
14
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: "British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. 'Permanent' allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes 'temporary' allegiance to the crown. 'Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' 'Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.' The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: '(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.' '(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.' And he adds: 'The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of Enl and; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.'
Continued in next post
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
16
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
17
In the early case of The Charming Betsy (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying: 'Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can devest himself absolutely of that character, otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law, is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.' 2 Cranch, 64, 119.
18
In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1830) 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York, about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said: 'It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the colonies of North America, while subject to the crown of Great Britain, were natural-born British subjects.' Id. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: 'He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the state of New York.'
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:01 am to Jbird
I’m asking what makes them “anchors.”
I’ve heard the term but people say all kinds of crazy things that aren’t true all the time.
I’ve heard the term but people say all kinds of crazy things that aren’t true all the time.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:01 am to Taxing Authority
And that is the issue with today's politics. All of these EO can simply be rolled back. The role of the President is not to legislate. That is Congress's role. They should put up an amendment and fix the issue.
I feel like the judicial legislates form the bench, the executive legislates through EO, and the legislature does jack shite.
I feel like the judicial legislates form the bench, the executive legislates through EO, and the legislature does jack shite.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:02 am to Bigdawgb
quote:
Legal question - why is it written "and" but interpreted "or"?
It's not.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:03 am to SlowFlowPro
Interesting. You use white flag as a coping mechanism.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:03 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I’m asking what makes them “anchors.”
Anchor baby is a term (regarded by some as a pejorative[1][2]) used to refer to a child born to non-citizen parents in a country that has birthright citizenship which will therefore help the parents and other family members gain legal residency[3] or avoid deportation. In the U.S
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:04 am to SaintsTiger
If you want to end it you’ll need
a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
We’ve had it for over 150 years. Most people don’t care.
.
a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
We’ve had it for over 150 years. Most people don’t care.
.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:05 am to swamptiger99
Unfortunately, It’s an ambiguous Amendment. Nobody anticipated air travel and mass illegal immigration. It may very well be that the conflict between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law require a SCOTUS interpretation.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:05 am to the808bass
quote:
You use white flag as a coping mechanism.
No. I've asked you for the case law supporting your argument multiple times.
You try to change the discussion. That's white flag. You're giving up on providing the case law.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:05 am to VOR
quote:
Most people don’t care.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:05 am to VOR
quote:
Most people don’t care.
You really live in a bubble.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:06 am to Lsupimp
quote:
It’s an ambiguous Amendment.
It is not.
quote:
Nobody anticipated air travel and mass illegal immigration.
This is true, but nobody at the time of writing the 2A anticipated assault rifles.
quote:
It may very well be that the conflict between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law require a SCOTUS interpretation.
This is arguing for a "Living Constitution"
Page 8 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News