- 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 9:06 am to Lsupimp
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:06 am to Lsupimp
quote:Oh boy.
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.
0
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I've asked you for the case law supporting your argument multiple times.
I’ve never made a claim based on case law. My argument has always been based on the original construction of the amendment. That’s far more interesting to me.
You like discussing case law for obvious reasons. And it’s very important to you. Good for you. I don’t have to argue the issue within the confines that you would like to define.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:10 am to the808bass
SFP believes our founders intended on a political party to import illegals and have a gift bag waiting for them with full rights and protections, more than what Americans are entitled to.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:11 am to the808bass
quote:
I’ve never made a claim based on case law.
Oh
quote:
My argument has always been based on the original construction of the amendment. That’s far more interesting to me.
Suer when literally everything else in the analysis is against you, I see why.
quote:
You like discussing case law for obvious reasons.
We're discussing the legal process in a common law system. Case law is essential to that discussion.
quote:
And it’s very important to you.
No it's very important to the discussion at hand.
I don't even work in a common law system
quote:
I don’t have to argue the issue within the confines that you would like to define.
You're arguing an irrelevancy, which is your right, but you look silly.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:12 am to momentoftruth87
Nah they were more into importing slaves
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:12 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
SFP believes our founders
What do our founders have to do with the 14th Amendment?
quote:
more than what Americans are entitled to.
Now you're just lying. There is no "more".
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:13 am to swamptiger99
You left off the most important part.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The other class isn't really relevant today, but it's for children born in areas occupied by foreign enemies occupying US land. If Children are born there, then they're not US citizens and are citizens of the occupying area.
Uhhhhhh lol
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
more than what Americans are entitled to.
Now you're just lying. There is no "more".
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're arguing an irrelevancy,
You’re arguing that the intent of an amendment is irrelevant. I understand why you think that. You’re not interested in meaning.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:17 am to SlowFlowPro
It IS an ambiguous Amendment in the sense that in a room of five intelligent people, you get five different opinions on what it meant. The wording IS ambiguous.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:17 am to Hester Carries
quote:
Uhhhhhh lol
Illegal immigrants do not fall within the definition of a hostile occupation of US soil from an invading nation.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:18 am to the808bass
quote:
You’re arguing that the intent of an amendment is irrelevant
Because we have 130-ish years of case law, which is how the common law system works.
quote:
I understand why you think that.
Because we're discussing the legal analysis of this EO within our common law system, which requires an analysis of applicable case law.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:18 am to Lsupimp
quote:
It IS an ambiguous Amendment in the sense that in a room of five intelligent people, you get five different opinions on what it meant.
We have 130-ish years of case law (and hundreds of years of British common law prior to that) that understands what it means just fine.
I posted some of that history a page or 2 ago.
I'll post another snippet summarizing it
quote:
The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 18b; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent, Comm. 39, 42.
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 9:20 am
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You try to change the discussion
Pretty sure the OP's angle on this discussion was the original meaning of the amendment and not what courts have ruled it to be.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Could you expand on this part?
recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:22 am to i am dan
The 14th amendment was passed to allow former slaves to be citizens. American Indians did not get that right upon passage. Not even the ones off the reservation. So it didn’t apply to all. It didn’t apply to women.
I understand that if people enter the country legally they have obeyed the laws and have agreed they are subject to American jurisdiction. But are illegal alien invaders acknowledging American jurisdiction when their first act is to break our laws? I guess we will find out.
I understand that if people enter the country legally they have obeyed the laws and have agreed they are subject to American jurisdiction. But are illegal alien invaders acknowledging American jurisdiction when their first act is to break our laws? I guess we will find out.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
(and hundreds of years of British common law prior to that)
"British law established taxation without representation so of course that couldn't have been a major factor in America's revolution."
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You have your opinion. I have mine. Same with Constitutional law experts , the ambiguity of it is the problem. Now you can argue that it’s established law and I can argue that it’s not ( all law is established if it’s the law until suddenly it’s not ) but one thing that 90% of people can agree on is that the LANGUAGE is ambiguous.
You have your opinion. I have mine. Same with Constitutional law experts , the ambiguity of it is the problem. Now you can argue that it’s established law and I can argue that it’s not ( all law is established if it’s the law until suddenly it’s not ) but one thing that 90% of people can agree on is that the LANGUAGE is ambiguous.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:25 am to Lsupimp
quote:
It IS an ambiguous Amendment in the sense that in a room of five intelligent people, you get five different opinions on what it meant. The wording IS ambiguous.
It's really not tho. The 13th and 14th were constructed to make the newly freed slaves full citizens after the Civil War. The authors of the 13th and 14th probably have never heard of the issue of anchor babies.
Anchor baby advocates are just projecting their own meaning on to the 14th.
Page 9 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News