- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Y'all know damn well the intent of the 14thA wasn't for anchor babies
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:26 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:26 am
The fact that some people think this is actually up for debate is ridiculous. This was NOT meant to give river swimmers and preggo Chinese "tourists" legal standing to remain in our country.
If YOU are here illegally, your spawn is here illegally.
End
Of
Story
If YOU are here illegally, your spawn is here illegally.
End
Of
Story
8
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:28 am to bamarep
quote:
Y'all know damn well the intent of the 14thA wasn't for anchor babies
well yeah because they didn't have immigration laws at that time. want to go back there, too, in order to make it all consistent?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:29 am to SlowFlowPro
Don't need to as written it eliminates anchor babies
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:30 am to bamarep
I am thrilled that the right is now reviewing the Constitution with a nuanced eye toward "intent."
This should be good.
This should be good.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:36 am to SleauxPlay
Funny, but in this case you don’t have to wrestle with intent, as the author of the amendment wrote about his intent when it was introduced.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:36 am to SleauxPlay
Yep. I actually get in this fight a lot in my line of work.
So you’re saying no one intended this result? Should have spelled that out a little more clearly.
So you’re saying no one intended this result? Should have spelled that out a little more clearly.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:38 am to Lou the Jew from LSU
quote:
Funny, but in this case you don’t have to wrestle with intent, as the author of the amendment wrote about his intent when it was introduced.
I'm certain that esteemed Constitutional scholar, BamaRep, took this into consideration before posting.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:39 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
I am thrilled that the right is now reviewing the Constitution with a nuanced eye toward "intent." This should be good.
Not according to SCOTUS precedent.
Elk v. Wilkins, (1884), when the Court held that a Native person born a citizen of a recognized tribal nation was not born an American citizen and did not become one simply by voluntarily leaving his tribe and settling among whites. The syllabus of the decision explained that a Native person "who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution."
So if an Indian who’s ancestors had been born within the borders of the USA for ten thousand years was a foreign national. An illegal invader’s child doesn’t have a shot.
Now we all know libtards love them some Roe precedent, but I wonder how they like the taste of Elk?
Was that good?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:40 am to bamarep
Of course it wasn't... That is a lie of the left.
"Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
"Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 7:41 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:43 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
I'm certain that esteemed Constitutional scholar, BamaRep, took this into consideration before posting.
What are your legal credentials?
Also...you won’t like what Lou is saying. The authors of the Amendment wrote what “subject to the jurisdiction” meant. The Supreme Court has somewhat opined on it. Your ignorance to those facts combined with you mocking someone else’s legal acumen is pretty fun so watch. Typical.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:43 am to bamarep
quote:
Y'all know damn well the intent of the 14thA wasn't for anchor babies
I have yet to see a single person make that claim, can you please provide a link?
What I do see people discussing is that a amendment written before there really were immigration laws needs cleaning up and clarifying, on this I agree and it should have been done long ago.
I don't want anyone trying to decide intent, that should not even be a consideration.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:44 am to bamarep
I don’t think anyone disagrees, but that’s not how it works. If there was ANY language like what the original writer had in mind, there would be a good chance....but that’s not how it was written. Again, if Congress were to pass it as law and it went up through SCzoTUS that way, it cooooould get through, but don’t see anyway an EO will get it done.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:44 am to bamarep
quote:
If YOU are here illegally, your spawn is here illegally.
Stop being so racist, you fascist scum!!!
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:45 am to Music_City_Tiger
quote:
not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty
Facts are a mfer
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:48 am to bamarep
quote:
Y'all know damn well the intent of the 14thA wasn't for anchor babies
Man, I sure am glad they don't apply that logic to 2A and all those muskets they had then.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:50 am to FalseProphet
quote:
Should have spelled that out a little more clearly.
Do you really think our forefathers should have known that the ACLU types would come along a 150 years later since it would rear its ugly head also? Maybe they should have gone ahead and invented the internet back then too.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:57 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Do you really think our forefathers should have known that the ACLU types would come along a 150 years later since it would rear its ugly head also? Maybe they should have gone ahead and invented the internet back then too.
See the post above yours and bathe in the glorious inconsistency of these arguments. The right are only strict textualists when it serves their immediate political needs.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:11 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
I'm certain that esteemed Constitutional scholar, BamaRep, took this into consideration before posting.
You're right dipshit. I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer but Mark Levin is and this is his interpretation so frick off.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:06 am to bamarep
quote:
re: Y'all know damn well the intent of the 14thA wasn't for anchor babies
Judge Nap on Fox right now cucking to high heaven.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:07 am to bamarep
While true that doesn’t mean it’s the end all be all for Constitutional interpretation
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News