- 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
Bestowing citizenship to spawn of ILLEGALS needs to be ADDRESSED before anything else
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:46 pm
That’s where I start.
These illegals come over here and have a court date some years in the future (wherein they won’t attend) anyway, impregnate Maribell, and low and behold we got an anchor baby and no way of getting rid of Jose and Maribel because they wisely used our the un litigated “natural born” person citizenship provision of our Constitution.
These amigos and amigas know what’s up and they spray guts with this knowledge.
This needs to end.
These illegals come over here and have a court date some years in the future (wherein they won’t attend) anyway, impregnate Maribell, and low and behold we got an anchor baby and no way of getting rid of Jose and Maribel because they wisely used our the un litigated “natural born” person citizenship provision of our Constitution.
These amigos and amigas know what’s up and they spray guts with this knowledge.
This needs to end.
12
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:47 pm to Covingtontiger77
quote:
This needs to end.
Then amend the Constitution.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:as if you libtards give a shite about the constitution
Then amend the Constitution.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
Constitutional scholars have argued that this provision and its meaning has not been truly litigated in the context of parents in the US Illegally.
For example, spawn of diplomats DO NOT get automatic citizenship here in the US.
National affairs.com
The Hill: Why birthright citizenship may not apply to children of illegals
This needs to be hashed out.
For example, spawn of diplomats DO NOT get automatic citizenship here in the US.
quote:
If an unauthorized alien gives birth to a child on American soil, is the child automatically a United States citizen? Americans have long assumed that the answer is yes — that the child is a birthright citizen regardless of the parent's legal status, and that such citizenship is required and guaranteed by the Constitution. But a closer examination of the matter suggests that this answer is actually incorrect, and that birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants here illegally is better understood as a matter for Congress and the American people to resolve.
National affairs.com
The Hill: Why birthright citizenship may not apply to children of illegals
This needs to be hashed out.
This post was edited on 1/8/24 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:50 pm to faraway
quote:
as if you libtards
wut
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:51 pm to Covingtontiger77
quote:
For example, spawn of diplomats DO NOT get automatic citizenship here in the US.
Pretty sure that's directly covered by the language of the 14A
This has been litigated before with some USSC jurisprudence
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
The diplomat issue has been settled.
Read the two articles I linked.
Spawn of Illegals and their kids have not.
Read the two articles I linked.
Spawn of Illegals and their kids have not.
This post was edited on 1/8/24 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 1/8/24 at 3:58 pm to Covingtontiger77
Birthright citizenship makes as much sense as giving every burglar the title to a home after they break in.
It seems like the only inhabitable countries with this law are the US and Canada. Screw that.
ETA:
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, when nobody envisioned A-380's packed full of 8-1/2 month pregnant birthright tourists deplaning at LAX.
And the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, when nobody could envision killing a school full of kids in twenty minutes with your flintlock pistol and musket.
It seems like the only inhabitable countries with this law are the US and Canada. Screw that.
ETA:
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, when nobody envisioned A-380's packed full of 8-1/2 month pregnant birthright tourists deplaning at LAX.
And the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, when nobody could envision killing a school full of kids in twenty minutes with your flintlock pistol and musket.
This post was edited on 1/8/24 at 4:17 pm
Posted on 1/8/24 at 4:13 pm to ZenitSP97
quote:
How about we amend our firearms and send shitbags like you packing
Posted on 1/8/24 at 4:15 pm to Covingtontiger77
They are breaking the laws, the people allowing this are criminals too. What part of addressing rights of citizenship makes this legal suddenly?
Posted on 1/8/24 at 4:24 pm to Covingtontiger77
AMEN.
I'd say if we have to approve on that obnoxious fricking spending sellout that Johnson just negotiated (cough capitulated), he could maybe sell it by saying fine, I'll bring my votes to pay to "improve border security" whatever the hell that means, if you (1) devote 90% of the funds into deportation efforts; and (2) you vote yes on a bill that says end Anchor Babies.
I'd say if we have to approve on that obnoxious fricking spending sellout that Johnson just negotiated (cough capitulated), he could maybe sell it by saying fine, I'll bring my votes to pay to "improve border security" whatever the hell that means, if you (1) devote 90% of the funds into deportation efforts; and (2) you vote yes on a bill that says end Anchor Babies.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 4:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
as if you statists
Fixed it for him.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 4:28 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Fixed it for him.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 5:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This has been litigated before with some USSC jurisprudence
nope
Posted on 1/8/24 at 6:00 pm to Covingtontiger77
1. You don't need to amend the Constitution to fix this.
2. EO will suffice.
3. 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to anchor babies. The people that drafted it made that clear a long time ago.
4. Court cases that addressed stuff with diplomats and Native Americans leave no doubt that the 14th Amendment is not a blanket provision for citizenship just through birth inside our borders.
5. No SCOTUS cases have given anchor babies citizenship. This all comes from a footnote. It's not a holding. It's nothing. It's a synaptic misfire by a dumbass in a robe.
5. Congress has not formalized this.
6. The American people never voted for it.
I hate to cite Ann Coulter since she has apparently gone fully insane recently, but she has laid this out in detail for years. And not once has anyone provided evidence to refute her work, her citations, etc. It was less than a year ago that Ann was still putting out very good work, talking about immigration, 2nd Amendment issues etc. Something happened to her.
Trump could have signed that EO but he's a bitch and a coward.
Here is Ann...I converted a pdf to Word so the line breaks wouldn't be jacked up but it may produce a few typos.
Link to Ann's column
Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies
by: Ann Coulter August 4, 2010
Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.
The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.
In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.
The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves - many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.
The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "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."
The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)
Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.
But they did.
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians - because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement - who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.
Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some quali`cation to be here other than "lives within walking distance."
But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.
Combine Justice Brennan's footnote with America's ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.
Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:
"Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa ... gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than
$300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa's 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. ... The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies."
In the Silverios' muni`cent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.
It's bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists.
In the case of "anchor babies," America is being governed by Brennan's 1982 footnote.
2. EO will suffice.
3. 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to anchor babies. The people that drafted it made that clear a long time ago.
4. Court cases that addressed stuff with diplomats and Native Americans leave no doubt that the 14th Amendment is not a blanket provision for citizenship just through birth inside our borders.
5. No SCOTUS cases have given anchor babies citizenship. This all comes from a footnote. It's not a holding. It's nothing. It's a synaptic misfire by a dumbass in a robe.
5. Congress has not formalized this.
6. The American people never voted for it.
I hate to cite Ann Coulter since she has apparently gone fully insane recently, but she has laid this out in detail for years. And not once has anyone provided evidence to refute her work, her citations, etc. It was less than a year ago that Ann was still putting out very good work, talking about immigration, 2nd Amendment issues etc. Something happened to her.
Trump could have signed that EO but he's a bitch and a coward.
Here is Ann...I converted a pdf to Word so the line breaks wouldn't be jacked up but it may produce a few typos.
Link to Ann's column
Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies
by: Ann Coulter August 4, 2010
Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.
The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.
In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.
The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves - many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.
The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "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."
The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)
Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.
But they did.
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians - because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement - who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.
Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some quali`cation to be here other than "lives within walking distance."
But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.
Combine Justice Brennan's footnote with America's ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.
Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:
"Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa ... gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than
$300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa's 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. ... The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies."
In the Silverios' muni`cent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.
It's bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists.
In the case of "anchor babies," America is being governed by Brennan's 1982 footnote.
This post was edited on 1/10/24 at 12:26 am
Posted on 1/8/24 at 6:08 pm to Covingtontiger77
Very Christian of you.
Posted on 1/8/24 at 7:05 pm to Covingtontiger77
If two German shepherds have a puppy in the Labrador kennel does it make the puppy a Labrador? Nope!
Posted on 1/8/24 at 7:06 pm to BayouBaw84
quote:
BayouBaw84
Stupid
Posted on 1/8/24 at 8:03 pm to Covingtontiger77
Agreed. Their parents can collect welfare benefits on their behalf and the bleeding hearts will object to the deportation of the parents because it separates the families.
Posted on 1/9/24 at 4:04 pm to Powerman
quote:Why? Explain to me how two foreigners making a baby in the USA makes that baby American? Hint. It doesn’t. It’s the dumbest thing that we allow this shite to happen in the USA.
Stupid
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News