- 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
1
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:45 am to mikesliveisacheater
quote:
they have reason to think that Roberts and ACB will side with the liberals again.
If I was in Vegas, I'd bet on it. Both are useless.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:47 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Again, the definitional issue is "jurisdiction." Indians definitively fell under US jurisdiction at the time of Ark. Yet, they were deemed otherwise in the 1898 finding, and therefore not entitled to the birthright according to SCOTUS.
Because they had their own nations. It's an idiosyncratic example that has no bearing on life today or the ruling otherwise.
quote:
The question is whether a foreign migrant who circumvents US Jurisdiction
The migrant never "circumvents US jurisdiction" and the illegals are always under US jurisdiction. Otherwise, we couldn't prosecute them for crimes.
quote:
Dems who insist illegal immigrants have broken no law, obviously feel the migrants fall outside of normal jurisdiction.
Who has argued they fall outside of normal jurisdiction?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Anyone who claims they've committed no crime.
Who has argued they fall outside of normal jurisdiction?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:They fell under US jurisdiction on or off the reservation.
Because they had their own nations.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:54 am to scrooster
When the ACLU bitches about your actions you are typically doing the right thing
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:54 am to GumboPot
quote:
Do you have a link of their purported opinions on this issue?
I have a link about their purported preferred interpretation, which is what I actually said.
quote:
And is someone hypocritical if they change position based on new data?
This is about interpretative philosophy. Facts don't matter.
Facts changing causing interpretive changes makes the Constitution a "living document"
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 8:54 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Anyone who claims they've committed no crime.
That's incorrect.
I haven't committed any crimes recently and I presume you haven't either. Are we not subject to jurisdiction of the US/states?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
They fell under US jurisdiction on or off the reservation.
Not per the Supreme Court, in a ruling that has never been overturned.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:01 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Claiming that a person has not committed a crime is not the same as saying the person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the government.quote:Anyone who claims they've committed no crime.
Who has argued they fall outside of normal jurisdiction?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:05 am to scrooster
well this is the USA, unless you are the USACLU you can go f@ck yourself.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:17 am to scrooster
I do not think it is THAT hard. There is no need to overturn Wong Kim Ark in order to hold that people born in the USA to a parent here illegally are not citizens. So, in that respect it is "easier" than holding that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:19 am to Salviati
quote:
Salviati
Is SFP
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:20 am to POTUS2024
quote:quote:
The Trump administration's order argues the 14th Amendment "has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'"
They should be careful with this. Alien Enemies Act can be brought in to make things very painful here.
I'm sure you've written your opinion on this somewhere, but I've missed it. Gist of what you mean here? TIA.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:20 am to JackieTreehorn
I bet he has at least one cousin named Chuy
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Correct.
They fell under US jurisdiction on or off the reservation.
----
Not per the Supreme Court
They fell under jurisdiction (as is your claim with illegals), but not according to SCOTUS.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:23 am to scrooster
quote:
frick the ACLU ... they're a commie organization.
Agreed, but this was part of the plan. They knew this was coming. Put birthright citizenship in front of the USSC. Maybe it wins, maybe it loses, but at least put forth the effort to try and solve this travesty.
I still think much of it could be solved at the department level. Make it known that anyone with an anchor baby will be the first to be deported. Make the entire concept toxic.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because they had their own nations.
And illegal aliens don’t? Get the frick out of here.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:25 am to Salviati
quote:In this instance it certainly is. Illegal entry into the US is a crime. Claiming those guilty of illegal entry are not criminals IAW US Law implies they were never subject to US Law.
Claiming that a person has not committed a crime is not the same as saying the person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the government.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 9:35 am to scrooster
This isn’t horrible news. It was always going to be litigated. Filing this the same day just speeds up the process.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News