- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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 10:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
What right are you being stripped of?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:33 pm to thelawnwranglers
These states need to be rewarded...with hundreds of thousands of illegals.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:33 pm to ninthward
quote:
not relevant
It's the same thing OP is bitching about
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that strips us of Constitutional rights
How is this harming current NJ tax payers or serving them?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:34 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
Why are states or in this case my state wasting tax payer funds on this?
That's what Trump wants to do. The entire point of this exercise is to have SCOTUS rule on it/revisit Wong Kim
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 10:36 pm
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:34 pm to Riverside
quote:
The legislative history and purpose of the 14th Amendment is on Trump’s side
Only partial legislative history, and that has no bearing, especially for a textualist reading like Scalia wanted
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:35 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
which they have never done.
Wong Kim Ark covers this.
They're trying to overrule WKA and create a "Living Constitution" and reject textualism
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Wong Kim Ark covers this.
They're trying to overrule WKA and create a "Living Constitution" and reject textualism
Yea I edited after my brain fart.
The real solution is legislative in this arena, as I'm sure you agree with.
Wong Kim does mention permanent domicile in the United States, which means something rather different these days than it did in the 1890's
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 10:38 pm
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:36 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
How is this harming current NJ tax payers or serving them?
I'm sure there are likely plenty of American citizens born to non-citizen parents who would be harmed by this EO
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:37 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The real solution is legislative in this arena, as I'm sure you agree with.
Need a full amendment.
Legislation can only grant a path for naturalization (expand citizenship), it can't strip the Constitutional baseline. WKA actually cover this point, too.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nope It's in section 1
quote:
Section 1.
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.
I don’t see anything saying anchor babies born from aliens are automatically entitled to birthright citizenship. To reach this conclusion you have to make the determination that the alien would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Maybe you are right, but we will just have to wait and see how the Supreme Court decides the issue. My prediction is that the suit by the states will ultimately be dismissed for lack of standing.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:39 pm to Riverside
quote:
I don’t see anything saying anchor babies born from aliens are automatically entitled to birthright citizenship.
Their parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
There are 2 classes of person who are not, and only one is relevant today (diplomats). As long as the illegals aren't diplomats, they're covered.
quote:
To reach this conclusion you have to make the determination that the alien would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Do you think GA could prosecute Laken Riley's killer? Or should he be freed?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
sure there are likely plenty of American citizens born to non-citizen parents who would be harmed by this EO
Is the EO retroactive?
It's the unborn that could be potentially harmed and as we well know the unborn don't have rights
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Legislation can only grant a path for naturalization (expand citizenship), it can't strip the Constitutional baseline. WKA actually cover this point, too.
I consider amendments to be legislative, but you're correct.
That said, how would you argue this if you were the administration? Certainly the Wong Kim decision, and America generally at that time, and the founders, would not have foreseen the anchor baby phenomenon. Would there not be an argument that the exception (birthright citizenship for children of aliens) has swallowed the rule?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:40 pm to Riverside
quote:
My prediction is that the suit by the states will ultimately be dismissed for lack of standing.
If that’s true….
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:41 pm to Riverside
quote:
My prediction is that the suit by the states will ultimately be dismissed for lack of standing.
I'm sure at some point an individual who would be adversely impacted will hop in to get around that.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Do you think GA could prosecute Laken Riley's killer? Or should he be freed?
Of course they can punish crimes.
But they can't draft him or give him a social security number or a voter registration
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
That’s the issue doofus. Is jurisdiction as used in the 14th Amendment synonymous with the general concept of jurisdiction in the rest of the law.
The legislative history from the 14th Amendment clearly states that aliens were not be granted automatic citizenship based on this provision. The Amendment was to clearly reject the Dread Scott decision but the language is imprecise.
The legislative history from the 14th Amendment clearly states that aliens were not be granted automatic citizenship based on this provision. The Amendment was to clearly reject the Dread Scott decision but the language is imprecise.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:42 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Of course they can punish crimes.
Meaning they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Page 2 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News