- 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
re: NJ challenging EO to end birth right citizenship
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:23 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:23 am to SlowFlowPro
I get that. Why are refusing to discuss the issue?
Are the two classes of people exhaustive? If so what about Indians?
If they are not exhaustive, what is the point?
Are the two classes of people exhaustive? If so what about Indians?
If they are not exhaustive, what is the point?
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 10:24 am
0
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:24 am to SlowFlowPro
The point, which sailed over your rather thick head, is that the english ultimately didnt interpet their own common law to include children born of illegals, yet we apparently used those same ancient laws to reinforce the idea of birthright here in the US.
Not even Wong supports this specifically. That interpretation is truly nothing more than long-standing State Department "policy".
Not even Wong supports this specifically. That interpretation is truly nothing more than long-standing State Department "policy".
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 10:27 am
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Congress cannot create a class of persons that usurps the Constitution, however.
Congress didn’t pass a law usurping the constitution. Congress passed immigration laws that relate to whether the parents are here legally or not (which is indisputably the right of Congress and of any sovereign).
The parents’ status (whether they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US) is what determines whether the constitutional provision even applies or not. If the drafters of the 14th amendment wanted parents’ status to not be a factor, they would have just said anyone born here.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You offered no quote from the case declaring them "legal"
There is no quote declaring them legal because that fact was not in dispute. Everyone agreed they were here legally.
quote:
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (1886) 118 U.S. 356; Law Ow Bew v. United States, (1892) 144 U.S. 47, 61, 62; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, (1893) 149 U.S. 698, 724; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, (1895) 158 U.S. 538, 547; Wong Wing v. United States, (1896) 163 U.S. 228, 238.
How about that quote for you? The Supreme Court literally says that they fit definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” “ so long as the US permits them to reside here.”
Posted on 1/24/25 at 7:31 pm to LSUFAITHFUL2
Question/Hypothetical
A male and female illegal get caught committing crimes and are to be deported but have to serve a 1 year sentence before deportation. They are put in a coed prison and the woman gets pregnant and delivers one day before deportation
Is the baby a US citizen?
Also, the issue of residency and domicile is discussed in all 50'states - you can read about Florida here LINK
Note the term "legal residence" and "permanent home". None of which applies to illegals.
Also interesting is that one way to prove your residence is registered to vote - that would be a felony for these - so much for getting the benefits of our laws.
I am comfortable that Thomas will find the 14th does not apply to children born of illegals and offered a ban bet to sfp - he blew it off
A male and female illegal get caught committing crimes and are to be deported but have to serve a 1 year sentence before deportation. They are put in a coed prison and the woman gets pregnant and delivers one day before deportation
Is the baby a US citizen?
Also, the issue of residency and domicile is discussed in all 50'states - you can read about Florida here LINK
quote:
From a legal perspective, domicile and residence are different things. In Keveloh v. Carter, 699 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), Florida’s domicile law is defined this way: Legal residence or ‘domicile’ is the place where a person has fixed an abode with the present intention of making it his or her permanent home. Once established, a domicile continues until it is superseded by a new one. A domicile is presumed to continue, and the burden of proof ordinarily rests on the party asserting the abandonment of one domicile to demonstrate the acquisition of another.
Note the term "legal residence" and "permanent home". None of which applies to illegals.
Also interesting is that one way to prove your residence is registered to vote - that would be a felony for these - so much for getting the benefits of our laws.
I am comfortable that Thomas will find the 14th does not apply to children born of illegals and offered a ban bet to sfp - he blew it off
Page 21 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News