- 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 1/22/25 at 10:58 pm to Riverside
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:58 pm to Riverside
quote:
but a strong case can be made that mere physical presence equals jurisdiction.
I think a stronger case can be made that there was a group of people here, born on US soil, subject to our laws that weren't made citizens by the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
It seems clear that congress that ratified the amendment didn't think that being here and being subject to our laws was enough to grant citizenship.
0
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:58 pm to momentoftruth87
Of course he would, he’s a sanctuary tard
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 10:59 pm
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
You aren't a lawyer stfu
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
You claim they have rights. Why wouldn’t you let them on your property? It’s not off topic at all. You just don’t want to answer that because then it blows up your whole argument about birthright and how they have rights.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:59 pm to HagaDaga
quote:
Other than wanting to be right, do you see no problems with the current anchor baby situation?
Sure there are problems.
We can always amend the Constitution when problems arise. Relying on the Supreme Court to do this is "legislating from the bench" and "creating a Living Constitution", 2 things I detest.
You know who would give up birthright citizenship in a second to make the above the norm? Leftists.
People in this post-2016 binary mindset always think that not taking their in-group side means you're in the out-group, but people like me are protecting them from giving Leftists free reign to do all the bad shite that MAGA types claim to hate.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:01 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
You claim they have rights.
It's not a claim. That's a fact.
You just melt over it, but your feelings don't change facts.
quote:
Why wouldn’t you let them on your property?
Citizen-murderers have rights, too. Why would I let them on my property?
quote:
. You just don’t want to answer that because then it blows up your whole argument about birthright and how they have rights.
This is legit dumb.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Banning assault rifles
You were discussing relevance?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Diplomatic immunity existed before Congress existed.
I never said otherwise.
I've pointed out that in this country diplomatic immunity was granted by an act of congress in 1790.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:03 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
You were discussing relevance?
You're making the same arguments Leftists do with the 2A.
My comments are relevant and they're showing both the silliness of the rhetoric as well as the danger of making these the norm.
As I said earlier, Leftists would give up birthright citizenship in 2 seconds if they get a "Living Constitution" in exchange. You're arguing just for that exchange.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We can always amend the Constitution when problems arise.
You know as well as anyone here that we may never amend the Constitution again. The current options for doing so are non-starters on basically any subject matter.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not a claim. That's a fact. You just melt over it, but your feelings don't change facts.
It’s not a fact as it was posted earlier that it doesn’t pertain to illegal aliens coming to benefit.
quote:
Citizen-murderers have rights, too. Why would I let them on my property?
So you’re equating illegals to bad citizens?
quote:
This is legit dumb.
It’s not. It’s a simple question that you can say no I wouldn’t like them on my property but you can’t.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:04 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
So you’re equating illegals to bad citizens?
At the moment, from the relevant lens of "jurisdiction of the US" they are in the same pot, FWIW.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:04 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You know as well as anyone here that we may never amend the Constitution again. The current options for doing so are non-starters on basically any subject matter.
The alternative is that we devolve into a pseudo Parliament with a Supreme Court that has no boundaries of precedent who can swing wildly with their rulings every session.
Even if you just look at precedent, they JUST laid down new rules in how to overrule old cases that they'd have to upend with this ruling, only a couple of years later.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:06 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
It’s not a fact
It is a fact
quote:
it was posted earlier that it doesn’t pertain to illegal aliens coming to benefit.
This is only one right. There are numerous rights illegals have that aren't in dispute.
quote:
So you’re equating illegals to bad citizens?
Both have rights. I'm equating both with you, as you have rights, too.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:06 pm to Indefatigable
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 11:07 pm
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Meaning they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
But what type of jurisdiction? Full? Partial? Contextual? Qualified? Political?
That’s the issue. I think you have to go back to the context in which the amendment was passed as well as what was said by those that proposed and enacted it.
The congressional record from May 30, 1866 apparently debates this issue so we know what those authors are intending… and it isn’t birthright citizenship as we have today.
Claremont Review Article
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:07 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
So if they’re bad why are you advocating so heavily for anchor babies if you know it’s wrong
The limits of the rights you enjoy were set by cases involving terrible people, typically. That's just how the system works.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There are numerous rights illegals have that aren't in dispute.
List them
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Even if you just look at precedent, they JUST laid down new rules in how to overrule old cases that they'd have to upend with this ruling, only a couple of years later.
Which is why I agree with you that the administration will lose this case almost certainly.
The question becomes "what are we supposed to do?" Because it seems like the interests of the country are stuck between the rock of Congressional ineptitude and the hard place of SCOTUS precedent. Its untenable from a political standpoint.
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 11:09 pm
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Relying on the Supreme Court to do this is "legislating from the bench" and "creating a Living Constitution", 2 things I detest.
So you hate that gay marriage and abortion were “found” to be constitutional. Those 2 seem to have be be “found” in the Constitution. The anchor baby piece seems to be a clarification of an actual amendment.
But I would like to know your answer on the below to really understand your argument here. If it’s purely your understanding/interpretation of the law or if it there’s a personal opinion involved too.
quote:
Would you support an update to the amendment to say children of illegals do not become citizens?
Page 4 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News