- 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
0
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:06 pm to bhtigerfan
Against
Let them apply legally since there is a procedure in place
Let them apply legally since there is a procedure in place
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:06 pm to conservativewifeymom
quote:
HOWEVER, since the Constitution grants that citizenship,
The constitution in no way allows the citizenship of children born to two illegal parents.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:06 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
Against.
Because common sense.
We need to end the anchor baby policy.
Il
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:08 pm to ELVIS U
quote:Wrong.
For, because I support the constitution, as written.
14th Amendment was never intended to be interpreted that way. Trump is correcting it.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:08 pm to ELVIS U
quote:
For, because I support the constitution, as written.
The 14th Amendment was written to grant freed slaves citizenship. Illegals aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
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.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:08 pm to bhtigerfan
Against. It makes zero sense
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:09 pm to bhtigerfan
Currently I am against it because things I have been reading make it sound like it is NOT covered by the 14th Amendment as so many are saying. Mostly centered around the meaning of the word "jurisdiction".
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:09 pm to bhtigerfan
For it, with increased exclusions. Illegal immigrant children should not be granted citizenship, for starters.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:10 pm to bhtigerfan
Against because you should not reward someone for coming here illegally. Making thier children legal just because they were birthed by a criminal in our country is rewarding the crime.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:10 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:
Illegals aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
They most certainly are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
The argument isn't about whether or not they're subject to the US jurisdiction, it's about whether or not that wording was the best one to use. (Hint: it wasn't)
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:10 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
Two stand out on the list as being 1st world countries
Nearly all of them stand out as being countries in the Western Hemisphere who had a vested interest in increasing their population.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:11 pm to ELVIS U
quote:
For, because I support the constitution, as written.
This was added to the Constitution in 1868. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
Senator Jacob Howard was over that and he stated this:
quote:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
The fact is, Anchor babies come from the immigration Act of 1965.
The SCOTUS:
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:12 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Senator Jacob Howard was over that and he stated this:
What he stated and what he wrote are two very different things. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to understand.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:13 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
r against and explain why
Against
Because it's insanity. It MIGHT make sense if we were an island but even then, in the modern transportation world, there is no sensible argument for it
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:13 pm to Jjdoc
Happy to see this done via Executive Order so then it will be easy to undo when the Dems take back over in 2020.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:14 pm to bhtigerfan
Should have been done away with 75 years ago, right after WWII. It needs to go because it encourage illegal invaders. 
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:14 pm to bhtigerfan
Against.
Jus soil was enacted to insure that the children of slaves would be considered citizens in the aftermath of the Civil War. It's been distorted far beyond that.
Citizenship should be determined by naturalization only (at least one biological parent being a US citizen or the individual successfully completes the formal process of becoming a citizen).
Jus soil was enacted to insure that the children of slaves would be considered citizens in the aftermath of the Civil War. It's been distorted far beyond that.
Citizenship should be determined by naturalization only (at least one biological parent being a US citizen or the individual successfully completes the formal process of becoming a citizen).
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:17 pm to conservativewifeymom
You may want to read up on what the 14th amendment means and what it doesn't mean. If you do nothing else but read the words in the amendment, then you'd have a case... maybe. But i can promise you it's merely by an absurd interpretation by a whack SCOTUS that you believe what you believe.
I'd suggest looking up the words spoken on the senate floor just prior to passing the 14th amendment. Look to Sen Jacob Howard, Sen Lyman Trumbull, Sen W. Williams, and Rep. John Bingham.
I'd suggest looking up the words spoken on the senate floor just prior to passing the 14th amendment. Look to Sen Jacob Howard, Sen Lyman Trumbull, Sen W. Williams, and Rep. John Bingham.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:21 pm to td01241
quote:
Against, giving people a motive to have their kids in our country is a terrible idea. Legal immigrants should of course have their kids granted citizenship though
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News