- 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: Poll: For or against birthright citizenship?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:11 pm to td01241
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:11 pm to td01241
quote:
Legal immigrants should of course have their kids granted citizenship though
I disagree. The kids should only be granted citizenship when the parents are, or they can apply when they turn 18.
0
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:14 pm to TGFN57
quote:Birthright citizenship conferred by foreigners in illegal residence is NOT part of the Constitution. Birthright citizenship conferred by foreign tourists who happen to be in the US at the time of delivery is NOT part of the Constitution.
It's part of the constitution
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:29 pm to bhtigerfan
Against.
Just because a cat has kittens in the oven, that doesn't make them biscuits.
Just because a cat has kittens in the oven, that doesn't make them biscuits.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:31 pm to bhtigerfan
Against if mom is illegal.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:36 pm to slackster
quote:
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.
Kind of like that 'Wall of separation' that is never mentioned in the Constitution.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 4:36 pm to TGFN57
quote:And neither can you add one, which was done in this case by Justice Brennen.
You can't take a part out of the ammendment you don't like.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 5:40 pm to bhtigerfan
I'm agin it, God's agin it and you oughta be agin it too.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 5:53 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
the mom isn't legally in the U.S., no.
Why just the mother? This would never pass muster
Posted on 10/30/18 at 5:55 pm to Loserman
quote:
Technically, the Supreme court may actually find against Citizenship for children born to illegal aliens as unconstitutional.
I wasn't aware this has only been around since the Immigration Bill of 1965.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 5:55 pm to bhtigerfan
Against because it is stooopid
Posted on 10/30/18 at 5:56 pm to Loserman
quote:60 nations have some form of jus soli (36 are unconditional and 24 are conditional). And some (like the US) also have Jus sanguinis as well.
9 out of 10 countries do their citizenship by blood, not by soil.
So it's more prevalent than 1/10 (unless there are 600 nations), and since when should dictate policy based on the policies of inferior nations, especially since we became superior while the current policy was in place. Not arguing that's the cause, but considering we don't have the ethnic basis for our nation, and we're better than the rest of them anyways, it just seems like a strange basis for policy.
quote:Would they really find it unconstitutional, or would they just find that restrictions are Constitutional instead?
Technically, the Supreme court may actually find against Citizenship for children born to illegal aliens as unconstitutional.
SCOTUS doesn't typically rule against the government expanding rights, and the issues are usually whether they can restrict them or not.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 10/30/18 at 5:58 pm to conservativewifeymom
quote:
conservativewifeymom
quote:
I agree with the President that it must end, but I don't agree that it be changed through an EO.
I know you're married, so dont take this the wrong way. I'd absolutely hug you for saying this.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 6:41 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:The Constitution doesn't usually "allow" rights, although the 14th is one of the rare exceptions where the rights aren't exclusively negative in nature (limits on government).
The constitution in no way allows the citizenship of children born to two illegal parents.
Regardless, while the Constitution, specifically the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, doesn't ALLOW it, more importantly, it doesn't EXCLUDE it either.
So by a strict literal interpretation, birthright citizenship, regardless of parents' status, extends to pretty much everybody, save for some exceptions that have been long since settled and none of those refer to illegal immigrants.
So the issue is about intent, that wasn't explicitly stated, and we know that's a problematic path (e.g., left and 2nd amendment), plus the limited SCOTUS rulings we have, favors a broader definition anyways.
But my issue when "intent" comes up, is why didn't they explicitly state the intent and/or provide more details to cover it in the Amendment itself (e.g., exclusions, inclusions, some combination, etc.)?
Seems to me they were either terrible at communicating the intent, wanted it to be ambiguous for any number of random reasons, OR it communicates their intent precisely as they wanted it (broad and inclusive).
Posted on 10/30/18 at 6:42 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
Against.
Because common sense.
Pretty much all that needs to be said.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 6:54 pm to RandySavage
Not when goes against the Constitutional rules. 2/3 state majority.
You dont like it because you know most of Democratic states and Purple states wont buy into it.
You really do show your true colors with things like this.
You dont like it because you know most of Democratic states and Purple states wont buy into it.
You really do show your true colors with things like this.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 6:58 pm to FightinTigersDammit
Post of the evening.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:02 pm to sugar71
quote:
d prefer you vent your nasty anger here than lash out like the Right wing Magabomber and Synagogue shooter. Let it out.
And you question anyone else’s level of derangement? You can’t honestly be this stupid in real life.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:29 pm to bhtigerfan
Against. Parent or parents should be citizens.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:34 pm to bhtigerfan
AGAINST. This should have been dealt with long ago. I haven't dug into this but I heard that the US and Canada are the only first world countries that still allow this.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 10/30/18 at 7:35 pm to bhtigerfan
Both.
I'm for it when the country needs it, like it did when it was foiunded and we were nation building.
I'm also for it if we have border security and legal immigration.
In the absence of both, I'm fine with temporarily suspending it until we get both.
I'm for it when the country needs it, like it did when it was foiunded and we were nation building.
I'm also for it if we have border security and legal immigration.
In the absence of both, I'm fine with temporarily suspending it until we get both.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News