- 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: SCOTUS will hear Birthright Citizenship case
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:21 pm to retired_tiger
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:21 pm to retired_tiger
quote:
retired_tiger
You don't seem to understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration.
0
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:23 pm to retired_tiger
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:25 pm to cajunandy
When are we going to hear a 2nd amendment case so I don’t have to fill out a form 4473 anymore?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Also implies another case. Curious what you're referencing.
Let me tell you about a "MAGA supporter" in Minnesota that's close to the Hortmans.
Dumaz
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:37 pm to hogcard1964
So has anything been announced?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
THIS is "legislating from the bench"
It is stupid. And the Supremes want to hear all about it. If they were as cocksure about it as you, they would not have agreed to hear it. And if they rule that loophole in the Amendment is a get in free card for the world, I'll still view it as a gimmick.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:57 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
It is stupid.
This is exactly why we have an amendment process.
It's a difficult process, but that's intentional and not an excuse to ignore the Constitution.
quote:
that loophole
It's not a loophole
The 14th and WKA came down long before our modern concept of illegal immigration.
The irony is all the people claiming they want to reject modern concepts of "jurisdiction" while centering their complaints around modern concepts of immigration.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:59 pm to cajunandy
I'm not a lawyer and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Someone explain to me why an illegal alien is anymore under the jurisdiction than a tourist is.
When a tourist gets arrested, does that imply they are under the jurisdiction of a US entity and if so they can claim now citizenship?
I'm sure I'm just not understanding what folks have been trying to say...
When a tourist gets arrested, does that imply they are under the jurisdiction of a US entity and if so they can claim now citizenship?
I'm sure I'm just not understanding what folks have been trying to say...
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:04 pm to andoman
quote:
When a tourist gets arrested, does that imply they are under the jurisdiction of a US entity and if so they can claim now citizenship?
That's not the discussion
quote:
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.
The birth is required, not presence. It's the children of the tourist in your example, born within our borders.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 7:05 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not a loophole
It is a loophole and was not intended for times of mass illegal immigration. And as soon as a democrats control government again, the masses will return. You know this can never be amended with our divided country. We don't live in the same United States as we even did fifty years ago. Who would think a political party would plan on bringing millions and millions of non citizens into this country as a political permanent power election ploy. Who would have thought the ruling political party would convey to the masses the privilege of asylum to bring in hoards of people. If they rule in favor that the birthright citizenship of today is as intended by the amendment, so be it. But it is a loophole/trick played to get illegals into the US without passing through the process. You anchor one and the rest of the family follows.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
And that's all I have to say about it.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:11 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
and was not intended for times of mass illegal immigration.
The concept of "mass illegal immigration" did not really exist either when the 14A was enacted or WKA ruled.
quote:
. You know this can never be amended with our divided country.
So use the courts to legislate and create a Living Constitution?
That sounds like a Leftists dream.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
Did mass transit internationally exist?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:15 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I’ll bet we get a Thomas majority opinion stating the 14th was only for slaves and not what we see today.
Correct.
The 14th was never meant to anoint the USA as the planet's dumping ground.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 7:19 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That sounds like a Leftists dream.
Maybe. The leftist dream is to use the constitution, where they can to toss shite into American's faces and there is nothing to do about it. In that regard I'm not a textualist. The meaning needs to be spiffied up for the 21st century. I'm assuming you think it is 9-0 against Trump. Maybe the Supremes want that on record to end the debate. There will never be another Amendment added to the constitution. I think there is a higher probability we will become a socialist single party ruled country because of the crafty democrats.
And this is my last response in the thread.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:24 pm to Jbird
quote:
Did mass transit internationally exist?
By boat I guess, but not the same as today.
But that's all irrelevant to Constitutional standards.
The amendment process was created to mold the Constitution to changes in society/technology. It was never intended that courts do this. That's Living Constitution nonsense.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
Irrelevant!
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But that's all irrelevant to Constitutional standards. The amendment process was created to mold the Constitution to changes in society/technology. It was never intended that courts do this. That's Living Constitution nonsense.
I think most agree. Here is the problem, the courts have been doing this forever (especially this last 10 months or so). The amendment process was put into place for a functioning Congress. We have not had a functioning Congress since the early nineties. I would argue since 1963.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:46 pm to Warboo
Action (or inaction) of Congress, the Executive, or both, doesn't change the Constitution.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:49 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Wong Kim Ark.
As you know that case did not specifically address what is being brought for the court now
I also don't think that Supreme Court has addressed the specific issues before it but the lower courts and the pellet courts have broaden the interpretation to an almost unbelievable level
It is hard to believe that an illegal is "subject to the jurisdiction there of" when you look at each state resident laws
Page 9 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News