- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Supreme Court Live re Birthright Citizenship and Nationwide Injunctions
Posted on 5/18/25 at 9:48 am to Dandy Chiggins
Posted on 5/18/25 at 9:48 am to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
While I agree that official “legal immigration” came later; the Parents were still here legally. They were allowed to be here via Burlingame treaty and were legally domiciled in the US. In modern day context basically a “work visa”. Even if we concede they were simply here and that legal immigration came later, then fine; they were just “here”. But they certainly weren’t here ILLEGALLY.
Where does WKA impute any of this reasoning to the determination?
quote:
Thus WKA isn’t relevant
If you ignore the literal textualism used to come to reach the decision and just make shite up, sure.
quote:
We’re specifically talking about the children of parents who broke laws to be here and are currently here illegally. Unlike WKA.
Which of the 3 exceptions would they fall under?
2
Posted on 5/18/25 at 9:49 am to dafif
quote:
I think it is an argument that you are not subject to the laws of the state of Florida if you are not domicile or a resident of the state
If I go commit a crime in Florida, they can't prosecute me, being a LA domiciliary?
Posted on 5/18/25 at 11:20 am to 225bred
quote:
It’s literally the single most important decision to saving the future of this country.
Illegals are in violation of our laws by the nature of their entry. They are not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but rather are the citizens of their native lands. Illegal aliens are "foreigners" who cannot be called to jury duty or drafted into the U.S. military services. When these foreigners encounter adverse circumstances they are able to appeal to the consulates of their native countries for legal and financial assistance and regularly do so. Babies born to these foreigners are not citizens of the U.S.A. but rather of the nations of their parents. Those who are present in our country legally, eg if they are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and US law, would, by the 14th Amendment, have their babies given US citizenship.
"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).
In the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins case, the 14th Amendment 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 citizenship question of American Indians was addressed and altered in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
"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 with no foreign allegiance whatsoever. In other words, they must be United States citizens."
Many in quoting the 14th amendment conveniently forget to include the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Their disingenuity reveals that they are concerned about the effect of these few words on their contention. Granting citizenship to those born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents is a deliberate act of defiance of the law and may actually be treasonous.
This post was edited on 5/18/25 at 11:23 am
Posted on 5/18/25 at 12:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
SFP ignoring facts and logic; and continually citing Wong Kim Ark, incorrectly and out of context is one my favorite things.
It’s like watching a toddler using a word incorrectly……..over and over and over again.
At some point we stop correcting and just laugh.
It’s like watching a toddler using a word incorrectly……..over and over and over again.
At some point we stop correcting and just laugh.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 1:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
Sometimes you are just a disingenuous prick because you did not quote what I actually said and you do it quite often which is why nobody believes you or respects you
And, in typical fashion, you never addressed The app or hypothetical with a war prisoner giving birth giving the child, according to you, citizenship
quote:
and by laws I mean the benefit not the punitive ones
And, in typical fashion, you never addressed The app or hypothetical with a war prisoner giving birth giving the child, according to you, citizenship
This post was edited on 5/18/25 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 5/18/25 at 1:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
literal textualism
Is retarded, and can result in as much "making shite up" as "living document"
Posted on 5/18/25 at 2:07 pm to Dandy Chiggins
He's an educated idiot.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 6:03 pm to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
SFP ignoring facts and logic; and continually citing Wong Kim Ark, incorrectly and out of context is one my favorite things.
Me and basically every court for 130 years.
I notice you didn't even answer the question presented, either.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 6:06 pm to dafif
quote:
Sometimes you are just a disingenuous prick because you did not quote what I actually said
No I quoted what you said.
You just tried to preemptively crawfish, so I focused on the actual argument and ignored the preemptive crawfishing.
quote:
And, in typical fashion, you never addressed The app or hypothetical with a war prisoner giving birth giving the child
That was just because I left, but your hypo makes no sense, so it's not shocking that the Founders and author of the 14A didn't think of it.
Your hypo is that of an 8-9 month pregnant female military combatant who is part of an invasion of the United States, that somehow makes it here and occupies no territory and is permitted to remain on our soil prior to her birth.
So congrats on finding the most insane scenario ever that a bunch of men in the mid-1800s couldn't imagine.
This post was edited on 5/18/25 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 5/18/25 at 6:07 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Is retarded, and can result in as much "making shite up" as "living document"
So which is your preferred method of judicial/statutory interpretation?
This post was edited on 5/18/25 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
Why would I answer a question about exceptions to a situation to which WKA doesn’t apply?
I also wont answer how Plessy relates to our current Tariff situation. Because it’s, ya know, …..irrelevant. You asking a dumb question isn’t a gotcha; it’s simply a dumb question.
But by all means; keep up the tired WKA arguments, which everyone who can read realize are out of context.
I also wont answer how Plessy relates to our current Tariff situation. Because it’s, ya know, …..irrelevant. You asking a dumb question isn’t a gotcha; it’s simply a dumb question.
But by all means; keep up the tired WKA arguments, which everyone who can read realize are out of context.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:34 pm to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
Why would I answer a question about exceptions to a situation to which WKA doesn’t apply?
You're declaring victory and avoiding having your declaration tested. That's why.
quote:
which everyone who can read realize are out of context.
And you can't explain how this argument is, you know, correct.
You would think that with all of their historical analysis and the 3 exceptions they discussed in detail, they would have referenced the Burlingame treaty at least once, if that had any bearing on their analysis.
Why did they forget such an important 4th exception, if it was so clear?
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And you can't explain how this argument is, you know, correct
Sfp translation: "I don't like when I lose an argument"
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:58 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Sfp translation: "I don't like when I lose an argument"
You apparently stopped reading, like he did.
Page 12 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News