- 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: Whatever happened to ending birthright citizenship?
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:23 pm to WONTONGO
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:23 pm to WONTONGO
The Supreme Court would rule unanimously. The 14th Amendment is unambiguous.
"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."
If you're going to argue that illegals aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then that would mean illegals aren't subject to punishment for any crimes they commit, only deportation. So foreigners could do whatever and only face being sent back home to, say, Iran or the like.
Ending chain migration should be the focus. Remove the incentive for birth tourism in the first place.
"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."
If you're going to argue that illegals aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then that would mean illegals aren't subject to punishment for any crimes they commit, only deportation. So foreigners could do whatever and only face being sent back home to, say, Iran or the like.
Ending chain migration should be the focus. Remove the incentive for birth tourism in the first place.
0
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:24 pm to M1zz0u
quote:
The republicans had complete control during Trumps first two years and did absolutely nothing because they planed on never doing anything to being with.
Non Sequitur.
The past is not prologue.
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:24 pm to WONTONGO
quote:
Constitutional Amendments require a 2/3 vote in the Senate. We couldn't even get an unconstitutional law partially repealed.
No one is trying to get a constitutional amendment passed you idiot. How do you think all these ridiculous gun laws have been passed if we already have the second amendment. It’s because the gop is weak and the the dems don’t care about a piece of paper and just do what they want. So until republicans realize that, you won’t exist in 10 years.
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:26 pm to WONTONGO
quote:
Constitutional Amendments require a 2/3 vote in the Senate.
And then be ratified by 3/4ths of all the states. That could take decades.
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:26 pm to M1zz0u
quote:
Whatever happened to ending birthright citizenship?
Its in the queue, right behind the wall, killing the ACA, and balancing the budget, should happen any day now.
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:26 pm to M1zz0u
quote:
Trump is probably gonna lose the election and you will never get this chance again.
Trump is not going to lose. We're also not going to get a supermajority in both the House and Senate which is what would be required. Also, we don't need a Republican in the white house to challenge the 14th Amendment. Better to wait if you want to be successful. The stakes are to high for a half arse attempt.
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:27 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
how can a country slide closer to "third world" if its gdp is at all time high?
Maybe you haven’t noticed America is becoming less and less white
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:29 pm to WONTONGO
The only way to challenge a Constitutional Amendment is with another Constitutional Amendment.
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:29 pm to WONTONGO
quote:Good Lord.
That will immediately be challenged in Federal Court and will ultimately be reviewed by SCOTUS. We're not ready to have that argument til we are sure of an originalist ruling. Roberts is compromised so we'll have to wait for RGB, Sotomeyer, or Breyer to step down.
There is not one, single, solitary SCOTUS Justice who would rule that the 14th does not provide birthright citizenship. An Amendment is the only solution.
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:30 pm to lsu480
quote:
Maybe you haven’t noticed America is becoming less and less white
What does that have to do with
quote:
how can a country slide closer to "third world" if its gdp is at all time high?
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:33 pm to M1zz0u
quote:
Whatever happened to ending birthright citizenship?
Promises made, promises kept?
You expect the current House to pass something like that? Seriously?? The Democrats who currently control the House are of the same ilk who are giving driver's licenses to illegals.
If we can turn the House into enough of a majority GOP (not GOPe) and hold the Senate, we could well see this happen.
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:53 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The 14th is not “pretty clear.” It is crystal-clear.
Correct. Children of illegal immigrants are not US citizens.
LINK
misinterpretation
Consequences
What could be done to remedy..
There's a bunch more info there if anyone cares to read.
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:56 pm to GeauxTrain
quote:
The only way to challenge a Constitutional Amendment is with another Constitutional Amendment.
True, if one was trying to repeal the 14th Amendment. However, all we want to do is overturn Wong Kim ARK and resolve birthright citizenship.
Posted on 1/1/20 at 9:57 pm to M1zz0u
It got aborted by impeachment’s
Posted on 1/1/20 at 10:01 pm to thejudge
Good Lord was that web site put together as an elementary school project? Flat-earthers have better sites (with better arguments by the way).
That author's argument is basically that the Supreme Court has never interpreted the 14th Amendment. Perhaps that's because the wording of the Citizenship Clause is as clear as day and requires no interpretation? Everything else on that site says exactly what has been repeated above: Constitutional Amendment or legislation ending chain migration.
That author's argument is basically that the Supreme Court has never interpreted the 14th Amendment. Perhaps that's because the wording of the Citizenship Clause is as clear as day and requires no interpretation? Everything else on that site says exactly what has been repeated above: Constitutional Amendment or legislation ending chain migration.
This post was edited on 1/1/20 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 1/1/20 at 10:02 pm to M1zz0u
by third world you mean culturally. how do we fix that Captain Genius?
Posted on 1/1/20 at 10:21 pm to thejudge
quote:
Correct. Children of illegal immigrants are not US citizens.
Well, thanks to "the judge" finally amongst all of these "intellectuals" we have someone that has done a little research.
The the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case decision still stands and the fact that it existed made it necessary that Congress pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 in order to make these people born within the borders of our nation citizens of the United States. (That act does not apply to illegal immigrants.)
A deliberate misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has been used to allow pregnant illegal alien mothers to have babies in the United States or it's possessions and automatically grant the baby U.S. citizenship for having been born on U.S. soil, hence the name anchor babies.
The alien parent is a citizen of another country and subject to the jurisdiction of that country. An alien mother having a baby on U.S. soil and that being the only criteria for granting automatic citizenship is a gross misinterpretation and manipulation of the 14th Amendment. An alien mother having a baby on U.S. soil should NOT automatically grant citizenship to that baby. Yet it continues on...and the U.S. taxpayers are saddled with more and more costs and taxes get raised in order to pay for this insanity. Nobody seems to come forward to enforce the Elk v. Wilkins ruling, but sooner or later the issue will come to a head and the Supreme Court will have to address the issue for those that may have erroneously received papers.
Posted on 1/1/20 at 10:28 pm to M1zz0u
It is basically impossible to pull off. Will never happen
Posted on 1/1/20 at 10:29 pm to WONTONGO
quote:
True, if one was trying to repeal the 14th Amendment. However, all we want to do is overturn Wong Kim ARK and resolve birthright citizenship.
The Supreme court may not have gotten it Wong.
Wong Kim Ark does not have to be overturned as the ruling was probably correct inasmuch as Wong Kim Arc's parents were LEGAL immigrants with Permanent Residency. Not ILLEGAL Aliens or BIRTH TOURISTS. Even so, in view of the history of the 14th Amendment, the Court may have ruled in error if the parents had not forsworn their Chinese citizenship when he was born.
The following is a link to an in depth evaluation of the history and background of this topic and includes specific historical references to clarify the question. LINK
Posted on 1/1/20 at 10:29 pm to ImaObserver
How was this sentence deliberately misinterpreted?
"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."
It really can't be any more clear. Once you decide it means something other than what it clearly says then you must also be willing to do the same with the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
"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."
It really can't be any more clear. Once you decide it means something other than what it clearly says then you must also be willing to do the same with the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
This post was edited on 1/1/20 at 10:30 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News