- 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: Why Trumpsigned EO to end birthright citizenship
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:29 am to the808bass
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:29 am to the808bass
quote:
To be clear, it is very obvious that Congress did not write the amendment to have it interpreted it the way the Supreme Court interpreted it and the Supreme Court knew that.
And this SCOTUS has overturned previous SCOTUS decisions.
0
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
Should it happen?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:29 am to roadGator
quote:I went to Aruba last month. They require that you purchase a health insurance plan from them BEFORE you get on the flight. Doesn't matter if you already have health insurance, they make you buy theirs.
Next EO. All pregnant women entering the country must have proof of insurance or purchase a $100k a day insurance plan that only covers pregnancy.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:30 am to GumboPot
I agree with that. Again I am saying the language IS ambiguous ( particularly to modern ears) and that’s why we have this issue.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:31 am to greygoose
Exactly. It’s not a novel idea or radical.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Would you let any of these illegals in your home?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:32 am to Lsupimp
quote:
but one thing that 90% of people can agree on is that the LANGUAGE is ambiguous.
Under the context of the authors of the 14th they probably never thought that arresting illegal non-citizens would be interpreted as falling under the jurisdiction thereof.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:34 am to Lsupimp
quote:
I agree with that. Again I am saying the language IS ambiguous ( particularly to modern ears) and that’s why we have this issue.
You are right.
It also why this EO is beneficial. It forces more clarity. Will we get complete clarity? I hope but probably not. Congress could give us complete clarity but I doubt that will happen because too many wealthy people love the anchor baby program.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:35 am to greygoose
Problem with this is that all of those defending this like SFP would rather keep bad laws on the books rather than fix the problem to match the intent.
EO’s should not be the way to make this change. That said, when you have governmental leaders and representatives refusing to defend their own constituents’ rights, you end up with these messes.
Simplest solution is to amend the constitution and end this stupidity, but Democrats will never do it because they don’t care about common sense and actual rights.
Republicans don’t care because all they care about is cheap labor and an incentive to get them here.
Rule should be that those born on US soil either to US citizens, permanent residents, or non-B1/B2 visas (ie visit visas or short term business visas) not diplomats should be able to take advantage of those rights.
Alternatively, you could simply pass a law that anyone here illegally prior to birth can never be granted citizenship nor permanent residence status, even if their child or sibling is an American citizen. This would help solve the dreamer problem and chain migration.
Now, that may be where legislative action that is not an amendment could take place.
EO’s should not be the way to make this change. That said, when you have governmental leaders and representatives refusing to defend their own constituents’ rights, you end up with these messes.
Simplest solution is to amend the constitution and end this stupidity, but Democrats will never do it because they don’t care about common sense and actual rights.
Republicans don’t care because all they care about is cheap labor and an incentive to get them here.
Rule should be that those born on US soil either to US citizens, permanent residents, or non-B1/B2 visas (ie visit visas or short term business visas) not diplomats should be able to take advantage of those rights.
Alternatively, you could simply pass a law that anyone here illegally prior to birth can never be granted citizenship nor permanent residence status, even if their child or sibling is an American citizen. This would help solve the dreamer problem and chain migration.
Now, that may be where legislative action that is not an amendment could take place.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:37 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
Would you let any of these illegals in your home?
Someone has to satisfy his wife. It's one of those jobs that Americans won't do.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:37 am to momentoftruth87
Roadhead says…
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:37 am to Geauxgurt
I’d like to hear his thoughts on how our neighbors in Canada won’t admit anyone into their country for 10 years after a DUI in the United States or any other country. 
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:38 am to roadGator
It was a good enough point that I replied to you and gave you credit. 
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:41 am to Jbird
quote:
Could you expand on this part?
Which part? The reason for the exceptions or the 2 exceptions?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:41 am to Lsupimp
quote:
You have your opinion. I have mine.
Do you believe that GA had the power to prosecute Laken Riley's killer?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:42 am to SaintsTiger
There's actually a black market to send pregnant women over here from places like China so that their babies will be American citizens (actually, have dual citizenship). Pregnant Mexican women come over here all the time for the same purpose. That sh!t has to f*cking stop.
Hell, it should never have been allowed to happen in the first f*cking place.
Hell, it should never have been allowed to happen in the first f*cking place.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:42 am to GumboPot
quote:
Anchor baby advocates are just projecting their own meaning on to the 14th.
No. We're reciting case law from contemporaries (1898) that establishes the legal meaning of the Amendment, based on textualism and historical analysis (like what Scalia preferred)
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:43 am to roadGator
quote:
Should it happen?
I wouldn't really care if they did end it via Amendment. I'm not personally invested in that path/outcome.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:43 am to SlowFlowPro
Is this the part where you conflate obvious matters of national sovereignty with your need to massage your ego with a legal equivalency?
Page 10 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News