- 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 9:57 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:57 am to SlowFlowPro
In the justices own words they don't even definitively know. They are just judging...
This court could include more categories to exclude based on "appearance".
quote:
would appear to have been to exclude
This court could include more categories to exclude based on "appearance".
1
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:57 am to Lsupimp
quote:
I don’t answer disingenuous questions
It's 100% not.
This is a discussion about jurisdiction.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Did GA have the power to prosecute Laken Riley's killer?
Are there people who can commit murder within the states and not be prosecuted?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:58 am to SaintsTiger
Honest question: Do all other countries recognize children born to citizens outside its borders as citizens as well? What I am getting at is if say Mexico refuses to give citizenship to a baby born within the United States to Mexicans, this EO would then create a population of people who don't have citizenship in any country. What are the repercussions of this?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:58 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Was this a generally recognized concept in England or even in the US at the time of the Amendment.
No, which is why I compare it to "assault rifles" in other "Living document" projections (and why I quoted it, b/c it was his terminology)
Posted on 1/22/25 at 9:59 am to prplhze2000
quote:
Question you should be asking is why Republicans and conservatives never discuss reversing Teddy Kennedy's "reforms" to immigration laws.
Its too hard.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:00 am to Azkiger
quote:
Are there people who can commit murder within the states and not be prosecuted?
That depends, are Riggs and Murtaugh around?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:00 am to roadGator
quote:
You are only invested in being a contrarian here.
He likely benefits from illegals being here in his legal “profession” yet he wouldn’t let any one of them on his property. He’s a very sad sack of shite.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:01 am to GumboPot
quote:
In the justices own words they don't even definitively know. They are just judging...
They are more definitive in the ruling. I gave you your answer in the summary portion.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No, which is why I compare it to "assault rifles" in other "Living document" projections
Seems like a rather strained comparison. It seems a bit distinguishable from a more modernized technology.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:01 am to SaintsTiger
quote:I seriously believe that the SCOTUS could very well overthrow the law to end it.
Or, do you see a realistic world where the EO is upheld?
The law was pasted for Construction Era blacks so that they would be protected like the whites. Like many of our laws, it's outdated, and needs to be abolished.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:03 am to Rex Feral
quote:
He wants SCOTUS to make a final ruling and I don't think they'll overturn his order.
I think it was Trump who mentioned O.O. Howard as providing the original source reasoning behind that part of the 14th Amendment.
In other words, they have already researched the original intent of the wording.
If the court continues to use the, "texture," approach, it should be upheld with a 6-3 vote.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:03 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
It seems a bit distinguishable from a more modernized technology.
How? That designation is only due to Congressional action on our immigration laws. Congress can't override a Constitutional Amendment with clever language by creating a class of persons legislatively to which it does not apply.
Just as they couldn't designate the internet to be an environment outside of the 1A by some legislative action.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That depends, are Riggs and Murtaugh around?
So your stance is that section of the 14th ammendment was added to prevent ambassador's children from becoming citizens?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:03 am to momentoftruth87
(no message)
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:05 am to SaintsTiger
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
How about this line of reasoning,
By entering the US illegally, or remaining longer than authorized, the Alien has willfully - by his willful action - declared that US law ("jurisdiction") doesn't apply to him. Therefore, he has placed himself out side of the intended scope of the 14th Amendment relating to jus Soli.
-----
I think this argument can turn into a slippery slope that the left can use in the future, but the current situation and long term trajectory of America is not sustainable or survivable.
How about this line of reasoning,
By entering the US illegally, or remaining longer than authorized, the Alien has willfully - by his willful action - declared that US law ("jurisdiction") doesn't apply to him. Therefore, he has placed himself out side of the intended scope of the 14th Amendment relating to jus Soli.
-----
I think this argument can turn into a slippery slope that the left can use in the future, but the current situation and long term trajectory of America is not sustainable or survivable.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:06 am to Y.A. Tittle
The biggest takeaway from this thread I have learned is that if SFP sat on SCOTUS he would side with the Wise Latia on this issue. 
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:06 am to Azkiger
quote:
So your stance is that section of the 14th ammendment was added to prevent ambassador's children from becoming citizens?
It's not my stance. It's the literal ruling of Wong Kim Ark.
There are 2 exceptions to birthright citizenship (1) children born to ambassadors/diplomats and (2) people born in areas of hostile occupation (which really isn't relevant today and hasn't been since the War of 1812 ended).
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:07 am to GumboPot
quote:
is that if SFP sat on SCOTUS he would side with the Wise Latia on this issue.
Like with the ruling about Trump being off the ballot in CO?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:14 am to SlowFlowPro
I would guess the drafters of the 2nd Amendment contemplated and envisioned that weapon technology would likely advance beyond simply what was available in the late 18th century.
Page 13 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News