One eo already struck down

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You know no one, particularly any judge, gives a fuck about your opinion.

Hey, that's not very nice!

[Budman]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You know no one, particularly any judge, gives a fuck about your opinion.

I thought you have me on ignore. Why so hostile bro

[Salty Again]

... The rank hostility continues with some o' the lads here.
Can barely 'ave a good discussion 'round here without all the
insults and bad ways...

... The so-called "executive order" by President Trump was never
going to be "just accepted" without any review and challenge.

The strategy is to spotlight the issue - so a good discussion
happens so the "birthright" thing can surely be decided and resolved.

... So, YES - the issue IS up for debate. ...

#### Salty

[texassapper]

Regarding birthright citizenship, did you you know...

In 2023, there were between 225,000 and 250,000 babies born to illegal immigrants.

That's more than the babies born in all but two US states, taken individually.

It's also more than the total number of babies born to legal, noncitizens, per The Center for Immigration Studies.

Right now, there are reports of expectant mothers who are either illegal or in the US under temporary parole, lining up for preterm c-sections to beat President Trump's Feb 20th cutoff date, some as early as 7 months gestation.

France, New Zealand, and Australia have all abandoned birthright citizenship in the past few decades. Ireland was the last country in the European Union to follow the practice, ending it in 2005.

Framers of the 14th Amendment, including Senator Lyman Trumbull, considered the driving force behind the amendment, specifically stated at the time that the Citizenship Clause does not encompass individuals still owing allegiance to any other country.

The language in the 14 Amendment was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Two Supreme Court cases upheld that the 14th Amendment excludes citizens of foreign countries born in the US, The Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

The 14th Amendment did not originally grant citizenship to American Indians. Why not? Because they were considered to hold allegiances to tribal nations and were only "partially" subject to the jurisdiction of the US Government.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until 1924 with passage of the Indian Citizenship Act, despite being born on American soil. Why would they need this law if simply being born within the US automatically granted someone citizenship?

Birthright proponents like to cite the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong, but conveniently forget that even then, the child's Chinese parents resided in the United States lawfully and permanently.

The 14th Amendment was clearly written to grant citizenship to freed slaves born in America, not to illegals who owe allegiance, are citizens of a foreign country, and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

It's time to protect and preserve the value of American citizenship and finally get this right

[farmstud60]

Thanks Texasspper for posting all of that, this will definitely go to the Supreme Court again.


Probably before WWII it wasn't as big an issue as it is now with such rapid travel to countries long distances away.


From you posted above I don't think it is settled law like some think. Just because it hasn't been challenged for 100 years doesn't make it settled. The issue has definitely become more of an issue in the last 20 to 30 years.

[corona]

this is established law

Yeah? That's what you thought about roe v Wade.

[onthemovie]

0+0=0

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by onthemovie

0+0=0

Well you can't argue with that.

Unless you are woke and think math is RAYCISS!

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by corona

Yeah? That's what you thought about roe v Wade.

Nolos v Holder
Miller v Albright

Conservative courts have addressed the issue.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Budman

Everyone knew this was coming. The plan is to get this to the supreme court.

Originally Posted by royamcr

Supreme court can't do shit if it is an amendment. That takes 3/4ths of the states to ratify. Basic civics here that trump and magats are oblivious to.

Looks like alot of us need to hit those Civics books again.

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Show that whole transcript

Oh HDG, don't ask them to do that! Dem rightie rights love to take things out of context to try and support their side.

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

The Supreme Court and nearly every appellate court has ruled that persons born in the IS are US citizens. There is no discussion. This is settled law. The language of the 14th amendment is clear. We are currently incapable of passing any amendments to the constitution.

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Yeah. My initial thought was why didn't Trump just try to ratify the amendment. And then when I looked up the process that it would take to do so, my next thought was that sure the fuck is not possible in today's divisive political climate.

Trump threw a Hail Mary pass that will not be successfully caught by any court, but that makes more sense than just punting when you know you won't get the ball back... and yes, I admit I am already suffering from college football withdrawal; hence, the corny ass analogy. Haha

donny still acting like the immediate gratification man-child like his first trip to the WH. Never puts in the work/effort to get something. Just wants to see it on his plate.

You'd think he'd have learned better on how to get things done and get them to stick.

[biomed1]

Of the Following . . .

• #1 - Avoid cases of unprovoked rudeness to others. No place for it here. Yes, with the dynamic nature of the threads and topics, tempers will flare and things will become heated from time to time. You may often encounter individuals who become passionate or emotional when expressing one's opinion or point of view. That's all understood and perfectly acceptable within reason…….but, start slamming or bashing another member and be met with consequences.
• #3 - Disrespect to others, IN GENERAL, will be considered an item of low tolerance, especially when posting in our coed forums. Follow the Golden Rule and treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. This applies to fellow members as well as staff. We do not require that you have respect for us, but we do require that you treat us respectfully in the public forums. If you feel the need to vent, gripe, or blow off some steam regarding a staff member's action or decision, we ask that you keep it private. Email, RTM, or the PM system would be the appropriate avenue to take in such cases. In cases where you would like to request additional clarity about a staff decision, you are free to pursue an answer in either a public forum or private means of communication. If handled publicly, post your inquiry in a respectful manner.
• #4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention. This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, personal attacks, or vulgar slang terms to describe fellow members. If you have legitimate concerns about another member here, share them tactfully in the appropriate private forums or with staff.

[royamcr]

Originally Posted by corona

Yeah? That's what you thought about roe v Wade.

Roe v Wade was a court case that got bounced around for decades until the supreme court systematically pushed off the cliff to the right. The 14th is an amendment, so not nearly as easy as fucking the judicial branch to get what you want.