Anonymous
(ID: 9i6Jb4OO)
6/28/2025, 4:00:48 AM
No.508923263
>>508923376
>>508923418
>>508924284
>>508924991
>>508925210
>>508925281
>>508925525
>>508925710
>>508926050
>>508926272
>>508928664
>>508932297
6/28/2025, 4:00:48 AM
No.508923263
>>508923376
>>508923418
>>508924284
>>508924991
>>508925210
>>508925281
>>508925525
>>508925710
>>508926050
>>508926272
>>508928664
>>508932297
HAPPENING!!! SCOTUS ENDS NATIONAL INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRUMP! HUGE WIN!!!
https://archive.is/52l5W
Contrary to what many jews will say in this thread there is NO RULING from SCOTUS that states that the children of illegal aliens are citizens, that is NOT what the 14th amendment says either and it is NOT what the author of Clause 1 of the 14th amendment says in constitutional record, and it is NOT what SCOTUS precedent says in Wong Kim Ark.
>Here is how it stands today:
1: Constitution says that children of illegals do NOT have citizenship.
2: Precedent set by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark states that children of LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS have citizenship.
3: The author of 14th Amendment Clause 1 Senator Jacob Howard, specifically excludes the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship when he offers his definition of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
4: On June 27th, 2025 SCOTUS ruled that the National Injunctions that were placed against Trumps Executive Order were unlawful and thus the Trump Administration was granted the ability in multiple states to enforce his Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship.
>Trumps Executive Order is as follows:
“policy of the United States” to no longer ISSUE or ACCEPT documentation of citizenship in two scenarios: “(1) when [a] person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when [a] person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
THEREFORE a ruling is required by SCOTUS NOW to clarify if the children of illegal aliens are covered under the 14th amendment and given all of the historical context and precedent set by previous SCOTUS majority opinions... the answer is CRYSTAL CLEAR that they are NOT protected under the 14th Amendment.
Contrary to what many jews will say in this thread there is NO RULING from SCOTUS that states that the children of illegal aliens are citizens, that is NOT what the 14th amendment says either and it is NOT what the author of Clause 1 of the 14th amendment says in constitutional record, and it is NOT what SCOTUS precedent says in Wong Kim Ark.
>Here is how it stands today:
1: Constitution says that children of illegals do NOT have citizenship.
2: Precedent set by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark states that children of LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS have citizenship.
3: The author of 14th Amendment Clause 1 Senator Jacob Howard, specifically excludes the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship when he offers his definition of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
4: On June 27th, 2025 SCOTUS ruled that the National Injunctions that were placed against Trumps Executive Order were unlawful and thus the Trump Administration was granted the ability in multiple states to enforce his Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship.
>Trumps Executive Order is as follows:
“policy of the United States” to no longer ISSUE or ACCEPT documentation of citizenship in two scenarios: “(1) when [a] person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when [a] person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
THEREFORE a ruling is required by SCOTUS NOW to clarify if the children of illegal aliens are covered under the 14th amendment and given all of the historical context and precedent set by previous SCOTUS majority opinions... the answer is CRYSTAL CLEAR that they are NOT protected under the 14th Amendment.
