Anonymous
ID: qGUdGdCQ
7/7/2025, 2:10:59 AM No.509699162
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
>B-B-But the shitskins can just shit out a mutant in Caliwali and then move to Idaho!
WRONG, the EO states that Idaho will NOT recognize the birth certificate granted in California and your child will still be an ILLEGAL, STATELESS, WITHOUT 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.”
>B-B-B-But this doesn't apply retroactively.
That is what the SCOTUS case in October is for, SCOTUS rulings on Constitutional Interpretations and Questions (In this case the interpretation of Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment) are RETROACTIVE going back to the date the Amendment was ratified which in this case would be July 9th, 1868.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
>B-B-But the shitskins can just shit out a mutant in Caliwali and then move to Idaho!
WRONG, the EO states that Idaho will NOT recognize the birth certificate granted in California and your child will still be an ILLEGAL, STATELESS, WITHOUT 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.”
>B-B-B-But this doesn't apply retroactively.
That is what the SCOTUS case in October is for, SCOTUS rulings on Constitutional Interpretations and Questions (In this case the interpretation of Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment) are RETROACTIVE going back to the date the Amendment was ratified which in this case would be July 9th, 1868.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Replies:
