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!
>>509743447 (OP)>policy of the United States” to no longer ISSUE or ACCEPT documentation of citizenshipWouldn't that just be the feds not accepting it? Although safe to assume states that are going along with this wouldn't either. I know in Texas you can't get a driver's license or ID without proof of lawful presence, I had to show my passport to get it. My out of state license was not enough.
>>509743812Yes, the states with the red X's are following FEDERAL POLICY as dictated by Presidential Executive Order the states WITHOUT the red X's are REFUSING to follow federal policy and Trumps Executive Order, they are in OPEN REBELLION against the Republic.
>>509743447 (OP)A California birth certificate is federally recognized, the resulting US citizenship is federally recognized and immigration enforcement is a federal matter. A state does not have the right to deport someone or to not recognize US citizenship status. This is for show and only bottom of the barrel retards will eat it up.
>>509744022Incorrect, it is FEDERAL POLICY to NOT RECOGNIZE the Documentation granted to the children of illegals and temporary visa holders
California choosing to issue those documents ANYWAYS is in OPEN REBELLION AGAINST THE REPUBLIC AND FEDERAL POLICY/LAW.
>>509744134I do it for emphasis for ESL muhammads such as yourself
Again so everyone can read it this is the Executive Order signed by POTUS which makes it FEDERAL POLICY.
>“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.”
Birth Certificates granted to the children of illegals in California are NOT federally recognized, the above is FEDERAL POLICY which supersedes California's STATE AUTHORITY.
>>509744160It makes you sound like a mentally ill, boomer retard. Also, nothing ever happens. Trump loves Jews and brown people.
>>509744328Uh oh, seething muhammad lost the argument so now he has retreated to "nothing ever happens".
Cope and seethe
SCOTUS has already made their ruling on June 27th and the Executive Order was signed on Trumps FIRST DAY in office.
bump, poop skins seething
>>509743447 (OP)Jesus don’t you have anything better in your life than being an annoying faggot? Get a trip.
>>509747118You are getting deported, PACO.
>>509747186Nope. The dudes in Mexico City have a better chance of that at any rate which is still low.
>>509743447 (OP)okay, but what happens when a baby's parents sue the state and fed when they're denied citizenship? oh yeah....it continues to SCOTUS lol...
muh DONNIE WON THE ARGUMENTS anon...you need to stop your delusional behavior.
>>509747352SCOTUS already made their ruling on June 27th, retard. National/Universal Injunctions are dead, so unless you are gonna get a TEXAS JUDGE to issue a statewide injunction (good luck with that) you are shit out of luck, paco! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>>509743447 (OP)Good luck deporting 100,000,000 people when ICE can barely deport a dozen a day.
>>509747448...I just said it will make its way to SCOTUS implying that they will appeal such a ruling anon....
>>509747530Ice just got an injection of 120 BILLION dollars making it the 8th largest Military Force on the planet now.
Good luck!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>>509747590It already made its way to SCOTUS you absolute retard, they made their ruling on June 27th, 2025.
>>509747663no, the ruling is specifically on national injunctions and not on birthright citizenship anon...
>>509747705Correct, and because of SCOTUS ruling on National Injunctions the EO goes into effect in 28 states.
Congratulations, retard you have finally entered the thread and you have started to begin to comprehend with your tiny brain what the OP of this thread says.
>>509743447 (OP)>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.That's swell thinking but just like with abortion, it's not retroactive.
>>509747814...do you understand what happens when a ruling gets taken to appeals? it gets sent back to SCOTUS lol
aka congrats retard, it remains unenforceable. congrats on delaying citizenship paperwork I guess?
>>509747973Do you understand that SCOTUS is on vacation until October
I know you are really slow so let me hold your handicapped hand for a second here... The EO goes into effect on July 27th, SCOTUS does not come back from their vacation until the end of October now let's count how many months there are between then and now.... are you still with me, retard? OK, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months! THAT IS THREE MONTHS GOOD JOB! YOU DID IT! YOU COUNTED WITH ME!!! GOOD JOB BUDDY!
>>509747906Constitution supersedes EVERYTHING
POTUS cannot make EO's that are explicitly unconstitutional
Congress cannot make laws that are explicitly unconstitutional
When SCOTUS makes rulings ON the Constitution itself in their majority opinions on constitutional questions and interpretations those rulings are by DEFINITION, RETROACTIVE because to argue otherwise would be to claim that SCOTUS has the AUTHORITY or POWER to alter or amend the US Constitution which of course they don't.
That power solely rests with Article V of the US Constitution, here I will quote it for you;
>The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.SCOTUS CANNOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION THUS THEIR RULINGS ARE SEEN AS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS ALWAYS MEANT/ALWAYS WAS.
>>509748148So you just admitted, there will be a 3 month delay in citizenship processing? and what did I say? "congrats on delaying citizenship paperwork"
tfw the retard fails to see he's the retard
>>509748372Do you actually believe SCOTUS is going to rule against a long-standing resolved matter?
>>509748502OH NO NO NO NO NO!! HERE COMES THE COPE!!!
Yes, I do believe that SCOTUS will side with UPHOLDING the US Constitution and Supreme Precedent and DENY CITIZENSHIP to the children of illegals and temporary visa holders.
And that their allowance of the EO to go into effect for 90+ days is them signaling that they support the Trump Administrations arguments on the 14th amendment.
>>509748502That's what they said about Roe v. Wade.
>>509748637He is coping and seething
>>509748609wrong, they removed an instrument used by both political parties to rapidly force issues into SCOTUS bypassing the ordinary legal process...
>>509748637Roe v. Wade is not explicitly and clearly written in black and white in the constitution.
>>509743447 (OP)Lol good thread. Is this what the Jeets and kikes are sliding?
>>509748659Regardless of all jurisprudence, doing their job as intended and whatnot, I think, deep down, the Justices see how fucking disgusting things are with all the illegal immigration and just personally want it stopped because it's so fucking awful for everyone.
>>509748710What does any of that have to do with the 14th amendment or SCOTUS? Are you talking about National Injunctions? and "Both Parties"??? LMFAO national injunctions were used almost exclusively by the shitlibs. There were 11 National Injunctions placed against Joe Biden in 4 years, there are 170 placed against Trump in his first 90 days, your projection is blatant.
>>509748780>and subject to the jurisdiction thereofyes, the 14th amendment is very clear that it does not grant citizenship to illegals or temporary visa holders in black and white thank you for supporting my argument for me.
>>509748780Neither is birthright citizenship.
>>509748862I may be projecting but does that make me wrong? They removed a critical tool from the libs by your own explanation which was likely the intent. The constitution is explicit with regard to birthright citizenship. Everyone knows it.
>>509743906My state legislature constantly votes for all these based things only to be vetoed by the governor. Its not the state thats in rebellion. Its the jew governor.
>>509743447 (OP)i dont think any illegals want to live in those middle of nowhere states
>>509743447 (OP)aside from the birthright legislation this is probably a pretty good map for what will develop into the "national divorce" aka second civil war, and i wouldn't be surprised to see trump ordering deployment of national guard or military to sanctuary cities in the states who aren't ending birthright citizenship
>>509748913"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"
Ctrl-F "visa" "illegals"
"No Results Found"
kek
>>509749072No one would care if illegals kept to pozzed lefty hellholes.
>>509749119>and subject to the jurisdiction thereofthank you for arguing my point for me
I agree with you 100% that illegals are not protected under the 14th
>>509749119Illegals are not subject thereof. They are subjects of their own country.
>>509749167>subject to the jurisdiction thereofyes, people like diplomats have diplomatic immunity because their sole function is to represent their foreign government on US soil.
kek
>>509749355Does "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" merely mean subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States? That is, subject to the laws of the United States as is virtually everyone on US soil including aliens who are here illegally, or are here for the purpose of bearing a child to make it an American Citizen, or does the "jurisdiction" of the United States mean something more than that? Such as the FULL and COMPLETE jurisdiction, requiring an allegiance that comes from a permanent lawful commitment to make the US ones home, the place where one permanently and lawfully resides. I believe this latter interpretation is compelled by the citizenship clause, text structure, and history, as well as by Common Sense.
If "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means nothing more than the duty of obedience to the laws of the United States then why did its framers choose such a strange way to say that? Why didn't they just say "subject to the laws of the United States"? Doing so would have been quite natural given that this straightforward unambiguous language is used in both Article VI and Article III of the US Constitution.
The clause also makes sure that it makes Citizens the newborns in both the United States and of the "states wherein they reside", that is where they live, their home, these words standing alone implies lawful permanent residence, and it plainly excludes tourists, as well as other lawful visitors, as well as illegal aliens who are prohibited by law from residing within a state although they all must obey our laws.
>>509749431Second, the history of 14th Amendment, the clause was framed by the 39th congress to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had been passed by that same congress just two months earlier. The 1866 act explicitly denied Birthright Citizenship to persons "subject to any foreign power" and to "Indians not taxed". It is clear in the debate in the 39th congress that congress decided to replace this language with "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" NOT because congress suddenly and without any comment decided to radically broaden the scope of Birthright Citizenship but rather that Congress was concerned that the phrase "Indians not taxed" generated uncertainty about the children of Indians, primarily rich and poor Indians.
The dispute is best captured I think by this comment from Senator Trumble who wanted to replace the words "Indians not taxed" even though he was the principle author of those words in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Senator Trumble had this to say: "I am not willing to make citizenship in this country depend on taxation, I am not willing, if the Senator from Wisconsin is, that the rich Indian residing in New York shall be a citizen and the poor Indian residing in the state of New York shall not be a citizen."
Senator Trumbles language illuminate two important points about the intended meaning of the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by its authors. First, they intended that the children of Tribal Indians who resided on reservations and owed their direct allegiance to their tribes would not be entitled to Birthright Citizenship, but the children of assimilated Indians, who had left their reservations, who had established a PERMANENT RESIDENCE among the body politic of the states would be entitled to birthright citizenship.
Second, it is not at all plausible that the framers of the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment intended that tribal Indians to be able to evade this limitation on Birthright Citizenship for their children by the simple expedient of leaving the reservation long enough to give birth to a child.
The KEY DISTINCTION between the tribal Indians and the assimilated Indians was ALLEGIANCE. Tribal Indians owed their direct allegiance to the Tribe while an Indian who had established a permanent domicile within the state and assimilated into the body politic committed his PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE to the United States and thus entitled his children to Citizenship at Birth.
Elk v. Wilkins (1884), shows "subject to the jurisdiction" excludes those owing allegiance to foreign nations, such as non-citizen parents. Thus, children born to non-citizens do not inherently acquire citizenship, as their parents' foreign allegiance places them outside complete U.S. jurisdiction.
>>509743447 (OP)I have GOT to move from colorado the west is going to be swarmed holy shit
>>509749431This is your personal spiritual interpretation of the 14th amendment, and you're not SCOTUS.
The majority of SCOTUS has ruled on this in US v. W. Kim Ark.
>>509743447 (OP)You're acting as if certification has ever mattered for illegals. They literally get hundreds of free dollars a week and most don't even have authentic IDs.
>>509749719This will be the Majority Opinion and no amount of coping and seething will stop it.
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: The Trump Administration is arguing from the position of UPHOLDING the US Constitution and SCOTUS precedent.
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 28 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.
>>509743447 (OP)Fuck yeah New Hampshire!
SCOTUS needs to rule on this ASAP so the rest of the southern border gets under control.
>>509749786The prior ruling had an overwhelming majority lol.
However I can see it going down to 5-4 upholding the previous ruling.
It seems like you're the one that hasn't come to terms with how unlikely this ruling will change but continue.
>>509750175That's the thing, the ruling wont change. You still fundamentally do not understand the argument that I and the Trump Administration are making.
Trump is arguing from the position of UPHOLDING the 14th and UPHOLDING SCOTUS PPRECEDENT - it is (You) who must make a constitutional amendment utilizing Article V to change the situation.
You just do not understand on a fundamental how fucked you are.
>>509744134We'll butcher home invaders, you cucky fuck. Castle doctrine and the right to bear arms. I can't imagine a bigger cuck than a britbong.
>>509743447 (OP)So you shit out an anchor baby in California and then move to New Hampshire.
>>509750369New Hampshire rejects your babies birth certificate as NON-VALID.
>>509750308You, funnily enough, sound like a delusional lib right now.
kek
>>509750488coping and seething
The 14th does not and NEVER granted citizenship to the children of illegals or temporary visa holders, SCOTUS determined that in Wong Kim Ark the children of TWO PERMANENT RESIDENTS was protected under the 14th, there has never been a ruling on Clause 1 of the 14th amendment outside of Wong Kim Arc which was a very narrow question tailored specifically towards LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
You fundamentally do not understand the case.
>>509743447 (OP)Based citizenship should be based on parents citizenship status, like it does in most countries.
>>509744314>specifically targets the father as the one needing permanent residence>female citizens can fuck all the foreigners they want and have legal foreigner children>temporary foreign females can still shit out babies as long as the father they duped to fuck them is a citizenThat's the chink in this garbage armor, such an obvious loophole it had to be deliberate. There were way more men coming in than females anyway from the start and they're our biggest issue.
>>509743447 (OP)If it ends up applying retroactively I'm going to join ICE so that I can deport Marco Rubio. Lmao
This will be the "constitutional treat" given to conservatives this cycle; when the next Dem president is in-office then the libs will be given their own constitutional treat aka 2nd amendment reinterpretation. Rinse and repeat until the 2060s when the entire Bill of Rights has been eroded
>>509751566>reinterpretationAgain, there is no "reinterpretation" of the 14th. SCOTUS will do its duty to UPHOLD the Constitution as it ALWAYS WAS.
>>509743812>>509743447 (OP)Generally by international law the only way for a child to gain US citizenship from birth would be that it doesn't have any other citizenship. Which is pretty much impossible because all over the world the child inherits the citizenship of the mother, specifically to avoid this legal hurdle.
>>509747530Next EO allows US citizens to defend themselves against foreign invaders. The Purge is looking more likely every day
>>509752206They already did with Casa v. Trump in a 6-3 decision
>>509743447 (OP)North Carolina Niggers, what is going on over there?
>>509744022>A state does not have the right to deport someone or to not recognize US citizenship statuswe've done this before and we will do it again. mexicans are just a different tribe of indians.
Muttmerica is desperate to become white again.
>>509753866I dunno but my kids will be guaranteed citizens at least
All going to California. Let them have it.
>>509743447 (OP)i didn't know alaska was in the ocean, what about havvaii?
>>509758038Huuuuyeeee is a NO X meaning that birthright citizenship still exists in huuueeeeee.
>>509746008the US is the corporation established through the constitution.
the land mass reffered to north america has been around since the beggining of time, and you dont need permission to live there.
nomadic living is the only righteous and just form of living, so neither nomads nor migrants are obligated to show documentation to enter, pass through and abide on the land of north america.
that said, they are obligated to only live in seasonal housing, such as tents, teepees, or log houses (not hooked up to the electrical grid or water line)
the fact that the US government hasn't made any reservation under the law for nomads/migratory people is an affront to God and the laws of God.
>>509753866>North Carolina Niggers, what is going on over there?Dem governor and dem attorney general. Both are white men who fooled enough people into think they're moderates that they won their elections.
>>509758221arete, now i can visit huie in my long sailboat and sire many children there.
thank you good saar
>>509750994that will still reduce it by 80%