BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER GOES INTO EFFECT JULY 27TH!
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ENDS IN THE FOLLOWING STATES JULY 27th: 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.
PS: This also applies to H1B Jeets.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
* = Pending A Legal Case that might remove it from the list.
Attorneys for President Donald Trump told a federal district judge Monday that a request to turn an immigrants’ lawsuit into a class-action suit is little more than an attempted “end run around” the Supreme Court and should be rejected.
The original lawsuit was filed by the immigrant advocacy group CASA and several pregnant immigrant women in an attempt to block Trump’s executive order denying citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. unless at least one of the parents was already a citizen.
The “birthright citizenship” ban was swiftly challenged in courts around the country and several judges, including Judge Deborah Boardman in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, issued preliminary injjunctions that kept the order from taking effect nationwide.
The government challenged the ability of the district judges to issue nationwide orders, and last month the Supreme Court agreed with the government, overturning the nationwide injunctions and sending the cases back to the lower courts for trial. Even though the injunctions were no longer in place, the government said it would not attempt to enforce the birthright citizenship ban for at least 30 days.
Within hours of the high court’s ruling, attorneys for CASA were back in court with additional immigrant plaintiffs, asking Boardman to turn the case into a nationwide class-action lawsuit on behalf of all children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents after Feb. 19, the original effective date of Trump’s order. Boardman last week gave Justice Department attorneys until July 7 to respond to the class-action motion.
“The relief Plaintiffs seek is functionally no different from their prior (and now forbidden) universal injunction,” Monday’s response from the government says.
Class action lawsuits are allowed for cases in which a class is so large that it would be impractical to account for all members, there are questions of law common to the people in the class, and the representative class members named in the suit will fairly protect the interests of the class.
Trump’s attorneys argue that these criteria aren’t met.
“Plaintiffs’ differing immigration statuses create issues of whether ‘there are questions of law or fact common to the class,’ and whether ‘the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class,’” the filing reads.
Attorneys also argued that the court cannot issue a preliminary injunction because the previous preliminary injunction is still on appeal. They argued that plaintiffs are not entitled to a nationwide preliminary injunction, and that the court should stay the injunction pending its appeal.
The earliest date the administration would apply the order is July 27.
There is no way SCOTUS actually stops their own misinterpretation. The birth immigration grift will continue forever and it will be a 2-7 decision.
I swear you fuckheads didn't even listen to oral arguments for the injunction.
>>509933697>There is no way SCOTUS actually stops their own misinterpretationSCOTUS has NEVER interpreted the 14th, ever.
The only case that even remotely touched on the 14th in terms of Birthright Citizenship was Wong Kim Ark and that was 120+ years ago when "illegal migrants" didn't exist, and Wong Kim Ark was specifically and narrowly about Permanent Residents and their protection under the 14th.
IT IS THE STATES WHO HAVE BEEN MISINTERPRETING WHILE SCOTUS DOES NOTHING.
SCOTUS has NEVER interpreted Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment as it applies to Illegal Migrants and Temporary Visa Holders because the answer to that question is OBVIOUS in that both groups and NOT protected under Clause 1 of the 14th.
>>509933476 (OP)I ain't reading all that cope, you still can't deport Black Americans either way NANANANANANANANANANAANANANANA you can't deport us AHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHA
>>509933697Gotta keep retards bought into the idea of there still being political solutions to anything meaningful anymore.
America is an antiwhite/European Jewish tax farm that worships niggers.
>>509934005This poster is jewish.
>>509933983And to double down on it, we have the colonial stock DNA to prove the OG colonials raped american slaves NANANANANNANANANANA you can't deport us, dad.
>>509933983How about we fund a left wing organization to help young black women and other young women of color. We will focus on giving them free birth control. Not the pill you need to take every day but the long term versions that get installed and last for years. Its important that we give them reproductive freedom and self determination. So they can go get a make work job during their fertile years instead of replacing their population.
Why hasnt someone done this.
>>509934314Israel did that, by force, forcefully sterilized Ethiopian ethnic jews when they tried to enter Israel a few years ago. The Israeli's were worried that the Ethiopians would have 12 - 15 children a piece and ruin the ethnic makeup of Israel so they put in place a forced sterilization at the border policy.
>>509934256So your ancestor was a BWC slut, ok...
>>509934591>forced rape by white barbarians>slutsNo wonder MAGA is full of pedos and rapist if that's how you view raping someone
>>509934673Women always open their legs for conquerors
>>509934673>rape a slave>rape a womanFirst off you cant rape property. Second they liked it.
>>509934765Obviously not, hence why you failed to reduce any black population on this planet to 50/50 mutts like Amerindians. Niggas don't like you, pic related.
>>509933476 (OP)wheres the list donnyboy?
>>509934120>pic related (you)
>>509933476 (OP)>floridaso does this state become israel minor or something
>>509935101This poster is jewish
Imagine NOT supporting ending Birthright Citizenship for illegals and temporary visa jeets.
>>509934886I'm convinced negroes have a natural repellent gene, a survival instinct that kicks in when around other foreign hominins like neanderthals that reacts in a way so they don't mutt away their genetic richness, and this explains why OG homo sapiens always come out on top.
>>509935371>trust the plan
>>509935782Look at the jew, he wont even come out in support of ending Birthright Citizenship for Illegals and Temp. Visa holders.
>>509935846Get back to me when deportation numbers are higher than Biden or Obamas. Also America is no longer a white country and never will be again. Keep coping
>>509936891Look, he STILL wont endorse it. The demoralization shill just can't bring himself to say something good about ending birthright citizenship for illegals and temporary visa holders.
>>509933476 (OP)>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.Hey HEY HEY HEYYYY ... where are the most important states/places full of browns/jews. >:( ?
California & Jew York. Washington, both the state and DC.
>>509937297They currently have statewide or jurisdiction wide injunctions in place so until October the EO will continue to not be enforced as the cases go through the courts which you can be sure will be a very slow process. SCOTUS majority opinion in October changes everything though and no matter what a lower court says they wont be able to stop it.
>>509933476 (OP)If the mother is a citizen and fucks illegal immigrants, the child is still a citizen according to this bill and not only that but she can't abort it either thanks to Rs.
WEW LAD. Brown century is still going strong. A total immigration moratorium is the only thing that will save us.
>>509937590SCOTUS interpretation will supersede that of the POTUS.
>>509933476 (OP)How are they determining this because if they won't allow for atleast 1 American citizen parent to claim their kid as a US citizen you are gonna have a massive cluster fuck of issues.
>PS: This also applies to H1B Jeets.strange how they are not doing anything about them.
>That is what the SCOTUS case in October is for, SCOTUS rulings on Constitutional Interpretations and Questionsrulings of the past unequivocally said if you're born here you are a citizen and was clarrified even further in future cases. They can re interperate "naturalized" to make a stronger case for you have to be born here with the intent of staying here and being a citizen (to end Chinese birth tourism).
Problem in that case is anchor babies are anchor babies in order to have their kids go to American schools and live American lives.
So you get rid of some Illegals from further
away countries, but you still have mexicans in the border areas.
>>509933476 (OP)>>509933571>>509933611>>509933930The constitution literally needs to be amended to end birthright citizenship. The practice and idea goes back way before the civil war. Even the definition of allegiance was changed by the adoption of the constitution according to the attorney general Washington appointed to Pennsylvania, William Rawle. He wrote his treatise on what the constitution does back in 1825.
>>509933476 (OP)How do we add all states?
Specifically North Carolina
>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.
How is that going to stop illegals from having kids in states that dont follow the EO? How are states going to know who is illegal and who isnt? I am not against the EO, however having some states following the decision and some not following it makes the order meaningless.
Based. Now we need to figure out how to strip the citizenship from liberals and faggots and trannies and incels and NEETs and other undesirables so we can start deporting them too.
>>509937992>In 1825 William Rawle, President Washington's pick to be the US Attorney for Pennsylvania wrote a legal treatise on the Constitution.>"It cannot escape notice, that no definition of the nature and rights of citizens appears in the Constitution. The descriptive term is used, with a plain indication that its meaning is understood by all, and this indeed is the general character of the whole instrument.">"In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people ..." (Who were "the people" in 1787?)>"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution ..." (but note the opposing context of the rest of the paragraph, and the later discussion of naturalization, which was limited to free white persons of good character). >"The nature, extent, and duration of the allegiance due to the United States ... derived either from treaties or from the acts of congress, are beyond the control of the states ...">"The doctrine of indefeasible allegiance has a deeper root in England than in any other country in Europe">"The instantaneous result on our political character, from the declaration of independence, was to convert allegiance from compulsion [English sovereign] into compact, and while it still remained due to the sovereign, to see that sovereign only in the whole community [the American republic]." (This is why the English Common Law opinions have no merit wrt post-1775 American practice.)>"Emigration in its general sense, merely signifies removal from one place to another; its strict and more appropriate meaning is the removal of a person, his effects and residence: but in no sense does it imply or require that it should take place with a view to become a subject or citizen of another country."
>>509938374There are several other instances in the 19th century where courts and attorney generals concur with the general idea of birthright citizenship by the way. which is why stuff like
>>509933983 where white immigrants would never properly naturalize under the 1790 naturalization was allowed
>>509933476 (OP)>BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ENDS IN THE FOLLOWING STATES JULY 27th: 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.This is a federal matter, how in the fuck is it not ending in all states at the same time?
>>509933697OP is a turbo faggot shill who posts this thread several times a day. he is posting fantastical hopium like a Q fag so that when the birthright citizenship ruling doesn't go the way he says it does, Trump supporters will be demoralized, thereby discouraging voter turnout during the midterm elections
>>509937590Thanks for some clarification
>Brown century is still going strongHispanics can be white and the kids can be "bleached".
>A total immigration moratorium is the only thing that will save us.I have an alternative solution.
>See those Latinas who are here illegally, are of healthy breeding age, and don't wanna go back to cartel shitholes?>See that "lonely man" epidemic and tons of men who western women have cast aside?>See that declining birthrate that kills nations?Latinas have a shot to get married and 5 years to birth american citizens.
>Before people bring up the hell that is divorce courtMother must be deported if she chooses divorce, and custody defaults to the father.
Foreign citizens are not entitled to alimony, child support or any welfare from an American citizen.
Oh hey look, I fixed the lonliness epidemic, birth rate problem and familycourt issues in a divorce with this plan
>But I am white and will only accept the finest white genetics!Cool. Enjoy. You now have a larger dating pool due to the policy locking down latinas for real marraiges where the American man is the head of the household.
You're welcome.
>>509937762Contrary 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.
>>509933476 (OP)>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.They can be, but you're misunderstanding what actually happens. When SCOTUS rules on something, it's saying "this is how it's been all along and we are clarifying that." EVEN IF they somehow manage to conjure an interpretation of the following:
>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.in which they redefine jurisdiction to a completely new definition which applies ONLY IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE (lol), there is nothing intrinsically retroactive in the way you want there to be. EVEN IF the Court chooses to arbitrarily and without any precedent adopt a completely spurious definition of jurisdiction, there is no guarantee they will choose to (attempt to) invalidate the citizenship of everyone alive until they prove otherwise.
We had this thread a month or so ago and you're STILL harping on the same arguments without a single adjustment. At this point, it no longer seems like you only have no clue what you're talking about ‐- you don't CARE to know what you're talking about. You want to TRUST THE PLAN this asinine pipe dream into existence. I'm going to think of you when they rule in favor of the plainest-written Amendment on the books being interpreted as designed: plainly.
>>509939026>Cowan (who voted not to ratify): "I will ask whether [the citizenship clause] will not have the effect of nationalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?">Trumbull (who voted to ratify): "undoubtedly."
This just in
Maga cult rapes kids behind closed doors! And worships a pedophile !
>>509933476 (OP)Mom came here when she was 18 got her citizenship then she had me. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA sorry timmy I'm staying
>>509939850JAJAJAJJAJAJAJAJJAJA*
>>509933983Okay actually go read the lawsuit because what you are claiming isn't happening to american black people at all. If anything the Trump admin leans into the 14th amendment to clarify the children of slaves are in the citizenship guaranteed group and others with citizenship.
This entire thing is to prevent illegals who border hopped and then popped a baby out from getting an anchor baby.
And those that did now need to go back.
The only exceptions are the children of slaves who were "non citizens" at the time of the amendment.
>>509939026Can you explain how the decision will navigate the arbitrary redefinition of jurisdiction and what the knock-on effects will be? You realize that by declaring nonimmigrants beyond our jurisdiction, we lose the literal ability to police them, right? It's a completely nonsensical argument you're refraining from explicitly making... because you recognize on some level how utterly spurious it is.
>>509939958>nonimmigrantsIllegal immigrants, rather.
>>509939942Permanent Resident Status Holders (Wong Kim Ark) and the Children of Slaves are UNAFFECTED by Trumps Executive Order and will likely be UNAFFECTED by SCOTUS majority opinion as well.
>>509939958>beyond our jurisdictionThat is not at all what the Government is arguing. They are arguing that there are VARYING degrees of "jurisdiction" which is COMMON SENSES and that one must be under the FULL and COMPLETE jurisdiction thereof to be protected under Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal migrants are NOT under the FULL and COMPLETE jurisdiction thereof the United States, neither or Ambassadors of foreign countries, neither were the Indians Not Taxed in 1868 (they held ALLEGIANCE to their Tribes above the States) and neither are TEMPORARY VISA HOLDERS by the very definition of their TEMPORARY STATUS.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
>>509939026>migapede>calling others jewthey're not jewish, if they were you'd be down on your knees sucking their dicks.
>>509940353Can you quote the text of the 14th Amendment which seems most amenable to an arbitrary redefinition of jurisdiction or so much as alludes to a gradient?
>>509939958>>509940353Dual citizens could be subject to their citizenship being revoked if a future government wanted to do so if jurisdiction was redefined to be political allegiance like they wanted. it's one of the main reasons this probably won't ever happen.
The concept of allegiance being an indefeasible compact goes back way before the civil war as well.
>>509938374
>>509933476 (OP)kek based, I voted for this. brownoids seethin'.
>>509934314Back in the 1980s, a wealthy businessman proposed paying poor people to get sterilized. In exchange for something like $50,000, they'd get their tubes tied or a vasectomy. It gained popular support and many others in the business community pledged to support it with their own money, no government money required.
Then Leslie Stahl invited him on to a show she was hosting to promote his voluntary plan. But when the cameras started rolling, turned out it was an ambush where she accused him of being a Nazi white supremacist trying to sneak in eugenics. Even though there was no race component to the offer, since more blacks are poor per capita, she said it was racist. Once the interview aired, the other wealthy men who pledged financial support for it pulled out and public support collapsed.
>>509933476 (OP)Isn't birthright citizenship how your dumbass country was made and established in the first place?
Both my parents are white and born here but they’re deceased so how am I expected to prove that?
>>509940579>The concept of allegiance being an indefeasible compact goes back way before the civil war as well.Can you point to precedent in law? In the law itself, otherwise "precedent" becomes "the set of all things anyone has ever said," which, if it needs to be said, is something close to the precise opposite of how law works.
>>509934488Not only forced but also without informing the women at all. They were told it was a necessary medical procedure for their health but not told it was sterilization. Most agreed because it was a requirement to immigrate and they believed the Israeli government that it was something for the women's benefit.
>>509940579>Dual citizens could be subject to their citizenship being revoked if a future government wanted to do so if jurisdiction was redefined to be political allegiance like they wanted. it's one of the main reasons this probably won't ever happen.Good of you to notice this, anon!
WATCH: JEW RECOILS IN FEAR WHEN HIS (((DUAL CITIZENSHIP))) AND LOYALTIES ARE QUESTIONED IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP HEARING IN CONGRESS
https://youtu.be/bZ-ZR4aGR0o?t=5136
TIMESTAMP: 1:25:35
BEST PART IS AT TIMESTAMP: 1:26:23
speech at 1:28:15 is also pretty based
>>509933571>several pregnant immigrant womenIllegal aliens. They are not immigrants. They are not "asylum seekers". They are foreign criminals. Their status is not some technicality of paperwork as "undocumented immigrant" would imply. They are not entitled to political asylum because they're poor. They are willful criminals violating the laws and statutes of the United States of America. Language has been used as a weapon against the American People to conflate immigrants and criminal invaders to make their crimes more permissible. Thr conversation needs to be reframed with proper terminology. The truth is not xenophobic.
>>509940806The precedent is the adoption of the constitution itself by removing the monarch from government, it completely redefines what sovereignty and allegiance means. Even precedent ends up having to be interpreted in the sense of basic understanding.
>"In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people ...">"The instantaneous result on our political character, from the declaration of independence, was to convert allegiance from compulsion [English sovereign] into compact, and while it still remained due to the sovereign, to see that sovereign only in the whole community [the American republic].">"The doctrine of indefeasible allegiance has a deeper root in England than in any other country in Europe"
>>509940806we're creating the precedent
>>509933983/pol/ may not like this but only blacks and British isles whites are real Americans
>>509933476 (OP)If trump really deports all mexicans legal and illegal both, i will kneel down and be his biggest fanboy. until then, nothing ever happens and zion don won't do shit.
>>509941500Possibly the single most contrived pseudolegal "argument" I've ever seen. Maybe at least try running it through an LLM or something first, for fuck's sake. You could at least TRY to make an actual argument based on solid legal principles.
>>509941943Well, at least you're no longer bullshitting -- what you want isn't anything rooted in actual jurisprudence but instead a legislation via nonlegislative powers.
>>509940741It's time to go back.
>>509940545Sure, see pic related which is from the 39th Congress AS THEY WERE WRITING CLAUSE 1 OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT which can be found at: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-globe/page-headings/39th-congress/n-a/72668
>>509942314you're going to have a hard time finding a ruling that says the sovereignty isn't derived from the people (all representatives are elected) and that allegiance is compulsory.
>>509933983>i aint reading all that cope>*posts cope*Niggers didn't fight and die for the Republic. Niggers didn't draft and enact our laws.
You have always just been objects.
>>509942518are you implying nothing new can be creating, everything must follow the precedent of something else? you're a retard
>>509934673More cope. Your mother is a slut.
>>509942605There is no way around jurisdiction. The text of the 14th makes no hedge and implies no test. It assumes jurisdiction under its common definition, which has remained literally entirely constant for the history of our nation. What you're proposing is the ex nihilo invention based on selective, extrinsic, and nonlegal historic evidence of a test -- from thin air and based on an EO written by Stephen fucking Miller. This is, to put it lightly, again: not how the fucking law works. If you want to make a legal argument, try starting first from quoting fallacious reasoning in e.g. Plyler or Wong Kim Ark. Your Twitter circle jerk might run on vibes but the law does not. Whoever died your head with this nonsense did you no favors.
>>509943519Incorrect, see the 39th congress as they were writing Clause 1 of the 14th here:
>>509943004
>>509943004Ah, so now the law is actually the opposite of what was written. Compelling argument, Mr. Cochran.
>>509943600Does "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.
now time to get rid of the 14th and 13th amendment
>>509943600>>509943688econd, 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."
birth right is a strange rule in the first place. it's usually by blood.
>>509943688>>509943748>econdSecond*
Senator Trumbles language that quote illuminates 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.
>>509943154>are you implying nothing new can be creating, everything must follow the precedent of something else?YES. If you want it to work the way you think it does, try DRAFTING AND PASSING A FUCKING LAW. This whole "distributed confidence" is like crack cocaine to you ignoramuses.
>>509943755because it's a novel interpretation of a law that wasn't actual ever ratified, it's two levels of asspull so that dems can flood their states and get representatives out of it
>>509943816The Government is arguing from the position of UPHOLDING the Constitution and UPHOLDING precedent as it is.
It is (You) the opposition who must use Article V powers as laid out in the US constitution to amend the Constitution to make it say what (You) want it to say.
My argument is from UPHOLD PRECEDENT and UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION.
>>509943688>I believe this latter interpretation is compelled by the citizenship clause, text structure, and history, as well as by Common Sense.That's because you're working backwards from the conclusion you want and trying to fill in the blanks instead of working from the ground up in good faith. That's as simply as I can put it for you. You're suggesting we throw out the entirety of jurisprudence -- that the Court be no longer restricted or even cognizant of precedent in favor of whatever trendy, half-baked theory was the last to come out of the undergrads at the Federalist Society or whatever is the contemporary implementation thereof. It doesn't work that way.
>>509934256>larping as black on /pol/Cringe
>>509943755>>509943862It was so that white immigrants wouldn't have to go through proper naturalization for citizenship to apply to their descendants. it's very obvious look at some of these images.
>>509938599
>>509933983Fine. We'll just cut the gibs and you will wilt naturally.
>>509943992>from the ground up>precedentMy and the Governments arguments are that of from the very BEDROCK of common law, it is (You) the opposition who must CHANGE or AMEND the US Constitution to make it say what you wish it to say.
As for "precedent" I will repeatedly send you back HERE:
>>509939026 until you understand that there is NO SCOTUS RULING that states that children of illegals or temporary visa holders are US Citizens as protected under Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
>>509944233>there is NO SCOTUS RULING that states that children of illegals or temporary visa holders are US Citizens as protected under Clause 1 of the 14th AmendmenTry reading Plyler and Wong Kim Ark. Your ignorance is no excuse.
>>509944439Plyeris NOT about Clause 1 of the 14th as for Wong Kim Ark, Wong Kim Ark only applies to PERMANENT RESIDENTS A.K.A GREEN CARD HOLDERS, not Temp. Visa holders and NOT Illegal migrants.
In The United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) it is stated in the majority SCOTUS ruling that (emphasis mine):
>The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, IN THE ALLEGIANCE AND UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE COUNTRY, including all children here born of RESIDENT ALIENS, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns and their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes OWING DIRECT ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR SEVERAL TRIBES.
For a person born within the territory of the United States to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it appears from the above passage that the person MUST at birth owe a sufficiently direct duty of allegiance to the sovereign in return for the sovereigns reciprocal obligation to protection. The child of members of an Indian tribe who owe direct allegiance to their tribe does NOT qualify, although clearly born within the territory of the United States.
NOR DO THE CHILDREN OF ALIENS WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.
Wong Kim Ark SUPPORTS My and the Governments arguments.
Every agent of pedophile Donald Trump is a traitor to God and country and a lawful target.
>>509933476 (OP)>watch as miga falls for it again
>>509944652Again, your ignorance is no excuse. You're gonna eventually have to realize that decisions are massive in scope. It's why I'm grilling you repeatedly on the redefinition of jurisdiction. If you're unaware that the relevant passages in Plyler and WKA aren't written in big, bold letters but still carry immense weight... well, first, you should be embarrassed because you don't have the slightest clue how the Court works. Second, you should try to understand that sometimes (often, really) the Court uses the ostensible issue at hand as a vehicle to address other issues. Look at the recent ruling against nationwide injunctions. They threw that back to the lower courts with silence on the Constitutional issue (and even double-underlined it with an update) but a very clear direction that nationwide injunctions are no longer copacetic.
You're unfortunately one of those blissful ignorants who've convinced themselves that 14A was literally ever on the table. It was never about that. The sad part is that you're not reachable. You are so irrationally attached to your crackpot legal theory that even if you're the last one on the train, you're gonna stay on until you literally die.
But hey, trust the plan, or whatever kek
>>509945044Plyer v. Doe has NOTHING TO DO WITH CLAUSE 1 OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
Only Wong Kim Ark does and it SUPPORTS my argument as you can read here:
>>509944790
>>509933476 (OP)Does it mean that those who obtained it through birthright will have it revoked ?
>>509945165Depends on what SCOTUS says in October
as of right now just under the Executive Order, no.
>>509945133The paid shill wont respond anymore as I have utterly obliterated him.
cool
what amendment revokes it again
>>509933476 (OP)>More boomer copeNo, they will all move to California then go back. That's literally what will happen.
>>509938599An huwhite person.
>>509933476 (OP)>No birth certificate issued in california will be recognizedWe are truly blessed, now we need to go further, no id issued in california should be recognized as valid it should be treated with extreme predjudice like it is counterfeit as they issue them without regard to whomever wants them without paperwork to back it up.
>>509934314You might want to educate yourself on a little thing called Planned Parenthood.
They've been doing a very good job aborting niggers.
They don't use permanent residency in the ruling of wong kim ark. They just say domiciled. Permanent residency wasn't a thing until like 50 years later. here's multiple pages of the ruling that say chinese subjects in america were subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
>>509946842yeah the the citizenship clause basically codified the principle to the vast majority existing in the US. It's one of the reasons andrew johnson and edgar cowan voted against the civil rights act of 1866 which provided the basis for the citizenship clause.
>>509947192They use the word "Permanent Domicile" multiple times and repeatedly point out Their Residency Status. Before 1929 anyone who legally entered a port, train station, border checkpoint and could pay the 50 cent entrance fee was granted Residency Status which was considered permanent until they left the country and then they would have to come back and go through the whole process again.
Before 1929 immigration was handled almost EXCLUSIVELY at the ports, they would have doctors check you, they would inspect your belongings, interrogate you, etc. all of that would be done at the ports, when the ports got overwhelmed that's when things like Ellis Island were created to handle the overflow until 1929 when the Permanent Resident Status Card was created by an act of Congress.
>>509933476 (OP)So people will be citizens in some states not others?
>>509945165I don't think it's legally feasible even if technically correct. Natural law necessitates that those already present must have their citizenship status honored. Perhaps they could be denaturalized if they commit a serious crime.
Say Juan and Juanita come over illegally and have Juanito, their son. The parents then die in a taco related gun fight. Juantio grows up and has sex with another child of illegal immigrants named Maria, and they have a baby named Miguel. Shortly after he's born, his parents are hit by an Indian bus driver and are dead.
Miguel's grandparents are illegal immigrants. His parents are the children of illegal immigrants. He is born on American soil. He has no family. Which country is he the citizen of? No country? What do you do with him?
Are we going to deport a 1 day old baby to Sudan? Do you wait until he's 18 and then deport him?
>>509947909correct, at least temporarily until October when SCOTUS makes a ruling
>>509948224SCOTUS already has ruled on that issue and has determined that the Federal Government is allowed to deport so called "stateless" individuals to a Third Party Nation of the Federal Governments choosing which, yes, does include Sudan.
>>509947703even if domicile is taken only mean government granted residency you can read some of those citations on that page, they considered any aliens fully subject to american jurisdiction in american lands unless a treaty or foreign minister role gave some kind of immunity.
>>509948899That is not at all what Wong Kim Ark said, Wong Kim Ark was about Legal Residents who were Permanently Domiciled in the United States which implies an ALLEGIANCE to the SOVEREIGN and thus they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
>>509948899Here, I highlighted some of the parts that support my argument for you to possibly understand better.
On July 2, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington determined that Trump's denial of asylum to migrants on the southern border exceeded the president's authority.
He then certified a class that covered all individuals subject to the presidential proclamation on asylum and issued an injunction to protect the class -- effectively a nationwide injunction.
The administration appealed the ruling, which White House aide Stephen Miller called a judge's attempt to "circumvent" the Supreme Court’s ruling by recognizing "a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States."
"I think there's going to be a lot more class actions," said Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the ACLU, which brought the asylum case.
Class actions must follow what is known as Rule 23, which requires the plaintiffs to meet several elements including proving that the proposed class members suffered the same injury. Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito warned lower courts against certifying nationwide classes without "scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23.”
The process to certify a class can often take months. A senior White House official told Reuters the administration will be watching class certification decisions closely and plans to aggressively challenge them to prevent abuse of the process.
The government says the named class plaintiffs in the New Hampshire case are too different from one another to be able to proceed as a class action. They include an asylum seeker and someone on a student visa.
https://archive.is/2rLvV
The opposition has nothing but platitudes.
>>509949525Right below what you highlighted it says
>"His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and although but local and temporary continuing only so long as he remains within our territory"And would you read the entire citation at bottom of the page and continuing onto the next one. They say residency doesn't change jurisdiction for aliens. The paragraph about european parentage and passing citizenship refers clearly a class of immigrants who had no paperwork verifying their residency and never properly naturalized.
>>509951117Correct, because that is how immigration law worked in 1868
see here:
>>509947703
>>509948580So the federal government can deport a 1 day old baby to Sudan with no legal guardian and no citizenship status anywhere? How do you get him on and off the plane? Do we just leave him on the tarmac in Sudan or what?
The flight to Sudan is like 12 hours. Who's feeding and changing the baby? What happens if it dies on the flight?
>>509952524I think maybe in this specific case you might be able to argue that the baby would become a ward of the state. It is not like it used to be and it is actually quite difficult to become a "ward of the state" but if that were to happen then that "baby" would likely be put through the foster care system. This is of course assuming that there are NO POSSIBLE GUARDIANS for the baby which I find to be an absurd hypothetical.
>>509952731The point I'm trying to get across is that this kid is obviously
>subject to the jurisdiction thereofeven if his parents and grandparents were not. If for no other reason than natural law would compell us to acknowledge that a person who is born and resides here for decades, having never visited another nation, nor learned their language, having only participated in American life and culture, is clearly "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and not subject to some other country.
>>509953330>We broke the law for a long enough period of time to assimilate partially into your society>Therefore you should allow us to continue to break the law and violate the US ConstitutionI don't think so, but that's just my opinion and I sure hope SCOTUS agrees with ME and not (You).
>>509933476 (OP)>New Hampshire*We had to be the only ones with a star
>>509939026>Contrary to what 'da jooz' sayUmmmm you mean captain MIGA?
The guy who says even if you are a legal resident you cannot say anything bad about Israel.
Oh you are hilarious.
What ever interns shilling muh project2025 interpretations are on payroll for this post are not being paid enough for these mental gymnastics
Look at how upset that anon is
seething even
>>509933476 (OP)how are they gonna know whose birth certificate from california is from a woman who jumped the border and landed on their belly or an actual human who wasnt birthed out of a butt?
you see, thats the missing jew. theres always some jewish reason, the jewish occupation government doesnt just do things to benefit people other than jews, they clearly are ysing it to push for an even more dystopian surveillance state, where a birth certificate isnt even enough to secure *your* rights as an american. nor your baby footprint, nor drivers license. so you have to ask yourself: what else can you give them then?
>>509955732>how are they gonna know whose birth certificate from california is from a woman who jumped the border and landed on their belly or an actual human who wasnt birthed out of a butt?i realize that sounds like a stupid question and the answer is "use your eyes genius", *we* obviously can tell, but im asking the question in a purely legal sense.
>>509955732"ImmigrationOS" built by Palantir
The 14th Amendment was intentionally misinterpreted for 120+ years and SCOTUS was too much of a pussy to make a ruling on it for 120+ years due to the US needing; cheap labor, suppressed wages, and the real estate lobby, being the largest lobby in the country, needing ever increasing demand for housing as the US was expanding in the industrial revolution and the post WWII era.
Those laborers are no longer needed now as the industrial revolution is ancient history and everything is moving towards automation and the need has arisen for a highly specialized and technical workforce (read: intelligent) that would be capable of maintaining such complex systems, THEREFORE; the "citizenship" status granted to these low skill, low IQ, migrants will be revoked RETROACTIVELY; they will be relocated to Third Party Nations in the case that they become stateless; Palantir will be needed and has already been funded for this project through the BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL; America can move into the 21st century, housing can become affordable again; wages will increase as demand for high skill labor will increase, and the country will be happier, healthier, and more prosperous, and finally any high skill laborers who wish to come to the US and become PERMANENT RESIDENTS (Green Card or Gold Card which can be bought for the price of $5 Million) will be eligible to produce Citizen offspring if they come here LEGALLY and obtain one of those cards.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
>>509955948Damn you guys really are gonna make the commies blush with the plantir shit huh? Well enjoy your 1984 I guess.
>>509956193Here's the contracts already paid for from ICE to Palantir, they got orders of magnitude more funding through the Big Beautiful Bill which will show up in government records in the next few months.
https://archive.is/YHjS3
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
>>509956193I can see the Australian government gleefully letting them test it on your population first.
>>509956284That's cool and all but I fail to see how leaving something like citizenship in the hands of private company implementing AI systems that can easily be tweaked (or borked) for biases is good for your country. Mind you this will all be completely unaccountable with no transparency whatsoever so enjoy your future AI totalitarian state.
>>509956577To think, this all started with GamerGate.
>>509938787>racemix with goblino spics goyThat's how the amerimutt meme started.
>>509933476 (OP)You can read the debates on on the 1866 civil rights act, most of the key figures behind the 14th amendment agreed on birthright citizenship for immigrants. I think they were mistaken to believe immigration would never scale out of control.
>>509933476 (OP)Nothing will happen.
Trump will give illegals amnesty like he already has.
I don't understand how it can only affect certain states. No state has the ability to grant US citizenship.
tl;dr
this doesn't effect me so idc
>t. spic
>>509933983Imo blacks can stay we gave them a promise and we should keep it. They usually try to adapt and can be decent people as long as you dont expect too much out of them. They arent as evil natured as jeets are. Its poos and jews that have to go.
>>509954572Anyone who criticizes Israel will be sent to Sudan. If you argue that you are a citizen because you were born here, that will be rejected. If you argue that both of your parents were citizens, they will say, how can you be sure? You will say, Because they were born—
Oops
Also Trump says even naturalization can be reversed
>>509958482But states can choose not to *revoke* it
>>509933476 (OP)This is just more bread and circus that will get overturned by the time Epstein is out of the news cycle. Why would glowniggers destroy their golden calf? Trump is the fallguy, did you forget?
Mark my words. Birthright citizenship will stay, screencap so I can laugh at you.
>>509960952>screencap thisOK
>>509933476 (OP)You're the retroactive retard.
How's it going?
>>509933476 (OP)Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that 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 that 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) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.
30 days from the date of this order. Not since 1880
>>509953330then how come a baby born on a military base to two non americans, is NOT granted american citizenship?
>>509933476 (OP)>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.AIEEEEEEEEEEE CALISISTERS!
>>509955948>>509956193>>509956465>pretending like PRISM and five eyes didnt already do all of this, on american citizens instead of illegal alienscute
>>509933476 (OP)I hope this is real but I doubt because this countries too fucking homo and ran by kikes
>>509933476 (OP)>>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.Question: did they not already look at it retroactively when they first decided to allow anchor babies and why wouldn't it just be retroactive from the date in the 60s or whenever, when they decided to allow that in the first place? Just wondering, I've not been keeping up with the birthright citizenship threads but I cannot believe this whole thing is something that was never made law in the first place.
>>509964080There is NO RULING by SCOTUS on Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment. Anchor Babies NEVER had citizenship it was just never challenged in court, not even once since Wong Kim Ark.
That is over 120 years of the courts simply REFUSING to make a ruling on this because they knew that anchor babies are NOT citizens by any reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
>>509933476 (OP)>“policy of the United States” to no longer ISSUE or ACCEPT documentation of citizenship in two scenarios:Why do both scenarios require both parents to be foreigners?
It should obviously be that even just one illegal parents spawn is an illegal.
>>509933476 (OP)>sweaty Back sweat.
>>509964349I literally just read this post
>>509933930Bro what the fuck. Why was it allowed for so long when it was essentially illegal, and never looked at before now? Or before Wong Kim Ark. This is insane. It's like they wanted to keep the door open on it for some reason. It must have been serving someone some purpose, but everyone else just looked the other way for centuries? What?
>>509935403Pseudoscientific cope of course. Eskimos have lived in the arctic for tens of thousands of years and are dark as shit.
Europeans didn't "turn white", we have always been. We are not the same species than you darkoloid apethings.
>>509964349Oh OK is it because of the allowing any persons bit? The wording at the end is kind of obscure and open to interpretation.
>Section 1>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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>>509964682>Why was it allowedTwo reasons:
1: Jews wanted to destroy the ethnic fabric of the United States. A jew is after all the creator of the term "Melting Pot".
2: The Real Estate Lobby, which is the largest lobby in the country and has been since the nations founding, needed more people in the country to artificially inflate the price of housing because it was making them rich. And lots of other industries did the same because more people = more demand = more money.
Things slowed down in the 1930s when immigration first got out of hand mostly due to innovations in transportation technology. By the mid 1920s most of the country had access to railroads and major ports and steam ships were everywhere and no longer rare thus it became safer to travel long distances if you had even a small amount of money saved up.
Those advances brought in huge numbers of immigrants, something like 20 million at Ellis Island alone in 15 years. That's why congress started to slow things down, but then they accelerated again in the 1960s after JFK was assassinated and the Hart-Celler ACT was passed which removed the strict immigration policies that were born out of the 1930s.
Then things got progressively worse over the decades, with Ronald Reagan amnesty bill, finally culminating in Joe Biden which saw more than 30 MILLION illegals cross the border in 4 years.
Now for the first time in 120 years SCOTUS actually has to answer the question: are Anchor Babies citizens????
Explain to me how they can do this retroactively? How are they going to determine families that are here due to anchors and save the internet tough guy cringe reply you do every time you make this thread. I want them out too I just don't think they have ways of labeling them
>>509965179>How are they going to determine families that are here due to anchorsImmigrationOS by Palantir has just been funded to the tune of billions by the Big Beautiful Bill.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
>>509965311Thats not an answer. Whats your proof that these people have some record that identifies them as anchor immigrants? Elon Musk through Doge gave us a view of how messy and terrible their computer records are with social security so how do you know anchor immigrants are correctly identified?
>>509965179they can't under the current interpretation of the 14th amendment.
>>509965619When 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.
This is why SCOTUS has taken 120 years to make this ruling because it is that historic and society altering.
>>509933476 (OP)>1868>868>8686 strikes again
>>509965619I don't think they could even if it wasn't an issue. I bet they just call everyone a citizen no matter how they got it based on the things I have seen Elon uncover
>>509965154>Now for the first time in 120 years SCOTUS actually has to answer the question: are Anchor Babies citizens????And you thought BLM summer was spicy... imagine that winter of discontent. This is going to get crazy, especially considering
>30 MILLION illegalsAmerica is a big country so I can imagine there are places that see lots of immigrants but also lots of places that still haven't really changed since the 60s, or saw an increase, so it's still hard for them to fully imagine what is happening, but holy fuck that's a lot of people. Like I could believe the Deagle prediction for 2025 America is correct if they strip the citizenship of every illegal retroactively like that, but removing people will be another matter. And would this apply to kids, grand kids, great grand kids? Would they even have another country that would accept them or are they all going to end up in that one South American that's basically turning itself into a super prison for hire? It's ridiculous that this was allowed to go on like this in the first place, but as usual I guess those responsible are mostly in the ground now.
>>509938318>support a government agencyi'm going to pour out some salt so that ice goes the way of the slug
>>509965758Can you confirm with proof that the government or Palantir can retroactively determine who anchor baby immigrants are?
>>509965179I presume just checking who doesn't have social security numbers, or who has the special illegal immigrant social security numbers for work. Identify one kid and you'd know the rest of the family was illegal too. But I honestly don't think any country would be happy or accepting at so many people suddenly being deported back to them.
>>509965866>and would this apply to kids, grand kids, great grand kids? Would they even have another country that would accept them or are they all going to end up in that one South American that's basically turning itself into a super prison for hire?In the case where a person(s) would be made stateless SCOTUS has already ruled that those individuals can be removed to Third Party nations see here:
>>509948580>>509965956I don't work for Palantir so no, I do not have access TOP SECRET Government Files relating to contracts, and HIPAA protected medical files, and other files like it that I can post on this Mongolion Basket Weaving Forum for your satisfaction, faggot.
>>509966062The US is big and might makes right.
They will accept the immigrants even if they don't want them because they have no alternative.
Half a million somalians alone are about to be deported.
>>509966062So from what I understand Anchor baby -> sponsoring parents -> greencard -> social security number so that wouldn't work.
>>509966100ok so you shouldn't make definitive claims when you don't know. I want them going retroactively but I bet our incompetent government never distinguished them in their records which would be important to do this.
>>509966318Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
>>509966100>SudanOh for fucks sake, not dees wae. It'd be better being illegal in Mexico.
>>509966368ok anon you are a pedo. I don't need a source or proof to verify that because having sources are wrong according to your retarded copypasta so we both agree you are a pedo.
>>509933476 (OP)>me when constitution
>acting like the government is going to round up 150 million illegal spics and their babies
509966439
>Switches to Ad Hominem
why are shitlibs like this?
No more (You)s for (You)
>>509965758This just makes it more clear the government and courts won't change the definition of jurisdiction to be limited to citizenship/allegiance. It would make basic prosecution of aliens and dual citizens (an overtly broad category and existing on many level of the government) impossible. Also by looking at debates the reason it's taken so long to have another challenge is because it was generally accepted that "jus soli" or birthright citizenship was meant to be settled law and the intention of the civil rights act of 1866 and the 14th amendment. Yes the republicans of the 1860s were that ridiculous and that's why andrew johnson voted to veto the act and nearly a third of the house and senate voted against it.
>>509958142>>509958289
>be me
>agree with OP
>just don't think one part is feasible despite me wanting it to be true
>he is so low self esteem he throws a temper tantrum over simply questioning it
>pulls out a sad copypasta he has saved on his pc and gets mad when shown how retarded it is
>now he is crying victim using kike tactics when he was the instigator
why are these pedos like this?
>>509966546>change the definition of the jurisdictionIt is not the argument of the government, NOR MY, argument that anything should be "changed".
I am arguing from the position of UPHOLDING the 14th amendment as it is already written, and UPHOLDING SCOTUS precedent in Wong Kim Ark as it already stands.
It is the OPPOSITION who must invoke Article V of the US Constitution or to create NEW PRECEDENT that would OVERRULE the precedent set in Wong Kim Ark.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
>Parents illegally enter the country
>Parents drop out 5 kids
>My kids are american and need me, you can't deport ! Hey I've now been here for X amount of years, I'm american too !
The reality is, they should all be fucked off, the entire family. You can't have illegal work, citizenship by birth etc to be incentives. If you enter countries illegally, your life should be hell, you should be rounded up, shot or deported. There has to be a meaningful deterrent.
>>509933476 (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'd be too fucking based
>>509966270>The US is big and might makes right.Still true that. And I guess if the third countries are happy to do so then there's nothing stopping it. I know our government was trying to do a similar thing and paying extra to them for infrastructure and whatever. But holy fuck, imagine border hopping, paying cartel people thousands to help, then still trekking through a jungle to get to America, only to get deported to Africa. JUST ...
>>509966318Birth records then? If fucking Ancestry.com trace back my 7th great grandpa I refuse to believe a government, with all it's active and historical records can't. Maybe just a communication problem between departments, but never underestimate bureaucracy.
>>509966546It would honestly be easier to threaten deportation and then offer a different kind of route to citizenship.
>go die 4 muh rushins
>>509967002Those records could have the same issues. I am trying to figure out if there exists some record that will always identity how you got your citizenship
Chatgpt says there is no public facing document that says this. They say there might be some internal one but they don't know for sure
>>509967385It's a weird one, because America does issue documents to illegal immigrants. I'd be amazed if one of them didn't have a tick box indicating illegal status. But with birth records, you eventually hit a dead end so you know someone wasn't born there. And you have them showing up randomly on a census at 47 so you can kind of guess what year they arrived. It would then become a case of verifying that one individual and how they arrived, which would then determine the rest of the family maybe? But yeah, for people whose families have been here for generations, I can't really see how it could be done with just one document either. You need a whole lot of double checking and cross referencing. But for the newest immigrants, I have seen webms here of border control rounding people up to get processed. The records for the newest arrivals should be easy to check. And, well, that's going to be a lot of people.
>>509965154>finally culminating in Joe Biden which saw more than 30 MILLION illegals cross the border in 4 years.
>>509967385Actually could passports carry that info?
>>509967870I don't have faith that the US government handles paperwork well and I think that is by design plus the computer systems we have were designed in the 60's
>>509968047Mine doesn't
Doge (2)
md5: 9b432a33200c30312933816bb87f56e6
🔍
>>509968239Fair enough, I wasn't following the DOGE fails too closely either. I will say though, that for whatever information they pop on a document there's probably at least three times as much sitting on the database they created it from. If there is an easy way to tell, it could be that the wider public just doesn't really know.
>>509964080It's not retroactive. OP is a moron and pretending he's telling the truth. He's made multiple threads since at least April.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.
Meaning 30 days after Jan 30 of this year.
>>509933476 (OP)Why not all 50 states?
>>509939026All the seething replies to this post are brown gaypers terrified of being deported.
ACB will vote in favor of upholding Birthright Citizenship as it stands in its originalist meaning thus ending Birthright Citizenship for illegals and temporary visa holders but granting the exception of Permanent Resident Card Holders as to uphold precedent set in Wong Kim Ark
Here is a brilliant breakdown of ACBs majority opinion from June 27th
Barrett limited the court’s review to the sole question of whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have the authority to issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions.
The act was one of the first laws passed by Congress after the ratification of the Constitution, and in modified form remains on the books in Title 28 of the United States Code. And as Barrett noted, it is the Judiciary Act that has endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over “all suits … in equity,” and that “still today … authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies,” such as injunctions.
As an originalist, Barrett interprets the Constitution and federal statutes rigidly according to their text and their “original public meaning,” discounting evolving legal norms and practices as well as contemporary social values and needs. When it comes to universal injunctions, however, originalists have a problem. No federal statute, including the Judiciary Act, explicitly authorizes judges to issue nationwide injunctions, but no statute prohibits them from doing so.
In the absence of any guidance from the 1789 act, Barrett and the majority revved up their originalist wayback machine to examine how the English High Court of Chancery operated at the time of the founding, asking if that court issued forms of equitable relief analogous to contemporary universal injunctions. “The answer,” she wrote, “is no.” Equitable remedies at the time of the founding, she concluded, could provide “complete relief between the parties” to a lawsuit, but “complete relief is not synonymous with universal relief” that applies throughout an entire country.
>>509968671Correct, the Executive Order is not retroactive but the SCOTUS ruling in October can be, they can make it retroactive going back to July 9th, 1868.
>>509933476 (OP)>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.so we get 50 citizenships now, this won't stand for very long or it will create a situation where California, Illinois and New York decide the entire country as they have the most citizens by volume
don't say you weren't warned
>>509969620That's not how it works. Each state gets two senators regardless of population size so if you don't have the senate then you don't have shit And if that is what happens then the US will be in permanent political stalemate.
>>509966764as it is written it gives birthright citizenship to immigrants
>>509969733Incorrect for many, many, many reasons I go into great detail on in this thread.
>>509969385>they can make itYes. If they determine that the retro activeness won't cause harm to the people affected.
Can you explain how the SC can possibly reach the conclusion that the affected becoming stateless won't count as "harm"?
>>509969776The argument between cowan and conness clearly shows it gives birthright citizenship to aliens.
>>509969983SCOTUS makes decisions that "cause harm" to one party or another every single year. If an inmate is unable to escape death row due to a SCOTUS decision on a constitutional question or interpretation that by definition is causing "harm" to that inmate even if it is "upholding the constitution".
>>509970074Incorrect
Pic related is from Mr. Howard
DEPORTATIONS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
>>509970164indians had forms of immunity from treaty and foreign ministers have immunity. Extra work has to be done to bring them to the jurisdiction of the united states through extradition. Indians that were taxed and managed more thoroughly were granted citizenship even before 1924.
>>509970366You are missing the point, the point is that Indians were NOT under the FULL and COMPLETE jurisdiction thereof the United states as they did NOT owe ALLEGIANCE to the SOVEREIGN because they put TRIBE above STATE.
To be eligible under Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment you must be under the FULL and COMPLETE jurisdiction thereof the United States of America for which Temporary Visa holders do NOT qualify by the very nature of their TEMPORARY status and thus neither do ILLEGAL MIGRANTS as they are by definition, TRESPASSING and are criminals whose first act on US Soil was to break the fucking law which brings into question their ALLEGIANCE to the sovereign.
>>509933476 (OP)It's SWEETY not SWEATY
Why do people keep fucking up the wording?
>>509970863You have to go back.
>>509933476 (OP)How much does Zion Don pay you to make these threads?
>>509970975I do it for free like a jannie
I enjoy the argument, and the opposition gets so mad and stomps their feet like toddlers when they lose and its cute and makes me laugh seeing how pathetic the opposition is.
>>509970536All the same arguments were made by Senator Cowan against the gypsies and were then rebuffed by Senator Conness in debate who said it would give birthright citizenship to immigrants regardless. And then there was a matter of certain categories of slaves that would have been considered aliens from their importation. They were making sure to give citizenship to them as well no matter the cost or negative long term effects on the country.
>>509971570I disagree, see Mr. Howard in pic related.
>>509947083Yeah but they still pay niggers to have children here.
That's why it boggles my mind when people claim America isn't socialist.
>>509972037this is the most petty grammar debate, most agree he was only talking about foreign ministers and their families with that list.
>>509970292The exclusion of indians by mr trumbell wasn't the same as what he said for immigrants.
>>509939958They were obviously using the word "jurisdiction" in a different sense. The goal should be to interpret what was meant by the people who wrote the law, not play autism word games. We obviously have the "jurisdiction" you're speaking of over anyone who comes here, that's why there's a legal right to deport them. The author obviously meant "jurisdiction of citizenship", IE their citizenship/allegiance doesn't automatically change because they illegally immigrate here. If that's true then we cannot enforce any immigration law.
If we can enforce immigration law, then why would the children of illegal immigrants be citizens? Makes no sense.
>>509973067>most agreeWhere? SCOTUS has not ruled on this which is why it is going to SCOTUS in the first place.
>>509973428debating over the grammar of his list about foreign minsters doesn't change the intent of the citizenship clause.
>>509973570Correct, debating over the grammar of his list about those who were NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof does not change the citizenship clause in that it does NOT apply to the children of illegals nor temporary visa holders.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
>>509973644It clearly affects aliens, free or slave.
>>509973712Incorrect see pic related.
>>509933983Andrew Jackson blamed Jews for the civil war and considered blacks nothing but a burden, yet he still made the bill to grant black citizenship and the right to vote.
Practically any white man in government who signed off blacks being citizens thought blacks as nothing but a financially burden, lazy thieves, and intellectually closer to animals
>>509970097It is when they deliver if it'll be retroactive. That's the standard.
You're talking about a SC decision given during the someone's trial timeframe. In that case, whichever interpretation was current at the time of sentencing is the one followed.
If a decision is after the trial. and the new interpretation can save someone from death row, then a lawyer appeals.
There's no wat that the SC could agree that making people stateless (it's even ridiculous to type it) wouldn't cause harm.
In other words, you make no sense and are confusing topics on purpose.
>>509974421It is completely within the realm of possibility and happens thousands of times each year in the US. The process is known as denaturalization.
IMG_6434
md5: 4882ffab38f4107040bac6b308e17790
🔍
Here is Mr. Howard again the common theme being here that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant FULL and COMPLETE jurisdiction thereof of the United States of America.
>>509933476 (OP)>governmentYou mean some flaccid faggot who sucks kike assholes?
Stfu bitch xDnhny8
