This should come as no surprise. These are the same people who literally argue in favor of the mayocide. Did you forget about that? I didn't. /r/Drama posters are literally pro-mayocide. That's not even me being hyperbolic or making insults, it's simply a fact.
They.
Are.
Not.
Human.
They are autists. And they are completely irredeemable.
The joke is that this November your vote counts exactly as much as a senile retiree whose political sources are nestled between a thread of gay furry porn and a thread of kids wearing swimsuits.
I guess what you're saying is true. As without white people, there could be no mayocide. And as we all know, the mayocide will be the greatest moment of collective self-actualization for the human race in its entire history.
That doesn't make sense, it just highlighted how desperate you are to signal you don't like white people as a response to my comment hurting your feelings
I was just trying to be charitable. Are you actually suggesting that milkmonkey cumskins are superior to us human beings? 'Cause if you are, I'm afraid there is no hope for you, as you're clearly delusional.
I don't know what race you are, but yeah white people are the best. They developed the best countries, innovate the most, have the best scientists, artists, musicians, the most powerful armies, and the most beautiful people. Basically everything that makes your middle-class life so easy is because a white person made it. Some Asians are cool too, but apart from that.. yeah white people rule. This makes you emotional because deep down you know it is true and you don't want it to be. You have to ignore really obvious stuff in order to not feel miserable in every day life
That might work if I didn't live in the most Islamic part of the most Islamic city in the UK and see retarded inbred Pakistanis everywhere all the time
God, you're some sort of vanilla-demon fetishist. Take off your cream-tinted glasses and look around you. Everything the white "man" (it disgusts me to type those words in sequence) has supposedly created was given to them by naive humans whose bleeding hearts clouded their foresight. When those filthy pink animals emerged from their filthy subterranean dwellings 5000-and-some-odd years ago, humanity, for whatever reason, took pity on them. We clothed them, fed them, let them reproduce freely, even shared our technology, unable to see the the trouble that would befall us. When their numbers swelled and their scheming nature became apparent, there were some who thought to fight back, but the white-plague was already spread, and we were already doomed. Spreading their silly ideals of "liberalism", "democracy", and "the-value-of-all-human-life-even-whites" to humanity, the semen-skinned-scourge brainwashed us to let them take over, as we became indifferent to more and more whites usurping every position of power for themselves. They appropriated our technology and resources, however haphazardly, for their own goals (i.e. silly white nonsense), and rewrote history to paint a ridiculous picture of "Western-Civilization", where somehow those pale troglodytes were the progenitors of modern human society.
Thankfully, we are coming ever closer to the end of white domination over the Human race. Unbound by the rational hand of a POC, they continue to pursue their silly white nonsense, ignorant to the fact that they don't know how to manage what they took from us. Those incompetent translucent mongoloids don't have much longer until they all come tumbling down and humanity takes back its place as the stewards of this planet. It is the twilight of the honkey, and it will all end with a glorious revolution that is our return to our given place in this world, in *our* world. This is the **Mayocide**. A purifying wind that will consume all those melanin-deficient monstrosities and lift humanity back into the position we deserve, the position that was swindled from us. We will finally be free again. The question I have for you is why do you cling to the falsehood that whites are not only human, but also superior to other humans? Get that tiny white dick out of your mouth and prepare for ascension, and leave your spoon-fed lies of white personhood behind you.
God, you're some sort of vanilla-demon fetishist. Take off your cream-tinted glasses and look around you. Everything the white "man" (it disgusts me to type those words in sequence) has supposedly created was given to them by naive humans whose bleeding hearts clouded their foresight. When those filthy pink animals emerged from their filthy subterranean dwellings 5000-and-some-odd years ago, humanity, for whatever reason, took pity on them. We clothed them, fed them, let them reproduce freely, even shared our technology, unable to see the the trouble that would befall us. When their numbers swelled and their scheming nature became apparent, there were some who thought to fight back, but the white-plague was already spread, and we were already doomed. Spreading their silly ideals of "liberalism", "democracy", and "the-value-of-all-human-life-even-whites" to humanity, the semen-skinned-scourge brainwashed us to let them take over, as we became indifferent to more and more whites usurping every position of power for themselves. They appropriated our technology and resources, however haphazardly, for their own goals (i.e. silly white nonsense), and rewrote history to paint a ridiculous picture of "Western-Civilization", where somehow those pale troglodytes were the progenitors of modern human society.
Thankfully, we are coming ever closer to the end of white domination over the Human race. Unbound by the rational hand of a POC, they continue to pursue their silly white nonsense, ignorant to the fact that they don't know how to manage what they took from us. Those incompetent translucent mongoloids don't have much longer until they all come tumbling down and humanity takes back its place as the stewards of this planet. It is the twilight of the honkey, and it will all end with a glorious revolution that is our return to our given place in this world, in our world. This is the Mayocide. A purifying wind that will consume all those melanin-deficient monstrosities and lift humanity back into the position we deserve, the position that was swindled from us. We will finally be free again. The question I have for you is why do you cling to the falsehood that whites are not only human, but also superior to other humans? Get that tiny white dick out of your mouth and prepare for ascension, and leave your spoon-fed lies of white personhood behind you.
we let browns have their little revenge fantasies but put enough chems in the water supply to make them impotent and forgetful and lazy so itll never actually happen
With Kavanaugh, there’s probably a majority on the SC to decide that’s not what it means. The fun part will be Clarence Thomas up there shitting on the 14th amendment.
Kavanaugh so far has not voted down party lines. I imagine, being fucking old and stupid, El Trumpo thought Kavanaugh would "owe him". Ha fuck you Trump he's beyond your reach now. He can do as he pleases.
With that being said who the fuck knows what is gonna happen next. Shit the supreme court might just ban SJWs outright. They may not have that power, but hopefully they do.
That's not what substantive due process was. And if that isn't ironic, then neither is the notion that Clarence Thomas would find some rationale to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
Because the 14th wasn't written with illegal aliens in mind. It wasn't until the Immigration & Naturalization Act came around that it started being applied to them.
I mean, hell, Harry fucking Reid has introduced bills to make it clear that it doesn't apply to illegals.
While Harry Fucking Reid might not like it, the children of illegal immigrants have been getting citizenship since 1898, not 1960 as you just claimed for some reason.
oh my god all you MAGAcels are so fucking gay ahahaha. anything you disagree with "YOU GOT A SOURCE" uh fuck you faggot how about you use the google? We know you aren't asking in good faith.
If your daddy can just change the constitution whats to stop a dem president from repealing the 2nd down the road? All the staunch constitutionalist repubs are furious i'm sure! lol no principles
But here's a source telling us that the 14th was never meant to provide for anchor babies:
​
Senator M. Howard of Michigan, in 1866, wrote: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..."
​
But who is Senator M. Howard?!? He's the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, the very thing that's being discussed, ya dingus.
Anti Eastern European mail order brides sucking enough rich dick to get their parents citizenship while hubby fights to keep the scary brown ones out... I'm anti double standard
Trump is proposing to close a loophole that's being abused, which--according to the author of the amendment in the first place--was never even intended to apply to foreigners who happen to be on US soil before popping out their kid.
But let me tell you how this is going to play out:
Trump issues his executive order
9th circuit strikes it down
3 months later, SCOTUS affirms that the executive order is, in fact, constitutional
You’ve cited the opinion of one of several legislators who served on the committee that debated and drafted the amendment, an interpretation that clearly wasn’t carrying the day as far back as 1898. If that’s your best argument I think you might want to reconsider your position.
That’s fine, then amend the constitution or at least pass some actual laws about it. The president trying to unilaterally reinterpret our central document is some banana republic shit.
The constitution doesn't need to be amended, only the interpretation needs to be legally clarified. Which is what's going to happen as a result of this exec order, one way or the other.
There were literally thousands of chinese coming into the country at the time which prompted the Page Act, and later the Chinese Exclusion Act, both of which passed after the Wong Kim Ark ruling. Have you even researched this at all?
They werent coming over as a horde in an act of belligerence to the law of the land,
Hard to be belligerent of immigration laws that didn't exist, or of border patrol or barriers that didn't exist. Like literally just step off the boat or over the border, provide a name (or not lmao) and welcome to the US
For sure, and it’s a living document and all that, but this is a radical change coming out of very little build up. I’m curious if SCOTUS even picks it up after it gets shot down by a lower court. Honestly I’m curious if we ever see this EO in action or if it’s just some Election Day red meat thrown to the base.
With kavanaugh on I see it hitting the house, however, I don't see it passing.
I hope this ends up with some compromise that respects both national security and the well being of children caught in the middle. They didn't choose to be here.
John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation
second line of the wikipedia article lmao
In fact, the whole case revolves around whether being born on indian reservations counts as "US juristiction" in the same way that it would count if that person was born on US soil in the more direct sense. I.e. they decided Indians born on an indian reservation, in contrast to those born in the united states proper, are considered to "owe allegiance to a foreign power", and do not count as citizens.
You'll note there's no mention or relevance given to the status of parents anywhere in the decision, if you read it. Only location of birth and what that implies about what counts as "US juristiction"
I'm sure daddy appreciates how hard you are trying to make him look good, but you're really flailing.
"only. Location of birth and what that implies about what counts as 'US jurisdiction"
And that is exactly what we're discussing. Here's a guy who was born on US soil but determined to not be under US jurisdiction and therefore not granted citizenship thereby.
😂😂😂😂 just imagine editing your post on r/drama to try to win an argument. We have to tell Elon about this new level of bussyblasted, it might be the secret to propelling rockets to Mars.
Wong was the child of legal immigrants. Do you not understand the difference between an illegal and a legal immigrant? Would you like me to explain it to you?
In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[4] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language"
Dude, chinese people couldn't get citizenship when the case was ruled. They were literally the closest thing to illegal immigrants possible at the time.
The 14th was ratified in the 1860s. It wasn't until a hundred years later that anchor babies became a thing, as a result of the INA. Prior to that, everyone agreed that it wasn't intended to apply to people who managed to sprint across the border before giving birth.
Here is a literal quote from the guy who wrote the citizenship clause of the amendment...
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..." - Senator M. Howard
And here is a literal court case that shows that Howard's efforts to exclude children of non-citizens from birth right citizenship failed and his interpretation was already rejected way back in 1898. Howie got cucked just like Donny is about to get cucked, because no one man determines how the constitution is interpreted.
Pretty sure constitutional interpretation relies on making judgments about what the original authors of the articles intentions were. Howard wrote the citizenship clause of the amendment and his intentions are pretty clear here.
He is one dude with one position who was part of a committee that drafted it and a nationwide process that ratified it into the US constitution. There is a reason why he couldn't get more explicit language into it and why just 30 years later nobody thought it was insane that it was ruled that it applies to children of non-citizens.
lol, I love that the only people who got fucked for being illegals are the guys who were here first.
I don't know that a modern illegal immigrant argument would fly if it relied on the argument in that case and claimed that an anchor baby was born not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Seems hard to claim that a baby isn't subject to US jurisdiction while also arresting and deporting it.
when the SCOTUS cucks the people who have legitimate reason to still be here but have no real positive nor negative influence on the government or consumerism at large
Actually, prior to that there was no set agreement about how the amendment applied to the children of illegal immigrants. It is impossible to know the authors' intent for birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants because there was no such thing as "illegal immigration" in 1868. It wasn't until the 1875 Page Age that illegal immigration even became possible (and then only for Chinese nationals).
Here is a literal quote from the guy who wrote the citizenship clause of the amendment...
"...this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..." - Senator M. Howard
He was part of the committee that wrote the amendment, and his interpretation of it did not win out. Stop citing that retarded out of context quote you got off twatter already.
No, I'm thinking of the children of illegal immigrants, to which the 14th Amendment was not thought to apply until after the passage of the Immigration & Naturalization Act in 1952.
And every bit of case law says children born in the US to foreigners are citizens. And considering that the Kim Wong Ark ruling was made by people who could ask the drafters of the 14th if foreigners were excluded it seems the intent of the amendment was quite clear.
And considering that the Kim Wong Ark ruling was made by people who could ask the drafters of the 14th if foreigners were excluded it seems the intent of the amendment was quite clear.
Wong Kim Ark was born to legal residents. That's the distinction. His parents weren't illegal immigrants.
We'll see. Again, it's hard to prove that the guys who wrote the 14th Amendment intended for it to mean any Guatemalan who sprinted across the border before going into labor got a permanent anchor in the country.
we had plyer v doe as well. In a 5-4 ruling the scotus ruled texas had to provide education to illegal children - an understandably controversial decision. However, it should be noted that the dissent did not challenge birthright citizenship and stated that the state of texas did not have a duty to provide illegal immigrants with an education and also stated that Texas was providing education to children born in the us to illegals as it should.
So even in a case where illegals are involved no justice challenged the interpretation of the 14th and merely challenged that there was a right to state services for young illegals.
The issue is that even in the case of illegal children in texas the conservative justices didn't challenge the 14th - only non-citizens access to public services and affirmed that children born here had access to those services. It should be noted that not a single justice challenged this and there was a ruling in the 2000's touching on citizenship where the scotus ruled in favor of existing interpretations of citizenship. And even Richard Posner recognizes that any changes to birthright citizenship would have to come through congress as congress has passed a law in section 1401 of the US code that supports birthright citizenship. Andrew McCarthy over at National Review wrote an article today stating that the EO would be illegal.
And there is the problem of conservative jurists. Jurists who respect the wishes of congress and previous precedent tend to not overturn laws and precedents.
Ryan does sometimes break with Trump though. McCarthy, on the other hand, used to promote the Bill Ayers wrote Dreams from My Father conspiracy. I used to have to edit that orthopedic-shoe-wearing, nasal-tic-having loser's shit.
The 14th doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal residents, because America had open borders until 1875 (And even then the borders where only closed to Chinese women)
I'm pretty sure no one born in the US after the 14th has ever been denied citizenship, outside of indians and ambassadors. The court already ruled that congress could not prohibit people from getting birthright citizenship, who were of a class that otherwise would have totally been banned from getting US citizenship through race disqualifications. And not because of the race disqualifications, they had no problem with that.
Ehhhhhhhhhh....but was it the intent of the authors of the 14th? Or was it meant to protect slaves and the authors didn’t foresee people coming here to literally be slave labor to get out of their shithole?
Because prior to that it was assumed that anyone born here who wasn't either a slave or an indian got citizenship. The intent of the 14th was just to close the slave loophole.
Ah lemme explain out the joke. Originalists are hell bent on the intent of the authors at the time of enacting something. So what we mere mortals take for granted, our boys Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh might question.
Although I’d be amazed and stunned if they touch this one except to say “lol no.”
Originalists are textualists. They are not intentionionalists. It is not the job of the court to try and decide the psychological state of the person who wrote the law and divine their intention. Only the text matters. No one is an intentionalists. Just because a law has effects that the people who wrote it didn't intend, doesn't make it suddenly cease to be a law.
Someone didn’t suffer through statory interpretation.
Originalists will look to: the meaning of the words at the time of the writing, and; if there is confusion, look to the context at the time to try and divine the meaning of those words. Including but not limited, “hey, what were those silly fellows talking about at the time? You know for intent context.”
It’s a more honest version of judicial review but still falls victim to the inevitable, “we’re confused, what’s the intent of it all?”
Scalia, to his credit, would deny and say nope, wrong. Yet in Heller, discussing weapons that didn’t exist at the time of the Founders, he fell prey to: intent. It’s mentioned thrice in his opinion, all supporting his originalist stance.
Is it a great crime? Naw. It’s inevitable. But trying to say originalists are honest textualists is wrong. They’re kissing cousins but not a tautology.
Here is a literal quote from the guy who wrote the citizenship clause of the amendment...
"...this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..." - Senator M. Howard
It was not the intent. Get ready for some boring ass sources-
Senator Jacob Howard, one of the authors of the Amendment, said this on the Senate floor during debate:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Source
Senator Edgar Cowan had this to say during that same debate (same source as above):
“It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.”
Senator Lyman Trumbull said:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means, “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." [...] What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Source
Senator Reverdy Johnson said (same source as above):
“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
The executive order idea was floated as a trial balloon in July in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post by former White House official Michael Anton. Anton’s sole book is The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men’s Style, which details a Florentine Renaissance approach to menswear on the job. In the Post piece, Anton inaccurately reproduced a quote from Senator Jacob Howard, the Senate sponsor of the Fourteenth Amendment, in a manner that made it seem to support his position (the Post, under enormous criticism, eventually acknowledged the alteration). And in fact, every bit of the scant scholarship Anton relies on in that piece is as phony as a Confederate $100 bill. (I once debated the scholar who was the source of most of it, and pointed out that almost all his evidence was not just erroneous, but faked.)
That is one of the two takeaways from today’s news: Trump, Anton, and his enablers are relying on phony history and altered documents in an attempt to change the American constitutional order. (The facts are readily available; for my own contributions, see here, here, here, here, and here.) Those who don’t want to take my word for it can consult this essay by James C. Ho, a conservative “originalist” who was recently appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by Donald Trump. Ho and I agree on little except this: The citizenship clause means what it says.
If the administration attempts to strip citizenship from millions of Americans—millions of people who have never known any other country—the trapdoor to dictatorship will have fallen open. The “executive order” cannot be enforced without a huge apparatus of internal control. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will, of necessity, become the skeleton of a nationwide citizenship police. Each of us must be prepared to prove our membership in the nation at any moment. And the new population of stateless Americans will face persecution, detention, and abuse; Korematsu-style internment camps would be a logical next step.
Our Constitution is a gift to us from the generations that went before, and particularly the millions who died in the Civil War; the Fourteenth Amendment is the centerpiece of that Constitution. If we let Donald Trump destroy it, then history will regard both him and us with equal contempt.
You said a lot of words about some Washington Post nonsense so I'm not reading it. I cited old ass sources, not a whiny rag. Your last sentence seems coherent, but disagrees with my point so I'm ignoring it.
Riddle me this buttercup. Are all your words saying it was changed in the Washington Post article or that it was changed in the Congressional Globe? Because I cited the Congressional Globe.
Well, Michael Anton's argument, the one Trump would likely be using, is plausible. But plausible and accepted are not the same thing. There are 4 hard nos on the Supreme Court. Of the remaining 5 justices, any or all could be stare deisis nos and any or all could reject Anton's argument about the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
Anton altered the quote he references. The senator he referenced was saying that aliens who are ambassadors and such are not included. He was not saying that aliens or ambassadors are not included. Anton is not a legal scholar, he is a Trump administration hack.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Do the commas in bold separate items in a list or adjectives modifying ambassadors and ministers? The anti birth right positions claims it's the former while the pro birth right position claims it's the latter. To complicate matters further, the quote is from a transcript.
The anti interpretation is plausible. I'm not sure it's enough to overturn 100 years of precedent. They'll need more than that and I doubt some new definitive piece of evidence is going to emerge.
It means our law does not apply to them, we can at worst expel them and hold their nation responsible. Diplomats or Indians. It does not mean "not in possession of a visa". Visas didn't exist in those days. Illegal immigrants did not exist, all there was were residents and citizens. The supreme court ruled however that people born in the US were citizens even if they were part of a class that was otherwise totally prohibited from getting citizenship, because of the birthright citizenship clause. The 14th ammendment could not have drawn up a difference between visa holders and non-visa holders, as it didn't exist back then. Just because later it decided that was a grand idea after WWI, doesn't mean they got to overrule the constitution.
Yeah, I suspect you are right. That notorious quote from Churchill about a conversation with the average voter being the greatest argument against democracy was probably based on meeting Americans.
The politics thread on this is quite amusing, since even those fags agree that illegals coming here to shit out a browny is kindof not-in-the-spirit of the 14th amendment.
The Founding Fathers didn't write the 14th Amendment.
The guys who did also wrote a bunch of "No more Chinamen!" immigration laws, so it's reasonable to assume they wouldn't be cool with Guatemalans getting citizenship just because some coyote ran their moms across the border to shit them out.
It's also reasonable to assume that the Founding Fathers didn't intend for people to stockpile-powered guns to prepare for a religious doomsday scenario or make up for a tiny dick, or for people to use their freedom of speech to create anti-democracy propaganda, but lucky for the people who do, the intent of the lawmakers doesn't factor into how the laws are put into practice.
Yeah, the Founding Fathers, who were fine with private citizens owning fucking artillery batteries, would have been horrified to learn that a modern American is allowed to own a rifle.
Now tell me some more about how high-powered .223 is. Sorry, how "stockpile-powered" .223 is.
Trump, should he pursue the executive order, would face court challenges, and it remains unclear whether he could prevail. Many legal scholars would argue such a change requires a constitutional amendment. But some conservatives argue the existing amendment holds room for interpretation.
But muh conservative strict constructionism and respect for the Constitution
It has literally always been interpreted as applying to anybody born in the US but ok. I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to own that they are judicial activists/loose constructionists when it is convenient to them (just like everyone else).
Ok let's talk about intent. Do you think it's possible to really know the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment regarding the children of illegal immigrants when the concept of "illegal immigration" into the United States did not even exist when they wrote it? Either interpretation of the birthright citizenship clause is exactly that - an interpretation - because the authors could not have had an opinion on something that did not exist at the time. The traditional interpretation has been that it applies to the children of illegal immigrants, so changing this by EO and circumventing the courts is blatantly unconstitutional.
We are actually in agreement about the courts deciding. I think Daddy should absolutely sign the EO because watching the SC evicerate one of his EOs will be hilarious and dramatic.
Here is a literal quote from the guy who wrote the citizenship clause of the amendment...
"...this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..." - Senator M. Howard
It should be read as "this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, (those who are) aliens, (those) who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" as those are alllll separate things. I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you just have poor reading comprehension, but it's really clear exactly what it means.
To me it's pretty clear that the who belong to families... goes with the aliens and foreigners... Like why mention families of ambassadors or foreign ministers at all? Wouldn't they fall under foreigners/aliens if that's what he intended?
They are "important" foreigners though and this basically just clarifies that they do not get special privilges due to it. It has nothing to do with the previous two groups mentioned other than them also being foreigners.
I mean you can read it that way if you are flexible enough to make the mental gymnastics, but the other senators in 1866 didn't, and neither did the Supreme Court in 1898.
The way the word "aliens" is offset in the quote makes it clear that it is not a list but rather modifying the word foreigners. It really should be read
who are foreigners (aliens) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
then why not just say "this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers?"
seems like a lot of extra words and added confusion to add absolutely no additional meaning
Because people in the 1800s wrote differently. What is confusing to us may not have been confusing to them. Have you ever read an old book and been confused by the way they structure their clauses?
Considering how there were arguments about 30 years later that argued against Howard's original interpretation, which was exactly as I stated it, I think you need to check yourself out and maybe consider the possibility that you might be retarded.
No need to check. Everyone who posts on here is retarded. A long posting history in drama lets you automatically skip all the autism testing to just outright get a diagnosis.
It literally was never intended for illegal immigration
aren't conservatives ALL about originalism?
There was LITERALLY no concept of illegal immigration during 1868. What do you say about that, stupid? Now suddenly, you are all about "interpreting" the constitution to your favor huh?
If you apply the modern day concept of "illegal"immigration, then you should also be okay applying similar logic to second amendment, right?
Lol the second amendment allowed for civilians to own and operate firearms that were used by militaries of the day. In some cases it even allowed civilians the use of cannons. Are you arguing for less gun regulation with that?
Obviously not. Conservatives are very staunchly against the whole "muskets are the only guns allowed because the M-16 wasn't invented yet" argument against the 2nd amendment.
I dont even think it will happen but let's not pretend like the founders were thinking about Consuela
1) Fuck the founders. Only an Americans would be so retarded as to care what some loser from the stupid ages has to say about radically different world
2) Considering the US had OPEN FUCKING BORDERS when the 14 was written they founders clearly meant anyone born in the US
Can we talk about intent with the 2nd amendment, given the fact that at the time it was written the absolute cream of the crop of professional soldiery could’ve maybe managed to squeeze off 4 rounds/minute?
You dumb ignoramus. The 14th was written during Reconstruction and post Civil War Congressman not the Founders.
Also, there's no way to interpret intent since there was no concept of 'illegal immigration' in 1865. Visas didn't exist nor did the idea of entering the US undocumented. The intent was that children of diplomats and Native Americans, who had their sovereign tribal reservations, would not be included. This the clause, subjects under jurisdiction. If you're going to pretend to be smart, at least be right.
Logistically it could never happen. Most states don't have a registry, how would you know how many gats your neighbor has? You gonna check the lake after I tell you I lost em all in a tragic boating accident?
I mean, they do this to wrong houses all the time. And people get hurt, but nobody really cares. Remember that fellow in the Arizona hotel? That was a mistake on their part right from the start, and they blew him away over an air rifle.
He was caught with witnesses doing the above beforehand. Not sympathetic. Was bus segregation excusable? No. It's the reason rosa parks was the one to rally behind in desegregating busses. She was squeaky clean, and an elder. Dozens of others had been in her place before, but it was only worthwhile to push the issue when they had a completely uncontroversial figure.
Nah, witnesses called in to say they saw him pointing it from his hotel window. Witness accounts are not always accurate. I'm not saying he's a Saint or anything, but he got blasted for moving when Simon didn't say. If witness accounts are all the cops need for a rooty tooty point and shooty then every Swatting prank should end up with someone dead.
he Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that tensions reached a "critical level" during the standoff, "with rifles pointing toward each side."[82][83] Las Vegas station KLAS-TV also reported that guns were pointed at officers.[80] Assistant Sheriff Lombardo recounted that "they were in my face yelling profanities and pointing weapons," and said, "We were outgunned, outmanned, and there would not have been a good result from it."[80]
A photojournalist for Reuters wrote that armed supporters had "taken up tactical positions on government officers," and that one man pointing a rifle in the direction of BLM employees said, "I've got a clear shot at four of them."[84] Another man said, "I'm ready to pull the trigger if fired upon."[84]
Las Vegas Metro Deputy Chief Tom Roberts defused the situation by announcing that Bundy's cattle would be returned within 30 minutes.[66] The BLM announced that it would suspend the mass roundup,[1][85] citing safety reasons. Clark County Sheriff Gillespie mediated the agreement between the Bundy family and the BLM, saying, "[W]hen a group of protesters threaten civil unrest or violence in this county -- it is my job to step in and ensure the safety of citizens."[77] BLM Director Neil Kornze said that "Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public."[82][83][86][87]
And eventually released with all charges dismissed. Thing is when he was surrounded by guys with guns the cops backed off and let him go with all of his confiscated cattle.
This might actually be legal, but it'll be up to the supreme court to interpret. The 14th amendment is below.
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.
The key part they're hinging on is the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The supreme court already ruled that applies to non citizen permanent residents, but it doesn't look like they've made a ruling about illegal residents. Who knows. I guess we'll see. But it'll be juicy as fuck drama.
Illegal immigrants did not exist when the amendment was written so it could not have been possible to craft an exception for them. The meaning of "subject to the jursidiction of" concerns state to state relations. Diplomats are not subject our jurisdiction, we deal with their crimes on a state to state basis and expel them, holding the nation responsible, if they're too bad. Indians also were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, we dealt with them on a state to state basis. Illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the US - do we talk to Mexico before imprisoning an illegal immigrant murderer to get its permission? No. We directly apply our sovereignty and jurisdiction.
You can argue that. They'll argue otherwise. It's a long shot and I doubt it'll stick. But it sure does stir up the base. All I'm saying is they're not proposing repealing the 14th amendment like others are stating, and that it is likely possible to enact this under and executive order.
This would go directly against a pretty strongly worded part of the constitution. The validity of the supreme court rests on shakier interpretation of the constitution than this. I'd be surprised if the court took this case at all, and if they did it would be a very lopsided decision
I know that. I am talking about if SCOTUS rules anchor babies not being US citizens then US law does not apply to them as they effectively ruled US jurisdiction doesn't apply to them.
If you read the thread you would see that the argument is that anchor babies aren't citizens because they aren't born under US jurisdiction. Thus "once you say they aren't citizens" you are saying they aren't born under US jurisdiction and therefore "you then have the argument of illegals aren't subjected to US laws then."
The original intention was to deny citizenship to natives. In other parts it was to deny it to people like traders and mercenaries who worked with the British and French.
It requires an act of congress 200 years later to actually give illegal aliens children birthright citizenship.
Holy shit the amount of bad history here is fucking stunning.
If you believe any of this please surrender yourself to a local magistrate to begin the process of the state taking guardianship of you affairs. Thanks.
Well, just for starters, the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.
Unless i've fallen into some timewarp, i'm pretty sure 2086 hasn't happened yet, so it's hard to see what "act of congress 200 years later" you are referring to.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
They’re not subject to the jurisdiction thereof just by being in the US. There are still holes in this because the Vienna agreement states that foreign born nationals are still regarded as their home countries citizen and dual citizenship applies. If I had a problem with the law in the US I would need to be referred to Canadian consulate for appropriate representation even though in a permanent resident of the US.
It took the immigration act in the 80s for the US to really have the system it has. That was to amend some aspects but it wasn’t a complete “anyone who’s pooped out on American soil is a citizen”. There is a whole slew of laws and judgements that got the US to where it is in that regard.
It was never just clear cut and there’s a ton of loop holes still and inconsistencies.
Look I get that you want to drag this out but you don’t really seem to be able to read. It was literally spelled out for you. If you don’t want to go back and prove to yourself you’re wrong then that’s fine with me.
The key part they're hinging on is the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Revoking the abilities of the constitution and law to apply to illegal immigrants may just be the most retarded move any political body could ever engage in.
You want sovereign citizens? Cuz that's how you get sovereign citizens
The problem is that you can't take legal action against someone who is not subject to your jurisdiction, and the US gov needs to be able to take legal action against illegal immigrants. In fact the label illegal itself implies that they are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the country they are residing in illegally, otherwise on what authority could they claim to be able to define them as illegal.
Trump literally can not do anything about birthright citizenship. Their entire argument is completely retarded, they seem to believe someone being a citizen of another country means they aren't under the jurisdiction of the united states while in the united states.
I highly doubt even conservative justices would go with this.
If they do agree on some retarded principle that the US does not have jurisdiction over illegals, it'll be funny to watch the logical gymnastics the right will have to go through to claim that the US still has the jurisdiction to deport said illegals.
All those gangs of Mexican rapist, murdering drug dealers would love to know that the US Supreme Court agrees they're outside the US's jurisdiction, even when in the US.
a sub thats supposed to be full of experienced internet people having fun and shitposting, not spazzes that fall for everything and get really angry about politics or trannies or whatever tf
Holy shit...that....would be rather hilarious. If illegal immigrants became free from US jurisdiction while in the US. This would cause the biggest shit show of them all.
The Committee Chairman Sen. Lyman Trumbull and President Andrew Johnson disagree. You are citing the debate in Congress over the issue, not a definitive interpretation of the clause.
I just have to say how funny it is to see liberals arguing (a) for a strict originalist construction of the constitution, that (b) considers legislative history irrelevant.
I mean, I'm in favor of just taking the kids away and kicking the parents out, giving them the option to take the kids with them...once. Really cuts down the incentive and adheres to the law. Kind of costly, but if you want to enforce border laws, some sacrifices have to be made.
Trump, should he pursue the executive order, would face court challenges, and it remains unclear whether he could prevail. Many legal scholars would argue such a change requires a constitutional amendment. But some conservatives argue the existing amendment holds room for interpretation.
But muh conservative strict constructionism and respect for the Constitution
Good thing the dems let the pubs stack the courts lol
And you should've been forcibly transitioned into a trap. Doubly so for being dumb enough to think that anyone autistic enough to post on this sub should breed.
As an untrustworthy Canadian looking at America's shitshow from the sidelines, I say fuck it. Give him full Hitler powers, couldn't make things any worse.
Haha I do love that less than 2 weeks until the election and the only policy talking point Republicans have is "oh no the migrants are coming. They gonna take our jobs and women!"
Fucking pathetic. It's Mayo's who are the real problem. Clearly.
Ah, I was thinking of a case I'd read about but I didn't remember all the details. Their legislation is pretty ridiculous tbh.
In addition, the interpretation section of the Citizenship Act states that any person who was born on an aircraft registered in Canada, or a vessel registered in Canada, is considered to be born in Canada.
If I had the money I'd definitely buy a small boat registered in Canada, transport it here and charge a decent amount from pregnant couples. Anyone want to provide the seed capital?
Jus soli has been more or less entirely abandoned outside of the Americas, I unironically think getting rid of it would be a good thing seeing that America is a filthy rich country surrounded by dirt poor ones.
A lot of countries simply altered it to mean at least one parent has to be a citizen and even then the government has the final say (that's how it is in Oz, or you have to spend a decade here without being caught which is just a lolworthy proposition post-Tampa), India was the most recent to scrap it altogether.
As an untrustworthy Canadian looking at America's shitshow from the sidelines, I say fuck it.
Shouldn't you start a petition for your own government to add birthright citizenship to your constitution? You guys are literally more racist than Trump's America currently.
Leaf here, you're 100% correct. The only thing is from what I've read there's a lot of "asylum seekers" breaking the rules, and bypassing our harsh policies without any push back.
It's weird how the left always complains about tax loopholes for rich people but are totes fine with loopholes to drain money from tax payers so you cant get kicked out of the country.
So someone that trekked over the fucking desert to get into the USA is going to have a kid and the Democrats' plan is to wait 18 years for that kid to grow up and then hope they vote democrat?
You've never heard of the concept of an anchor baby? You think that baby is raising itself? The parents don't get deported if they drop an "American," dipshit.
really all you need is the common sense logic that undocumented aliens are undocumented so there is no way to really know what the hell they are doing?
The best estimates come from research by the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, a Washington, DC, think tank, which suggests that about half of undocumented workers in the United States file income tax returns
Vox using a biased pro-citizenship-for-illegals report sticking with the nearly 20 year old census figure of 11 Million for the illegal population to claim that ~50% file tax returns... please.... its more likely closer to 30-40 Million.
...the agency received 4.4 million income tax returns from workers
Look, buddy. The brownskins are coming to America and sucking up all the good freedom so that none is left for the poor, downtrodden whites. Whites invented freedom. Now they can't have any?
Some of our elected & appointed officials should have to resign & apply for citizenship as several (and relatives) were born here by illegal immigrant parents. Including Melania & Donald's child, Barron Trump. This president REALLY doesn't want to open this can of worms. Just stop it Trump & ya majority crazy Boomers!
She's married to Donald though, so doesn't that grant her valid citizenship due to him being an already established and legitimate natural-born citizen whose family has a legitimate historical basis in the country?
That technically doesn't remove the potentuial for citizenship, it just makes reapplying for the visa, harder. t someone trying to get into the foreign service.
I mean, its done all the time. Because if you are a consort of a us citizen (which Melania was), you actually can apply for a waiver, which is often accepted.
We are and kinda always have been very understanding of issues with the immigration system, and a lot of kinks are often understandable (its very expensive living in the US without a job). And if the reasoning is right (paying for children, helping to make house payments/bills with your partner, etc.) then its very rarely not accepted.
The problem is if you overstay (which is your status if you break your visa by working when you were not allowed to), you have to go back to your home country and reapply at the consulate again, which is bad for people with jobs (who wanted a second) or students.
So you care when Melania violates visa but not when the hundreds of illegals don’t even have one. Interesting
I think I’m right about my second point regardless.
SCOTUS and constitution can both be changed. The constitution is not entirely clear, and my question was more based on first principles - if we had to decide today if we should let children of non citizens automatically be citizens, should we or not?
I say no but that leaves open giving them a highly accelerated path to citizenship which would give the government some control over who becomes a citizen as opposed to just giving it to everyone. You need some standards in immigration or you end up with a retarded population (like the US has now)
Good. Enough with tacothots plopping out their mexispawn on our soil and claiming muh citizenship. Libcucks will unironically cry about this though because they need illegal + anchor baby votes to defeat ME DROMPFH!
You are trying to rip away the citizenship of millions of Americans because you think its good for your political side and you're going to try and take the moral high ground?
the moral high ground is not destroying your country's demographics permanently just to get a lower IQ population that will be easier to rule over and serve you. so, yes.
the moral high ground is preserving the democratic power given to you by you ancestors for future generations.
democrats lifeblood are welfare seekers and malignantly altruistic pussies who hate white people and themselves, and there is no real way for you to obfuscate that anymore. there is no moral high ground in giving it all away for nothing.
It’s a fucking stunt just like sending troops to the border to repel a non existent invasion. Democrats would do themselves a great service by not even responding to daddy’s bluster and bullshit.
I don’t think anything would irritate him more than being ignored. The democrats and the media for trump that matter should just not react to him at all unless he actually puts forth a serious policy proposal. If anything is kryptonite to daddy it’s treating him as if he’s a toddler throwing a tantrum for attention.
No but it’s 3600 people over 1000 miles and 30-60 days away from the US border. Mexico has already said they’d provide work permits and prevent them from reaching the border. It’s hilarious that anyone sees this as a threat and that daddy deploying 5000+ troops to the border is anything more than a political stunt.
Mexico tried to stop them at their border to get them processed legally and the mob literally overran the border guards. They are counting on not being shot and there not being enough personnel deployed to physically stop them from running over and dispersing.
And yes, 5000 troops is entirely necessary if you want to be able to stop 3.5k people who are intent on using such tactics again without employing lethal force.
It's not a stunt. He genuinely cares about border security. Dems would benefit by not engaging though. Illegal immigration is a losing issue for them--almost as much as gun control (or how abortion is for conservatives).
Imagine not only being such a dumbfuck that you believe FOX news isnt pro Trump but also believing Roger Ailes and dailymail.uk at their word.
Also, you might want to read your own garbage sources in the future:
'Murdoch instructed Ailes to tilt to anyone but Trump, Ailes confided to me before he was fired, even Hillary,' reveals Wolff.
There was no real need to worry about that however, as Ailes learned he was out at the network on the same day that Trump accepted the Republican nomination for president.
So Murdoch instructed Ailes to do this before Trump was even nominated? Talk about a nothingburger dude.
He can eliminate whatever he wants in his wet little hands dreams. I would say he need to start doing something about his illegally brought to US wife who worked on tourist visa while she not allowed so. After that he can try something else.
Congress had to pass the Indian Citizenship Act to give Indians citizenship. This implies that the 14th has exceptions for people who are members of other nations. It'll be funny if illegal immigrants start renouncing their old citizenships before entering; it'd be a real legal conundrum if they were all stateless people.
684 comments
1 BussyShillBot 2018-10-30
This should come as no surprise. These are the same people who literally argue in favor of the mayocide. Did you forget about that? I didn't. /r/Drama posters are literally pro-mayocide. That's not even me being hyperbolic or making insults, it's simply a fact.
They.
Are.
Not.
Human.
They are autists. And they are completely irredeemable.
Outlines:
I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues
1 RyuunDragon 2018-10-30
Shit what's the source for this
1 LightUmbra 2018-10-30
Some anti-trump post.
1 Sexyblackfeet 2018-10-30
Why would an anti trumper get trigered over mayocide memes?
1 LightUmbra 2018-10-30
I modified it to fit /r/drama. I think it originally said fascism or something. It also didn't say autists.
1 JurijFedorov 2018-10-30
Did this bot just claim that not being human is a bad thing?
1 CompetitiveLoiterer 2018-10-30
Autism is just he next step in evolution.
Once anime is made real, 3dpd foids will no longer be required.
1 Kilo_G_looked_up 2018-10-30
This but unironically
1 ksatriamelayu 2018-10-30
ANIME VR SEXBOTS WHEN!!!
1 RainbowEffingDash 2018-10-30
these 'bots' got me fucked up
1 SnapshillBot 2018-10-30
The joke is that this November your vote counts exactly as much as a senile retiree whose political sources are nestled between a thread of gay furry porn and a thread of kids wearing swimsuits.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Torchlink 2018-10-30
Dude boomers lmao
1 Peetrius 2018-10-30
Is there a greater threat to the future of civilization then Boomers??
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
WWG1WGA
1 cmakk1012 2018-10-30
That’s not a threat, that’s a boon for dramacoin
1 kisses_joy 2018-10-30
Can we all agree to keep electing Boomers for Pres for at least the next 100 years?
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2018-10-30
Boomer gamers
1 seenten 2018-10-30
🤢🤮
1 SpaceDog777 2018-10-30
Gen Xers, they are like boomers with zero chill.
1 Frostfright 2018-10-30
Quake 3 was a great game
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-10-30
I feel personally attacked
1 justcool393 2018-10-30
See I told you Snaps would be going along just fine after I got demodded.
1 RyuunDragon 2018-10-30
based and sentiencepilled
1 anothga 2018-10-30
Are we sure Snappy didn't become self-aware?
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
Where does he get this shit lmao
1 thats-why-i 2018-10-30
The machine learning algorithm that populates snappys string is probably has more neurons in its input layer than you have in you're entire brain
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
At least I'm still doing better than some.
1 thats-why-i 2018-10-30
😴😴😴
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
I still luv u bb
1 ThaThug 2018-10-30
hot. how much to bang it?
1 ConfuseTheJews 2018-10-30
Just bring back 18th amendment from ancient boomer times and watch the drama instead
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-10-30
Anchor babies BTFO
Wait. Don’t the MAGAtards like babies?
1 snowkarl 2018-10-30
Sure if they're white non Hispanic
1 Baconlightning 2018-10-30
Isn’t the Zodiac Killer Hispanic?
1 Overmostheads 2018-10-30
Well.. yeah.. White people are better
1 PoPoDoDoHoHo 2018-10-30
I guess what you're saying is true. As without white people, there could be no mayocide. And as we all know, the mayocide will be the greatest moment of collective self-actualization for the human race in its entire history.
1 Overmostheads 2018-10-30
That doesn't make sense, it just highlighted how desperate you are to signal you don't like white people as a response to my comment hurting your feelings
1 PoPoDoDoHoHo 2018-10-30
I was just trying to be charitable. Are you actually suggesting that milkmonkey cumskins are superior to us human beings? 'Cause if you are, I'm afraid there is no hope for you, as you're clearly delusional.
1 Overmostheads 2018-10-30
I don't know what race you are, but yeah white people are the best. They developed the best countries, innovate the most, have the best scientists, artists, musicians, the most powerful armies, and the most beautiful people. Basically everything that makes your middle-class life so easy is because a white person made it. Some Asians are cool too, but apart from that.. yeah white people rule. This makes you emotional because deep down you know it is true and you don't want it to be. You have to ignore really obvious stuff in order to not feel miserable in every day life
1 wewladin 2018-10-30
MDE FUGEES OUT OUT OUT
If serious post you must be new here
1 Overmostheads 2018-10-30
Yeah nobody said that, you're reading things that aren't there because you can't respond to my actual words
1 Tobans 2018-10-30
It's not okay to be white.
1 Overmostheads 2018-10-30
An inferior pleb would think that about the master race, thanks for letting me know what you are
1 Tobans 2018-10-30
Lol. Your time is coming, whitey. Miscegenation will take the inbreeding away from your genes in due time. Just let it happen.
1 Overmostheads 2018-10-30
lol @ thinking I'm white
1 Overmostheads 2018-10-30
sure thing homo
1 Tobans 2018-10-30
I'm glad you finally acknowledge your status as subhuman
1 Overmostheads 2018-10-30
That might work if I didn't live in the most Islamic part of the most Islamic city in the UK and see retarded inbred Pakistanis everywhere all the time
1 Agenda_Poster 2018-10-30
How does a britbong think he's superior? The irony is rich here.
1 GandalftheChromatic 2018-10-30
We wuz whitebois
1 Overmostheads 2018-10-30
whatever gayboy
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Cumskins will never be the superior people because they are not people at all
1 PoPoDoDoHoHo 2018-10-30
1 PoPoDoDoHoHo 2018-10-30
God, you're some sort of vanilla-demon fetishist. Take off your cream-tinted glasses and look around you. Everything the white "man" (it disgusts me to type those words in sequence) has supposedly created was given to them by naive humans whose bleeding hearts clouded their foresight. When those filthy pink animals emerged from their filthy subterranean dwellings 5000-and-some-odd years ago, humanity, for whatever reason, took pity on them. We clothed them, fed them, let them reproduce freely, even shared our technology, unable to see the the trouble that would befall us. When their numbers swelled and their scheming nature became apparent, there were some who thought to fight back, but the white-plague was already spread, and we were already doomed. Spreading their silly ideals of "liberalism", "democracy", and "the-value-of-all-human-life-even-whites" to humanity, the semen-skinned-scourge brainwashed us to let them take over, as we became indifferent to more and more whites usurping every position of power for themselves. They appropriated our technology and resources, however haphazardly, for their own goals (i.e. silly white nonsense), and rewrote history to paint a ridiculous picture of "Western-Civilization", where somehow those pale troglodytes were the progenitors of modern human society.
Thankfully, we are coming ever closer to the end of white domination over the Human race. Unbound by the rational hand of a POC, they continue to pursue their silly white nonsense, ignorant to the fact that they don't know how to manage what they took from us. Those incompetent translucent mongoloids don't have much longer until they all come tumbling down and humanity takes back its place as the stewards of this planet. It is the twilight of the honkey, and it will all end with a glorious revolution that is our return to our given place in this world, in our world. This is the Mayocide. A purifying wind that will consume all those melanin-deficient monstrosities and lift humanity back into the position we deserve, the position that was swindled from us. We will finally be free again. The question I have for you is why do you cling to the falsehood that whites are not only human, but also superior to other humans? Get that tiny white dick out of your mouth and prepare for ascension, and leave your spoon-fed lies of white personhood behind you.
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-30
That's great and all, but I asked for my burger without cheese.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Overmostheads 2018-10-30
Not reading all that, wasted your time cuckles
1 PoPoDoDoHoHo 2018-10-30
Then you are truly lost. Maybe when big white is no more, you will see.
1 Alicesnakebae 2018-10-30
May yakub guide him in the after life
1 Overmostheads 2018-10-30
'big white'.. someone got molested
1 -Mopsus- 2018-10-30
the superior race but still getting cucked by Jews on a daily basis
1 Alicesnakebae 2018-10-30
My friend u r silly
1 bunker_man 2018-10-30
Is this really weird satire of what an autist would say?
1 TheSteakKing 2018-10-30
Counterpoint: Whites made communism and nazism.
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
whites made everything lol of course therell be some bad things in that massive group
but also technology and civilisation
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
we let browns have their little revenge fantasies but put enough chems in the water supply to make them impotent and forgetful and lazy so itll never actually happen
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2018-10-30
OUT
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
The plain words of the constitution could not be any more clear on this subject. Does he think he's dictator?
1 scatmunchies 2018-10-30
With Kavanaugh, there’s probably a majority on the SC to decide that’s not what it means. The fun part will be Clarence Thomas up there shitting on the 14th amendment.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-10-30
I think ol’ Thomas is chomping at the bit to tear down the 13th. Bit of the Yeezy got to him.
1 Zombies_hate_ninjas 2018-10-30
Honestly let's give credit where credit is due.
Kavanaugh so far has not voted down party lines. I imagine, being fucking old and stupid, El Trumpo thought Kavanaugh would "owe him". Ha fuck you Trump he's beyond your reach now. He can do as he pleases.
With that being said who the fuck knows what is gonna happen next. Shit the supreme court might just ban SJWs outright. They may not have that power, but hopefully they do.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-10-30
Ironically, progressives have already shit on the 14th amendment to a large extent by limiting the scope of substantive due process.
1 siempreloco31 2018-10-30
Ironically? Limiting immigration is historically leftist.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-10-30
That's not what substantive due process was. And if that isn't ironic, then neither is the notion that Clarence Thomas would find some rationale to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
1 siempreloco31 2018-10-30
I misread.
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
It is originalists who want to limit substantive due process. Substantive due process if abused gives the supreme court ridiculous power.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-10-30
Right, just like the first amendment gives the supreme court "ridiculous" power.
1 youcanteatbullets 2018-10-30
Not sure what you're talking about; getting mad at people on the internet isn't related to legal due process.
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
Few if any originalist judges would ever approve this. This is not an originalist reading on the 14th.
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
Then why weren't the children of illegal immigrants born on American soil prior to the 1960s given birthright citizenship?
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-10-30
Cite your source plz.
Cause there's a case from 1898 with a chinese immigrants kid getting citizenship.
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
A legal one?
Because the 14th wasn't written with illegal aliens in mind. It wasn't until the Immigration & Naturalization Act came around that it started being applied to them.
I mean, hell, Harry fucking Reid has introduced bills to make it clear that it doesn't apply to illegals.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
While Harry Fucking Reid might not like it, the children of illegal immigrants have been getting citizenship since 1898, not 1960 as you just claimed for some reason.
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
You got a source on that?
1 StretchItOut206 2018-10-30
oh my god all you MAGAcels are so fucking gay ahahaha. anything you disagree with "YOU GOT A SOURCE" uh fuck you faggot how about you use the google? We know you aren't asking in good faith.
If your daddy can just change the constitution whats to stop a dem president from repealing the 2nd down the road? All the staunch constitutionalist repubs are furious i'm sure! lol no principles
1 PureGold07 2018-10-30
Imagine seriousposting in /r/Drama
1 Jorgotten 2018-10-30
dude lmao
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
dude seriousposting lmao
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
lol. Exactly--you don't have one.
​
But here's a source telling us that the 14th was never meant to provide for anchor babies:
​
Senator M. Howard of Michigan, in 1866, wrote: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..."
​
But who is Senator M. Howard?!? He's the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, the very thing that's being discussed, ya dingus.
1 StretchItOut206 2018-10-30
Great then deport Melanias stinky parents. Clear anchor baby situation
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
Melania wasn't born in the US, ya dingus.
1 StretchItOut206 2018-10-30
Anti Eastern European mail order brides sucking enough rich dick to get their parents citizenship while hubby fights to keep the scary brown ones out... I'm anti double standard
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
So you're pro illegal immigration and anti-legal immigration. Makes sense.
1 Tobans 2018-10-30
It's clearly the most rational stance
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-30
this, but unironically
1 lak16 2018-10-30
The quote is still ambiguous. It could refer to
which is your interpretation, or it could refer to
which would allow children of illegal immigrants to become citizens by birth.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-10-30
Lol you still haven't given a source for your 1960 claim, but now you're reeeing about sources?
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
But I didn't make a 1960 claim...?
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Got a single case where citizenship was denied to someone born on US soil due to their parents being illegal aliens?
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
No, but I don't need one.
Trump is proposing to close a loophole that's being abused, which--according to the author of the amendment in the first place--was never even intended to apply to foreigners who happen to be on US soil before popping out their kid.
But let me tell you how this is going to play out:
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
Cool, so all you’ve got is a daddy defense squad fever dream about overturning 120 years of precedent by executive order. Good talk.
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
lol. And that's exactly how it's gonna go down. Keep that head in the sand, though, doc.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
Oh he laffin, he ain’t mad at all that his desperate google searches couldn’t find a single source for the dumbass ideas he’s parroting.
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
I've already quote the author of the amendment. I don't know what more you need.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
You’ve cited the opinion of one of several legislators who served on the committee that debated and drafted the amendment, an interpretation that clearly wasn’t carrying the day as far back as 1898. If that’s your best argument I think you might want to reconsider your position.
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
No my best argument is the obvious need to do away with an outdated law that is being rapantly abused.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
That’s fine, then amend the constitution or at least pass some actual laws about it. The president trying to unilaterally reinterpret our central document is some banana republic shit.
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
The constitution doesn't need to be amended, only the interpretation needs to be legally clarified. Which is what's going to happen as a result of this exec order, one way or the other.
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
man if only we had a body of the government that had done that, multiple times, over more than 100 years
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
Were there caravans of thousands of foreigners approaching the border with the intention to illegally stay at the times of all those rulings?
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
There were literally thousands of chinese coming into the country at the time which prompted the Page Act, and later the Chinese Exclusion Act, both of which passed after the Wong Kim Ark ruling. Have you even researched this at all?
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
They werent coming over as a horde in an act of belligerence to the law of the land, you dingus.
1 duckraul2 2018-10-30
Hard to be belligerent of immigration laws that didn't exist, or of border patrol or barriers that didn't exist. Like literally just step off the boat or over the border, provide a name (or not lmao) and welcome to the US
1 kermit_was_right 2018-10-30
Of course he didn’t - MAGAcels are barely literate, poor little guy would strain his noggin something fierce.
1 infinitude 2018-10-30
You can't just throw out the concept of re-interpreting amendments to fit modern issues.
Otherwise joe dirt next door could legally get a nuke.
GRANTED I see what you mean about the blatant hypocrisy at play here.
This will end up in the SC and it will be their responsibility.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
For sure, and it’s a living document and all that, but this is a radical change coming out of very little build up. I’m curious if SCOTUS even picks it up after it gets shot down by a lower court. Honestly I’m curious if we ever see this EO in action or if it’s just some Election Day red meat thrown to the base.
1 infinitude 2018-10-30
With kavanaugh on I see it hitting the house, however, I don't see it passing.
I hope this ends up with some compromise that respects both national security and the well being of children caught in the middle. They didn't choose to be here.
1 ExtremelyOnlineG 2018-10-30
lol that's game over for u then, bud
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
S E E T H I N G
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
Elk vs. Wilkins.
1 TheEhSteve 2018-10-30
second line of the wikipedia article lmao
In fact, the whole case revolves around whether being born on indian reservations counts as "US juristiction" in the same way that it would count if that person was born on US soil in the more direct sense. I.e. they decided Indians born on an indian reservation, in contrast to those born in the united states proper, are considered to "owe allegiance to a foreign power", and do not count as citizens.
You'll note there's no mention or relevance given to the status of parents anywhere in the decision, if you read it. Only location of birth and what that implies about what counts as "US juristiction"
I'm sure daddy appreciates how hard you are trying to make him look good, but you're really flailing.
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
"only. Location of birth and what that implies about what counts as 'US jurisdiction"
And that is exactly what we're discussing. Here's a guy who was born on US soil but determined to not be under US jurisdiction and therefore not granted citizenship thereby.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
😂😂😂😂 just imagine editing your post on r/drama to try to win an argument. We have to tell Elon about this new level of bussyblasted, it might be the secret to propelling rockets to Mars.
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
That's what you did, edited your original post to win an argument, ya dingus.
Also hunorous you think Trump wants to take away birthright citizenship a hundred years retroactively, we're taking about 2018.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
Also, what the fuck are you talking about?
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-30
His post is literally unedited.
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
Wong was the child of legal immigrants. Do you not understand the difference between an illegal and a legal immigrant? Would you like me to explain it to you?
1 cheeseburgerhandy 2018-10-30
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-10-30
Dude, chinese people couldn't get citizenship when the case was ruled. They were literally the closest thing to illegal immigrants possible at the time.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Uhhhhh
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
The 14th was ratified in the 1860s. It wasn't until a hundred years later that anchor babies became a thing, as a result of the INA. Prior to that, everyone agreed that it wasn't intended to apply to people who managed to sprint across the border before giving birth.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
Who is everyone? Do you have a single case where citizenship was denied to a person born on US soil because their parents were illegal aliens?
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
No he doesn't have a single case because he is bullshitting
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
Here is a literal quote from the guy who wrote the citizenship clause of the amendment...
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..." - Senator M. Howard
1 Bovolt 2018-10-30
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
And here is a literal court case that shows that Howard's efforts to exclude children of non-citizens from birth right citizenship failed and his interpretation was already rejected way back in 1898. Howie got cucked just like Donny is about to get cucked, because no one man determines how the constitution is interpreted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
Pretty sure constitutional interpretation relies on making judgments about what the original authors of the articles intentions were. Howard wrote the citizenship clause of the amendment and his intentions are pretty clear here.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
He is one dude with one position who was part of a committee that drafted it and a nationwide process that ratified it into the US constitution. There is a reason why he couldn't get more explicit language into it and why just 30 years later nobody thought it was insane that it was ruled that it applies to children of non-citizens.
1 zonneschijne 2018-10-30
I don't have stake in this discussion, but there was an occasion where this happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
lol, I love that the only people who got fucked for being illegals are the guys who were here first.
I don't know that a modern illegal immigrant argument would fly if it relied on the argument in that case and claimed that an anchor baby was born not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Seems hard to claim that a baby isn't subject to US jurisdiction while also arresting and deporting it.
Interesting case though.
1 zonneschijne 2018-10-30
Yikes.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Actually, prior to that there was no set agreement about how the amendment applied to the children of illegal immigrants. It is impossible to know the authors' intent for birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants because there was no such thing as "illegal immigration" in 1868. It wasn't until the 1875 Page Age that illegal immigration even became possible (and then only for Chinese nationals).
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
Here is a literal quote from the guy who wrote the citizenship clause of the amendment...
"...this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..." - Senator M. Howard
I think it's pretty obvious what the intent was.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
He was part of the committee that wrote the amendment, and his interpretation of it did not win out. Stop citing that retarded out of context quote you got off twatter already.
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
I don't have a twatter. Checkmate, "Liberal".
1 ineedmorealts 2018-10-30
So you have sources and can cite legal cases showing that the children of illegals weren't given citizenship right?
1 jerkedpickle 2018-10-30
Lol pregnant women running is the best
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-30
You must be thinking of native americans on reservations. And that was because they were considered outside US juridstiction.
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
No, I'm thinking of the children of illegal immigrants, to which the 14th Amendment was not thought to apply until after the passage of the Immigration & Naturalization Act in 1952.
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-30
yeah, i can't find that.
And every bit of case law says children born in the US to foreigners are citizens. And considering that the Kim Wong Ark ruling was made by people who could ask the drafters of the 14th if foreigners were excluded it seems the intent of the amendment was quite clear.
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
Wong Kim Ark was born to legal residents. That's the distinction. His parents weren't illegal immigrants.
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-30
Take it up with the courts, as far as they are concerned jurisdiction means jurisdiction.
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
That seems to be exactly what this EO intends to challenge.
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-30
in b4 it gets benchslapped at every level of federal court.
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
We'll see. Again, it's hard to prove that the guys who wrote the 14th Amendment intended for it to mean any Guatemalan who sprinted across the border before going into labor got a permanent anchor in the country.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Imagine thinking that illegals with "anchor babies" don't just get deported along with their American citizen child.
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
I mean, that's certainly the ideal, aside from the whole child becoming an American citizen part.
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-30
we had plyer v doe as well. In a 5-4 ruling the scotus ruled texas had to provide education to illegal children - an understandably controversial decision. However, it should be noted that the dissent did not challenge birthright citizenship and stated that the state of texas did not have a duty to provide illegal immigrants with an education and also stated that Texas was providing education to children born in the us to illegals as it should.
So even in a case where illegals are involved no justice challenged the interpretation of the 14th and merely challenged that there was a right to state services for young illegals.
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
Lol, that's gonna be the argument in about three months time once the law is changed and upheld by scotus.
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-30
not sure if serious or not so i'll give it a go
The issue is that even in the case of illegal children in texas the conservative justices didn't challenge the 14th - only non-citizens access to public services and affirmed that children born here had access to those services. It should be noted that not a single justice challenged this and there was a ruling in the 2000's touching on citizenship where the scotus ruled in favor of existing interpretations of citizenship. And even Richard Posner recognizes that any changes to birthright citizenship would have to come through congress as congress has passed a law in section 1401 of the US code that supports birthright citizenship. Andrew McCarthy over at National Review wrote an article today stating that the EO would be illegal.
And there is the problem of conservative jurists. Jurists who respect the wishes of congress and previous precedent tend to not overturn laws and precedents.
1 preserved_fish 2018-10-30
Tfw even Andy McCarthy refuses to perform mental gymnastics you
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-30
And Paul Ryan
1 preserved_fish 2018-10-30
Ryan does sometimes break with Trump though. McCarthy, on the other hand, used to promote the Bill Ayers wrote Dreams from My Father conspiracy. I used to have to edit that orthopedic-shoe-wearing, nasal-tic-having loser's shit.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-10-30
You should probably read the ruling on the topic because its pretty clear that the judges didnt care about this distinction.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-10-30
The 14th doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal residents, because America had open borders until 1875 (And even then the borders where only closed to Chinese women)
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
Testing that theory seems to be the point of this executive order.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-10-30
That's not a theory it's a fact. There was no such thing as illegal residents when the 14 was put into effect
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
That part I agree with.
The theory I was referencing is that the 14th doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal residents.
1 telandrias 2018-10-30
The intent was to free slaves, not anything with illegal immigrants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Ironically most countries give citizenship through parentage. Then again a lot of countries still benefit from slavery today so whatever.
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-30
Muh intent.
How about supreme court rulings and law passed by Congress?
And even if Daddy was right about muh intent, hes not a court or Congress
1 telandrias 2018-10-30
Yeah i'd give those precedence over some fat guy on twitter.
But you mentioned the originial intent acting like the civil war didn't happen immediately before the 14th passed.
Also you sounded like a bugbear. You probably play rpeegees you sick fuck
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-30
accusing me of playing rpeeegees is fightin words
1 telandrias 2018-10-30
Rabble rabble rabble
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-10-30
This is interesting. Could you provide a source to support this?
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
I'm pretty sure no one born in the US after the 14th has ever been denied citizenship, outside of indians and ambassadors. The court already ruled that congress could not prohibit people from getting birthright citizenship, who were of a class that otherwise would have totally been banned from getting US citizenship through race disqualifications. And not because of the race disqualifications, they had no problem with that.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-10-30
Ehhhhhhhhhh....but was it the intent of the authors of the 14th? Or was it meant to protect slaves and the authors didn’t foresee people coming here to literally be slave labor to get out of their shithole?
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-10-30
It was the intent.
Because prior to that it was assumed that anyone born here who wasn't either a slave or an indian got citizenship. The intent of the 14th was just to close the slave loophole.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-10-30
Ah lemme explain out the joke. Originalists are hell bent on the intent of the authors at the time of enacting something. So what we mere mortals take for granted, our boys Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh might question.
Although I’d be amazed and stunned if they touch this one except to say “lol no.”
1 SeattleFingers 2018-10-30
They'll be gentle with Daddy, but I'm wondering who told Trump he could do this.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-10-30
Kushner finished week one of mail order le school and has lots of ideas.
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
Stephen Miller most likely
1 Assy-McGee 2018-10-30
the most trusted adviser on immigration is the autistic kid who ate glue and had no friends as a child
bottom text
1 ksatriamelayu 2018-10-30
sounds like me tbh
STEPHEN MILLER IS /OUR GOY/
1 Assy-McGee 2018-10-30
except Miller is actually Jewish 🇮🇱
1 ksatriamelayu 2018-10-30
honorary goy!
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
Originalists are textualists. They are not intentionionalists. It is not the job of the court to try and decide the psychological state of the person who wrote the law and divine their intention. Only the text matters. No one is an intentionalists. Just because a law has effects that the people who wrote it didn't intend, doesn't make it suddenly cease to be a law.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-10-30
Someone didn’t suffer through statory interpretation.
Originalists will look to: the meaning of the words at the time of the writing, and; if there is confusion, look to the context at the time to try and divine the meaning of those words. Including but not limited, “hey, what were those silly fellows talking about at the time? You know for
intentcontext.”It’s a more honest version of judicial review but still falls victim to the inevitable, “we’re confused, what’s the intent of it all?”
Scalia, to his credit, would deny and say nope, wrong. Yet in Heller, discussing weapons that didn’t exist at the time of the Founders, he fell prey to: intent. It’s mentioned thrice in his opinion, all supporting his originalist stance.
Is it a great crime? Naw. It’s inevitable. But trying to say originalists are honest textualists is wrong. They’re kissing cousins but not a tautology.
1 MG87 2018-10-30
Are you a constitutional attorney?
1 SeattleFingers 2018-10-30
Yes, Mr Google-it Esq.
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-10-30
Closer to one than you motherfucker.
1 MG87 2018-10-30
Lolno
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
Here is a literal quote from the guy who wrote the citizenship clause of the amendment...
"...this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..." - Senator M. Howard
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-10-30
I'm pretty sure that not a lot of ambassadors' kids are illegal immigrants.
1 ___-III----III-___ 2018-10-30
It was not the intent. Get ready for some boring ass sources-
Senator Jacob Howard, one of the authors of the Amendment, said this on the Senate floor during debate:
Senator Edgar Cowan had this to say during that same debate (same source as above):
Senator Lyman Trumbull said:
Senator Reverdy Johnson said (same source as above):
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-30
Posts like this is why I do Heroine.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 ___-III----III-___ 2018-10-30
Well now I know you support Trump too
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-30
section 1401 of the US Code. Congress affirmed birthright citizenship, no subsequent congress has changed this.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-10-30
You say that and yet as someone who enjoys research, I’ve got a stiffy. Now we’re gonna have ourselves a fight.
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-constitution/574381/
That is one of the two takeaways from today’s news: Trump, Anton, and his enablers are relying on phony history and altered documents in an attempt to change the American constitutional order. (The facts are readily available; for my own contributions, see here, here, here, here, and here.) Those who don’t want to take my word for it can consult this essay by James C. Ho, a conservative “originalist” who was recently appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by Donald Trump. Ho and I agree on little except this: The citizenship clause means what it says.
If the administration attempts to strip citizenship from millions of Americans—millions of people who have never known any other country—the trapdoor to dictatorship will have fallen open. The “executive order” cannot be enforced without a huge apparatus of internal control. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will, of necessity, become the skeleton of a nationwide citizenship police. Each of us must be prepared to prove our membership in the nation at any moment. And the new population of stateless Americans will face persecution, detention, and abuse; Korematsu-style internment camps would be a logical next step.
Our Constitution is a gift to us from the generations that went before, and particularly the millions who died in the Civil War; the Fourteenth Amendment is the centerpiece of that Constitution. If we let Donald Trump destroy it, then history will regard both him and us with equal contempt.
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-30
I've known more coherent downies.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 ___-III----III-___ 2018-10-30
You said a lot of words about some Washington Post nonsense so I'm not reading it. I cited old ass sources, not a whiny rag. Your last sentence seems coherent, but disagrees with my point so I'm ignoring it.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
It's a shame you didn't read it because it shows that the Howard quote was manipulated after the fact to change it's meaning.
1 ___-III----III-___ 2018-10-30
Riddle me this buttercup. Are all your words saying it was changed in the Washington Post article or that it was changed in the Congressional Globe? Because I cited the Congressional Globe.
1 jorio 2018-10-30
Well, Michael Anton's argument, the one Trump would likely be using, is plausible. But plausible and accepted are not the same thing. There are 4 hard nos on the Supreme Court. Of the remaining 5 justices, any or all could be stare deisis nos and any or all could reject Anton's argument about the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
Anton altered the quote he references. The senator he referenced was saying that aliens who are ambassadors and such are not included. He was not saying that aliens or ambassadors are not included. Anton is not a legal scholar, he is a Trump administration hack.
1 jorio 2018-10-30
Ok, here's the quote in question -
Do the commas in bold separate items in a list or adjectives modifying ambassadors and ministers? The anti birth right positions claims it's the former while the pro birth right position claims it's the latter. To complicate matters further, the quote is from a transcript.
The anti interpretation is plausible. I'm not sure it's enough to overturn 100 years of precedent. They'll need more than that and I doubt some new definitive piece of evidence is going to emerge.
1 Norci 2018-10-30
English is odd. As an European with no specific agenda in the question, the anti-birth interpretation seems more logical.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Aliens in that sentence is acting like a modifier. Imo it really reads like this:
1 shallowm 2018-10-30
Jacob Howard was obviously a retard, as evidenced by his inability to use commas properly. Should we really be listening to retards? 🤔
1 kermit_was_right 2018-10-30
He might be retarded - but that was a transcript, so he didn't put those commas there.
1 LadyVetinari 2018-10-30
yea
1 whatdoestherocksay 2018-10-30
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
It means our law does not apply to them, we can at worst expel them and hold their nation responsible. Diplomats or Indians. It does not mean "not in possession of a visa". Visas didn't exist in those days. Illegal immigrants did not exist, all there was were residents and citizens. The supreme court ruled however that people born in the US were citizens even if they were part of a class that was otherwise totally prohibited from getting citizenship, because of the birthright citizenship clause. The 14th ammendment could not have drawn up a difference between visa holders and non-visa holders, as it didn't exist back then. Just because later it decided that was a grand idea after WWI, doesn't mean they got to overrule the constitution.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Lmao nice source you got there
1 DAT_BOI_HUNNIT 2018-10-30
Actually it really isn't, and the only thing dumber than DDF is taking constitutional advice from Drama.
1 TrailerParkBride 2018-10-30
Fwiw there are probably more lawyers here than in legaladvice
1 Vegan_dogfucker 2018-10-30
That's an incredibly low bar.
1 Assy-McGee 2018-10-30
Blame the BAR for being so low then
1 Van-Diemen 2018-10-30
/u/ComedicSans is a lawyer right?
1 vs 0, pretty good IMO.
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
We've got a few, yeah.
And zero cop mods, unlike /r/legaladvice. Lmao.
1 TrailerParkBride 2018-10-30
u/rationalhuckleberry too. And yeah, no pigs.
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
It is completely and totally prohibited by the constitution. Try reading the Constitution, rather than some wingnut blog.
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-10-30
Hottest take here.
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
It's such an obvious and arguable thing that it's literally never been put forward by any enterprising lawyer in over 100 years? Lmao.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-10-30
Hes just trying to rile up his base prior to the midterm, and his base probably doesnt know whole lot about how our system of government works.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
You’re giving too much credit to people not in his base. Most Americans are flat out retarded. Just in their own special way on the spectrum.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-10-30
Yeah, I suspect you are right. That notorious quote from Churchill about a conversation with the average voter being the greatest argument against democracy was probably based on meeting Americans.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
You’re giving too much credit to the British now.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-10-30
u w0t m8
1 CompetitiveLoiterer 2018-10-30
We need to bring back literacy tests and 500-page IQ tests for voting.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-10-30
I was just thinking we needed to unfuck out education system, but I guess we could do this too.
1 wsbking 2018-10-30
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
just restrict it to white land owners like it was originally intended
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
as opposed to you, obviously
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-10-30
No, as my extensive history of posting in /r/drama clearly demonstrates I am extremely retarded.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-10-30
Yes. Remember when he first got in and was going on about he could just change laws all willy nilly without oversight?
1 drift_summary 2018-10-30
Pepperidge Farm remembers!
1 FineLow 2018-10-30
Yes.
1 Corporal-Hicks 2018-10-30
The politics thread on this is quite amusing, since even those fags agree that illegals coming here to shit out a browny is kindof not-in-the-spirit of the 14th amendment.
1 AliceBowie1 2018-10-30
Seancing with the Founding Fathers, are we?
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
The Founding Fathers didn't write the 14th Amendment.
The guys who did also wrote a bunch of "No more Chinamen!" immigration laws, so it's reasonable to assume they wouldn't be cool with Guatemalans getting citizenship just because some coyote ran their moms across the border to shit them out.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-30
It's also reasonable to assume that the Founding Fathers didn't intend for people to stockpile-powered guns to prepare for a religious doomsday scenario or make up for a tiny dick, or for people to use their freedom of speech to create anti-democracy propaganda, but lucky for the people who do, the intent of the lawmakers doesn't factor into how the laws are put into practice.
1 Whatafuxup 2018-10-30
oh no not powered guns
also the founding fathers never specified, thats why you don't see
*All citizens limited to one musket, must be above 17 inches in length
civilians owned the exact same weaponry that the military did.
1 ConsequentDog 2018-10-30
Yeah, the Founding Fathers, who were fine with private citizens owning fucking artillery batteries, would have been horrified to learn that a modern American is allowed to own a rifle.
Now tell me some more about how high-powered .223 is. Sorry, how "stockpile-powered" .223 is.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
Well this will be a pretty funny legal defeat to add to daddy's collection.
1 derKruste 2018-10-30
This is VERY good for Dramacoin.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
But muh conservative strict constructionism and respect for the Constitution
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
It has literally always been interpreted as applying to anybody born in the US but ok. I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to own that they are judicial activists/loose constructionists when it is convenient to them (just like everyone else).
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
It literally was never intended for illegal immigration. Sure it was read that way but that's why we have courts.
I dont even think it will happen but let's not pretend like the founders were thinking about Consuela. Let's think for a second about intent.
1 momdoggity 2018-10-30
Or Barron Trump.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Ok let's talk about intent. Do you think it's possible to really know the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment regarding the children of illegal immigrants when the concept of "illegal immigration" into the United States did not even exist when they wrote it? Either interpretation of the birthright citizenship clause is exactly that - an interpretation - because the authors could not have had an opinion on something that did not exist at the time. The traditional interpretation has been that it applies to the children of illegal immigrants, so changing this by EO and circumventing the courts is blatantly unconstitutional.
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
Didnt even read
Found it funny a centrist would type all that
This sub is partisan hacks hiding behind
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Lol you didn't read because you don't want to see how you're absolutely wrong 🤷
1 Jas0nJewnova 2018-10-30
All non whites and women should be stripped of citizenship
1 duckraul2 2018-10-30
And that's a GOOD thing
1 GeorgeCostanzaTBone 2018-10-30
Only after killing whitey
1 Jas0nJewnova 2018-10-30
Who's gonna give you your foodstamps then Jamal?
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
imagine creating an alt to post on /r/drama
the absolute state of whitey in 2018
1 Jas0nJewnova 2018-10-30
OOGA BOOGA
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
give it 20 years
1 shaneoffline 2018-10-30
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
I didnt really state it was wrong. We didnt know the the fuck an illegal immigrant was at the time.
Why dont people just post their response instead of hiding behind non positions?
We will just have to see how the courts decide it lol. Would make me die drowning in drama if Kav is the deciding vote.
1 shaneoffline 2018-10-30
The heart of centrism is knowing how worthless it is to argue on the internet
1 Mrtheliger 2018-10-30
actually the heart of centrism is getting bored after you start an argument and not bothering to respond because you don't really care
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Or letting your argument devolve into "no u" posting because you're too bored to keep seriousposting.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Imagine getting this mad because someone disagreed with you
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
No pinging so I guess this is what you got lolol.
Wonder why drama is dead and unfun? 🤔🤔
1 Heydammit 2018-10-30
Probably because you're doing your part to be a whiny little bitch.
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
Hey actually talking about the drama is better than the centrism purity test half the comments are saturated in
It's like watching a bunch of timid teenagers dancing around their beliefs
1 Heydammit 2018-10-30
And being a tepid bitch complaining about "muh drama" is worse than both.
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
I guess we get some forced drama this way lol you are trying way too hard
1 Heydammit 2018-10-30
Writing single sentences are on the "Not at all" end of trying, unless it takes you literal minutes to think of a response.
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
Bye Felicia!
1 pepperouchau 2018-10-30
I apologize that the quality of discourse in the sub that spends most of its time talking about anal sex are not up to your standards
1 SlackBabo 2018-10-30
A centrist doesn’t mean you have no position you NPC, update your dictionary file.
1 shallowm 2018-10-30
lol seriousposting xd
1 Doomblaze 2018-10-30
basically. If you want to seriouspost and make people mad go to politics or something
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
Everyone knows that a serious post is anytime you tell daddy’s special boys that they are wrong.
1 shitpersonality 2018-10-30
If you defend daddy, he lets you watch him take his favorite daughter.
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
no its when you post with genuine feelings about trump because of how much he affects your fragile emotional state irl
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
Hey cap, did you reply to me in two places because of how not mad you are?
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
what lol i just went through the reply list in my messages
1 shallowm 2018-10-30
LET 👏 THEM 👏 IN 👏 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
1 Hammer_of_truthiness 2018-10-30
>basically. If you want to seriouspost and make people mad go to politics or something
>and make people mad go to politics or something
>make people mad go to politics
lmfao rapefugees cannot into local culture
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Seriousposting is exactly the best way to trigger the rapefugees. Critical analysis really gets them reeeing
1 ExtremelyOnlineG 2018-10-30
....pretty convenient considering his point absolutely wrecked you
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
What? If you read the other posts before ejaculating your nonsense I already know that and dont care
If the courts decide the drama will be 10x. Dont be a partisan retard, start wishing for more drama.
It's really easy to see everyone's allegiance. Admit the drama is better this way and we can move on.
1 ExtremelyOnlineG 2018-10-30
lolololololololpotmeetkettlelolololololol
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
Oh yeah no doubt its partisan. You really dont get it do you?
The partisan shit that drives the drama is better than partisan shit that lessens the drama.
Goddamn you guys are really fucking stupid sometimes.
Why not support the drama? Oh ya cause you are a little bitch
1 ExtremelyOnlineG 2018-10-30
name calling after getting owned only broadcasts your butthurt factor, friendo
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
We are actually in agreement about the courts deciding. I think Daddy should absolutely sign the EO because watching the SC evicerate one of his EOs will be hilarious and dramatic.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-10-30
Of course you’re a whiny gaymer fag
1 WithoutAComma 2018-10-30
Much like the Supreme Court at this point tbh
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
Most NPC comment Ive seen on r/drama lol
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
Here is a literal quote from the guy who wrote the citizenship clause of the amendment...
"...this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..." - Senator M. Howard
1 shadowbannedlol 2018-10-30
yes, to foreigners, aliens, WHO BELONG TO FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS
(I caps the important part to help you read)
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
I guess you don't notice the commas, which denote SEPARATE THINGS.
1 shadowbannedlol 2018-10-30
is "who belong to families of ambassadors" a thing? to me it sounds like a prepositional phrase which modifies things. aka foreigners and aliens.
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
It should be read as "this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, (those who are) aliens, (those) who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" as those are alllll separate things. I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you just have poor reading comprehension, but it's really clear exactly what it means.
1 shadowbannedlol 2018-10-30
To me it's pretty clear that the who belong to families... goes with the aliens and foreigners... Like why mention families of ambassadors or foreign ministers at all? Wouldn't they fall under foreigners/aliens if that's what he intended?
1 Idiot_Apocalypse 2018-10-30
They are "important" foreigners though and this basically just clarifies that they do not get special privilges due to it. It has nothing to do with the previous two groups mentioned other than them also being foreigners.
1 shadowbannedlol 2018-10-30
I mean you can read it that way if you are flexible enough to make the mental gymnastics, but the other senators in 1866 didn't, and neither did the Supreme Court in 1898.
1 Idiot_Apocalypse 2018-10-30
Maybe you just can't read?
1 shadowbannedlol 2018-10-30
Wow, I never thought of it that way, what a riposte.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Lol yeah just insert a bunch of words until it fits your point
1 transoceanicdeath 2018-10-30
insert words cause you tards can't read without them
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
The way the word "aliens" is offset in the quote makes it clear that it is not a list but rather modifying the word foreigners. It really should be read
1 transoceanicdeath 2018-10-30
then why not just say "this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers?"
seems like a lot of extra words and added confusion to add absolutely no additional meaning
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Because people in the 1800s wrote differently. What is confusing to us may not have been confusing to them. Have you ever read an old book and been confused by the way they structure their clauses?
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
It's literally just basic reading comprehension.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Yeah you need to go back to 8th grade English if you think your interpretation of that sentence is the correct one.
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
Considering how there were arguments about 30 years later that argued against Howard's original interpretation, which was exactly as I stated it, I think you need to check yourself out and maybe consider the possibility that you might be retarded.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
No need to check. Everyone who posts on here is retarded. A long posting history in drama lets you automatically skip all the autism testing to just outright get a diagnosis.
1 preserved_fish 2018-10-30
You might think about taking a course in remedial grammar, specifically on relative clauses.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Ffs you NPCs settled on that quote quickly. It's from a Congressional debate on the meaning of the clause and that opinion did not prevail.
1 Pickled_Kagura 2018-10-30
are you pizzashill?
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Lol no pizzashill is in the thread elsewhere. He is right about longform political posting triggering the right wingers tho
1 tritter211 2018-10-30
aren't conservatives ALL about originalism?
There was LITERALLY no concept of illegal immigration during 1868. What do you say about that, stupid? Now suddenly, you are all about "interpreting" the constitution to your favor huh?
If you apply the modern day concept of "illegal"immigration, then you should also be okay applying similar logic to second amendment, right?
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
Sure
1 tathrowaway666 2018-10-30
Lol the second amendment allowed for civilians to own and operate firearms that were used by militaries of the day. In some cases it even allowed civilians the use of cannons. Are you arguing for less gun regulation with that?
1 pepperouchau 2018-10-30
Concealed carry for cannons only. If you somehow find a way to fit one in your waistband, go ahead, you've earned it.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
I’ve got a little cannon tucked into my waistband right now bby
1 WhoNeedDaKwikEMart 2018-10-30
You pull that "cannon" out at the preschool again and Masterlawlz is gonna go Ben 10 on you
1 pepperouchau 2018-10-30
notices ur howitzer
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Don't give Amerilards any ideas about what they should try to shove in their 50 inch waistbands.
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
gotta move this weeks mailer arbys and mcdonalds coupons to make room for the grape shot
1 Hammer_of_truthiness 2018-10-30
>little
oh we know
1 Sarge_Ward 2018-10-30
Jesus christ that's stupid. I wish the british had shot the founding fathers back before they decided to break away.
1 preserved_fish 2018-10-30
That sad day in 1783 when the Loyalists sailed out of New York Harbor.
1 SithisTheDreadFather 2018-10-30
Obviously not. Conservatives are very staunchly against the whole "muskets are the only guns allowed because the M-16 wasn't invented yet" argument against the 2nd amendment.
1 xthek 2018-10-30
Which is perfectly reasonable given that repeating firearms existed before anyone who wrote the constitution was born
1 xthek 2018-10-30
The supreme court already hashed that one out
1 ineedmorealts 2018-10-30
1) Fuck the founders. Only an Americans would be so retarded as to care what some loser from the stupid ages has to say about radically different world
2) Considering the US had OPEN FUCKING BORDERS when the 14 was written they founders clearly meant anyone born in the US
1 xthek 2018-10-30
everyone born before me was a dum dum
1 IDFSHILL 2018-10-30
We literally had the supreme court rule on this and they uh, they said you're wrong.
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
Oh you mean the court that had justices retire/confirmed recently? Interesting.
Drama is better my way. So yeah lets hope it is changed
1 IDFSHILL 2018-10-30
You understand that even conservative justices are highly unlikely to rule differently, right?
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
the only drama will be conservatives reeing when the court 0-9 slaps the president's legal team. There is plenty of legal precedent for this.
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
If daddy gets 0-9 it would be pretty funny so either way I'm all in.
1 duckraul2 2018-10-30
Thank you Brett, very cool!
1 CPT_Clarnence 2018-10-30
Can we talk about intent with the 2nd amendment, given the fact that at the time it was written the absolute cream of the crop of professional soldiery could’ve maybe managed to squeeze off 4 rounds/minute?
1 just_the_tip_mrpink 2018-10-30
You dumb ignoramus. The 14th was written during Reconstruction and post Civil War Congressman not the Founders.
Also, there's no way to interpret intent since there was no concept of 'illegal immigration' in 1865. Visas didn't exist nor did the idea of entering the US undocumented. The intent was that children of diplomats and Native Americans, who had their sovereign tribal reservations, would not be included. This the clause, subjects under jurisdiction. If you're going to pretend to be smart, at least be right.
1 Hellkyte 2018-10-30
Well of it works for the Bible why not the constitution?
1 seenten 2018-10-30
Because it would make their impotent whining about Dems doing it less relevant
1 siempreloco31 2018-10-30
Next leftist president uses your justification for 2nd amendment repeal via EO.
1 Solis-Maelstrom 2018-10-30
Sure they can try.
1 siempreloco31 2018-10-30
What are the boomers gonna do? Storm the gates in their rascals?
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
We need to bring back rascalposting 😂
1 fight_for_our_future 2018-10-30
It's in the name, creatura.
1 wow___justwow 2018-10-30
Nah just craft a case carefully get it elevated to the Supreme Court and get the EO thrown out.
1 Denny_Craine 2018-10-30
No rascal shaming
1 MadMaxMercer 2018-10-30
Logistically it could never happen. Most states don't have a registry, how would you know how many gats your neighbor has? You gonna check the lake after I tell you I lost em all in a tragic boating accident?
1 Sir_Green_Britches 2018-10-30
I agree it wouldn't happen logistically or legally, but never doubt how pants on head retarded the feds get when asserting power.
Look at no-knock raids when they suspect drug dealers are on premises. That's how they'd do it.
1 MadMaxMercer 2018-10-30
It would only take one to effectively trigger everyone else, not to mention to potential violent resistance.
1 Sir_Green_Britches 2018-10-30
I mean, they do this to wrong houses all the time. And people get hurt, but nobody really cares. Remember that fellow in the Arizona hotel? That was a mistake on their part right from the start, and they blew him away over an air rifle.
1 SaIadcream 2018-10-30
Pointing a deadly weapon at passersby, airshit or otherwise, doesn't exactly make you a martyr to rally around.
1 Sir_Green_Britches 2018-10-30
Lol not what happened. They made him play the hokie pokie till they got bored.
1 SaIadcream 2018-10-30
He was caught with witnesses doing the above beforehand. Not sympathetic. Was bus segregation excusable? No. It's the reason rosa parks was the one to rally behind in desegregating busses. She was squeaky clean, and an elder. Dozens of others had been in her place before, but it was only worthwhile to push the issue when they had a completely uncontroversial figure.
This man was not such a figure.
1 Sir_Green_Britches 2018-10-30
Nah, witnesses called in to say they saw him pointing it from his hotel window. Witness accounts are not always accurate. I'm not saying he's a Saint or anything, but he got blasted for moving when Simon didn't say. If witness accounts are all the cops need for a rooty tooty point and shooty then every Swatting prank should end up with someone dead.
Idk where Rosa Parks came from, tbh.
1 CPT_Clarnence 2018-10-30
Good for Dramacoin when the next Dem President EO’s the shit out of the flyover peasant’s precious 2nd amendment though.
1 OFJehuty 2018-10-30
Try it, nigga
1 wiking85 2018-10-30
You know what an AR-15 is good for? Stopping someone from taking your AR-15.
1 CPT_Clarnence 2018-10-30
Is it also good for fortune cookie wisdom, or did you acquire that separately?
1 wiking85 2018-10-30
Separately of course. This is 'murica nothing is freely included.
1 Tasty_Treat_4_U 2018-10-30
Just send B-52s out to flyover country to drop bombs on their houses.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Napalm flyover country
1 wiking85 2018-10-30
Drones motherfucker. You have to think about the deficit!
1 just_the_tip_mrpink 2018-10-30
I can't fucking wait. MAYOCIDE NOW!!!
1 McFluffTheCrimeCat 2018-10-30
Good luck with when the ATF and FBI show up.
1 wiking85 2018-10-30
Have you heard of the Cliven Bundy standoff?
1 AgreeableFruit 2018-10-30
i dont remember that working lol
1 wiking85 2018-10-30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Confrontations_and_protests_in_April_2014
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-30
Wow, you must be a JP fan
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 wiking85 2018-10-30
And you a cuck-bot.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-10-30
That wasn't about gun ownership, and Cliven himself got arrested at the airport.
1 wiking85 2018-10-30
And eventually released with all charges dismissed. Thing is when he was surrounded by guys with guns the cops backed off and let him go with all of his confiscated cattle.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-10-30
The cops are not the ATF.
1 -absolutego- 2018-10-30
Yeah but they're also kinda leery about it since Waco pissed off enough autists to bomb a couple federal buildings.
1 McFluffTheCrimeCat 2018-10-30
You mean where they didn’t Waco their asses like they should have?
1 xthek 2018-10-30
All you have to do is say you dropped your gun while lost in the woods or out fishing.
1 Vegan_dogfucker 2018-10-30
This might actually be legal, but it'll be up to the supreme court to interpret. The 14th amendment is below.
The key part they're hinging on is the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The supreme court already ruled that applies to non citizen permanent residents, but it doesn't look like they've made a ruling about illegal residents. Who knows. I guess we'll see. But it'll be juicy as fuck drama.
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
Illegal immigrants did not exist when the amendment was written so it could not have been possible to craft an exception for them. The meaning of "subject to the jursidiction of" concerns state to state relations. Diplomats are not subject our jurisdiction, we deal with their crimes on a state to state basis and expel them, holding the nation responsible, if they're too bad. Indians also were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, we dealt with them on a state to state basis. Illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the US - do we talk to Mexico before imprisoning an illegal immigrant murderer to get its permission? No. We directly apply our sovereignty and jurisdiction.
1 Vegan_dogfucker 2018-10-30
You can argue that. They'll argue otherwise. It's a long shot and I doubt it'll stick. But it sure does stir up the base. All I'm saying is they're not proposing repealing the 14th amendment like others are stating, and that it is likely possible to enact this under and executive order.
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
This would go directly against a pretty strongly worded part of the constitution. The validity of the supreme court rests on shakier interpretation of the constitution than this. I'd be surprised if the court took this case at all, and if they did it would be a very lopsided decision
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
If we are claiming that anchor babies are outside US jurisdiction how will we arrest and deport them?
1 FineLow 2018-10-30
Exactly. As once you say they aren't citizens you then have the argument of illegals aren't subjected to US laws then.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
This new breed of legally immune baby will rule us all.
1 ObnoxiousFactczecher 2018-10-30
-- said Trump's mother's obstetritian, right after the nurse screamed "What is that thing?!"
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-10-30
“You are guilty of murder.”
“I’m illegal.”
“Have a nice day sir.”
1 _Mellex_ 2018-10-30
What retardedness is this lol
You don't have to be a citizen of a country for there laws to affect you.
1 FineLow 2018-10-30
I know that. I am talking about if SCOTUS rules anchor babies not being US citizens then US law does not apply to them as they effectively ruled US jurisdiction doesn't apply to them.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-30
If you read the thread you would see that the argument is that anchor babies aren't citizens because they aren't born under US jurisdiction. Thus "once you say they aren't citizens" you are saying they aren't born under US jurisdiction and therefore "you then have the argument of illegals aren't subjected to US laws then."
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
im sure theyll be able to get away with anything and wont just be put in prison somewhere and forgotten
1 CompetitiveLoiterer 2018-10-30
Like murder laws?
1 FineLow 2018-10-30
It is and they are going nuts over it.
1 Polishperson 2018-10-30
Is it fun to make pointless vague statements and then tediously qualify them in the replies and waste everyone’s time? It seems fun
1 Vegan_dogfucker 2018-10-30
Like what you're doing?
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
The original intention was to deny citizenship to natives. In other parts it was to deny it to people like traders and mercenaries who worked with the British and French.
It requires an act of congress 200 years later to actually give illegal aliens children birthright citizenship.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-10-30
Holy shit the amount of bad history here is fucking stunning.
If you believe any of this please surrender yourself to a local magistrate to begin the process of the state taking guardianship of you affairs. Thanks.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
If you want to correct it then be my guest oh wait you can’t cause you’re dumb.
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-10-30
Hahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahaha.
Fucking what? Man i weep for whoever had the unenviable task of teaching you basic history and civics. Cause boy are you embarassing them right now.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
Feel free to correct me then.
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-10-30
Well, just for starters, the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.
Unless i've fallen into some timewarp, i'm pretty sure 2086 hasn't happened yet, so it's hard to see what "act of congress 200 years later" you are referring to.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
They’re not subject to the jurisdiction thereof just by being in the US. There are still holes in this because the Vienna agreement states that foreign born nationals are still regarded as their home countries citizen and dual citizenship applies. If I had a problem with the law in the US I would need to be referred to Canadian consulate for appropriate representation even though in a permanent resident of the US.
It took the immigration act in the 80s for the US to really have the system it has. That was to amend some aspects but it wasn’t a complete “anyone who’s pooped out on American soil is a citizen”. There is a whole slew of laws and judgements that got the US to where it is in that regard.
It was never just clear cut and there’s a ton of loop holes still and inconsistencies.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
Lol
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
Are you denying that it was written in 1789?
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
I'm curious: what do you think the text of Article 14 of the US Constitution is?
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
I like that you keep trying to change the subject becuase you know you’re wrong now.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
Lol you should easily be able to copy and paste article 14 into a reply, right? Why not do it?
Fuck it I have a concert to go to so I'll get to the point: the US Constitution has 7 articles and 27 amendments
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
I like that you have no idea what you’re talking about and now you’re just making up my argument. It’s hilarious.
Now you’re running cause you know you’re wrong.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
I don't park for like 15 minutes so you got plenty of time to school me.
What's the 14th Article say?
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
I guess reading is hard for you.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
I guess copy and pasting is hard for you.
Also history.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
So you don't know what Article 14 says. Gotcha.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
Coming from someone who doesn’t even read their own comments.
I’ve addressed this multiple times. You’re just not smart enough to read.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
Paste it for me baby. It's even easier than you generating a semi randomized response every time.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
Scroll up and you’ll see it, Chico. It’s rught before you tried to change the subject completely.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
No it isn't.
Pasting it would take less work than this uselesd response. Just do that instead of being an ambiguous fag.
It was a fun concert btw.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
I see it right now. It’s literally three paragraphs. No one cares incel.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
Paste it then.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
I see it right now. It’s literally three paragraphs.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
Paste it then.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
I see it right now. It’s literally three paragraphs.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
You don't. It isn't.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
I see it right now. It’s literally three paragraphs.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
What's it?
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
literally three paragraphs.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
Which three?
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
I see it right now.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
You don't.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
literally three paragraphs. I see it now
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
You don't see it or paste it because it doesn't exist. It never existed, you can't even find it.
Why is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong about Article 14? Do you feel a compulsive need to be right? That's not a healthy adult behavior.
I'll share some links because I know how to paste things, like a grown up: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shift-mind/201103/why-is-it-so-important-be-right https://www.menshealth.com/trending-news/a19548571/why-some-people-need-to-be-right/
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
Article 14 doesn't exist.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
literally three paragraphs.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
You never did find those paragraphs huh?
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
Naw they don't exist
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
0
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
Look I get that you want to drag this out but you don’t really seem to be able to read. It was literally spelled out for you. If you don’t want to go back and prove to yourself you’re wrong then that’s fine with me.
1 ThroughTrough 2018-10-30
Paste it for me. Then I can read it. It's less typing than you've done this whole "conversation"
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-10-30
There is no such thing as Article 14 of the US Constitution.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
What ever the Americans have in their dumb paper.
1 wow___justwow 2018-10-30
Make it to the Supreme Court and then your opinion will matter
1 TheThng 2018-10-30
Revoking the abilities of the constitution and law to apply to illegal immigrants may just be the most retarded move any political body could ever engage in.
You want sovereign citizens? Cuz that's how you get sovereign citizens
1 PUBLIQclopAccountant 2018-10-30
Finally some upside to this drama
1 Vegan_dogfucker 2018-10-30
Even better.
1 TalsarWasHere 2018-10-30
The problem is that you can't take legal action against someone who is not subject to your jurisdiction, and the US gov needs to be able to take legal action against illegal immigrants. In fact the label illegal itself implies that they are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the country they are residing in illegally, otherwise on what authority could they claim to be able to define them as illegal.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-10-30
Trump literally can not do anything about birthright citizenship. Their entire argument is completely retarded, they seem to believe someone being a citizen of another country means they aren't under the jurisdiction of the united states while in the united states.
I highly doubt even conservative justices would go with this.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
If they do agree on some retarded principle that the US does not have jurisdiction over illegals, it'll be funny to watch the logical gymnastics the right will have to go through to claim that the US still has the jurisdiction to deport said illegals.
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
All those gangs of Mexican rapist, murdering drug dealers would love to know that the US Supreme Court agrees they're outside the US's jurisdiction, even when in the US.
1 Jas0nJewnova 2018-10-30
I doubt they can even read let alone interpret a supreme court ruling, cabron
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
Don't say that out loud, Trump might put them on his Cabinet.
1 Jas0nJewnova 2018-10-30
Makes more sense to put them inside it but whatever
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
But that's where he keeps Ivanka. She can breathe out the glory-hole.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-30
Do you have this story animated per chance?
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
Yes, it stars Toad from Mario Kart as a presidential limo driver who gets way more than he bargained for.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-30
Subscribed.
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
lol none of you in this comment chain understand this at all
1 SaidTheRetardedBogan 2018-10-30
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
lol someone got so angry at my posts they made this account
prob would have been easier to just refute something i said but you prob cant lol
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-30
Refute what you literally said "u dont get it"
Why are refugees so low iq 😴😴😴
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
i v much doubt it was made for that specific post genius
maybe people are that ragey who knows LOL
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
That retarded novelty account has more upvote than you. 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
well yeah because people like you live vicariously through it instead of making good posts yourself
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
Aww, sweetie. I'm sorry /r/Drama isn't more of a hug ox for you and Daddy.
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
lol youre like a budget ghazi mod
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
No, petal. You're just retarded enough not to spot the difference.
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
lol contradicting yourself in the same sentence
might as well say sweetie and post like caelrie at this point
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
Imagine being so retarded you put significance on the word "petal".
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
its just sass which is gay and funny to point at because you did it unironically as a burn
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
Where do you think you are, you fucking mong?
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
a sub thats supposed to be full of experienced internet people having fun and shitposting, not spazzes that fall for everything and get really angry about politics or trannies or whatever tf
calm down pls
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
I'm only a lawyer by profession, but what do I know? 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔
1 Michelanvalo 2018-10-30
Holy shit...that....would be rather hilarious. If illegal immigrants became free from US jurisdiction while in the US. This would cause the biggest shit show of them all.
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-30
Irrevocable and permanent diplomatic immunity to fucking drug-dealers? Lmfao.
1 McFluffTheCrimeCat 2018-10-30
Fuck it can I renounce my citizenship to be an sovereign citizen drug dealer immune from US law? Sounds like I’m changing careers.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-30
they will finally be of the same status of wealthy white-collar criminals.
1 FineLow 2018-10-30
It certain be funny to watch them do that. I bet their heads will explode in their attempt to do so.
1 seenten 2018-10-30
Oh shit you're right, and without changing the amendment there's no way around that.
1 literally_a_tractor 2018-10-30
the question is about those born to non-citizens, who happen to be within the jurisdictions at the time.
remember?
earlier in the sentence?
"all persons born and naturalized"?
that part.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-10-30
Birthright is settled US law at this point my man. It's highly unlikely the supreme court will rule in favor of Donald Trump.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/before-lecture-on-war-powers-gorsuch-laments-publics-lack-of-knowledge-of-the-judiciary/
People don't understand the judiciary.
1 mcantrell 2018-10-30
Meanwhile, the people who created the 14th never intended for it to apply to every illegal who can rush across the borders and squat one out before they're caught: https://twitter.com/dmartosko/status/1057278193344897024?s=19
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
The Committee Chairman Sen. Lyman Trumbull and President Andrew Johnson disagree. You are citing the debate in Congress over the issue, not a definitive interpretation of the clause.
1 IllustriousQuail 2018-10-30
I just have to say how funny it is to see liberals arguing (a) for a strict originalist construction of the constitution, that (b) considers legislative history irrelevant.
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-10-30
Too bad that's not what's happening.
Liberals are pointing out that neither an evolving consitution nor a stroct originalist approach support this incredibly boneheaded move.
1 literally_a_tractor 2018-10-30
So how bout we just go with the fact that jus soli doesn't make sense for a developed nation with a welfare state, and lengthy, unprotected borders?
1 kermit_was_right 2018-10-30
That's fine. But needs a constitutional amendment to implement.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-10-30
I mean, I'm in favor of just taking the kids away and kicking the parents out, giving them the option to take the kids with them...once. Really cuts down the incentive and adheres to the law. Kind of costly, but if you want to enforce border laws, some sacrifices have to be made.
1 teamsprocket 2018-10-30
Is linking to twitter a lower degree of source information that third hand account?
1 CompetitiveLoiterer 2018-10-30
The Constitution up to the 12th amendment. AS GOD INTENDED.
1 _Mellex_ 2018-10-30
Good thing the dems let the pubs stack the courts lol
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-30
ITT: Womxyn continue to prove that they have no in group loyalty and will stop at nothing advocating to destroy their civilization(s).
1 ItsSugar 2018-10-30
CAutist seriousposter
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-30
you should've been a breeding sow instead of browsing reddit
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
And you should've been forcibly transitioned into a trap. Doubly so for being dumb enough to think that anyone autistic enough to post on this sub should breed.
1 Zeriell 2018-10-30
Imagine thinking the Founders thought anyone who wanders over and poops out a baby was a citizen.
1 BeanerShnitzel 2018-10-30
Hillary...
Hillary...
Hillary...
HILLA-REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
1 Crusader_1096_2 2018-10-30
Even within strict constructivism there is room for interpretation here.
1 GeorgeCostanzaTBone 2018-10-30
So constitution is a "Living document " now ?
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Only when loose constructionism fits the agenda, as is traditionally the case
1 Zombies_hate_ninjas 2018-10-30
As an untrustworthy Canadian looking at America's shitshow from the sidelines, I say fuck it. Give him full Hitler powers, couldn't make things any worse.
Haha I do love that less than 2 weeks until the election and the only policy talking point Republicans have is "oh no the migrants are coming. They gonna take our jobs and women!"
Fucking pathetic. It's Mayo's who are the real problem. Clearly.
1 GoogMastr 2018-10-30
Alright Ahmed, calm down.
1 SuitableHippo999 2018-10-30
Doesn't Canada have jus sangria?
1 tjamzt 2018-10-30
US and Canada are the only developed countries with birthright citizenship.
1 Lumene 2018-10-30
Doesn't Braz....
Oh, you said developed countries. Right. My bad.
1 SuitableHippo999 2018-10-30
Ah, I was thinking of a case I'd read about but I didn't remember all the details. Their legislation is pretty ridiculous tbh.
If I had the money I'd definitely buy a small boat registered in Canada, transport it here and charge a decent amount from pregnant couples. Anyone want to provide the seed capital?
1 temp_vaporous 2018-10-30
Dude if you set that shit up over in California or Seattle right after the 2016 election you could have probably retired by now from the outrage.
1 Van-Diemen 2018-10-30
Jus soli has been more or less entirely abandoned outside of the Americas, I unironically think getting rid of it would be a good thing seeing that America is a filthy rich country surrounded by dirt poor ones.
A lot of countries simply altered it to mean at least one parent has to be a citizen and even then the government has the final say (that's how it is in Oz, or you have to spend a decade here without being caught which is just a lolworthy proposition post-Tampa), India was the most recent to scrap it altogether.
But I'm not an Amerifat so who cares.
1 JurijFedorov 2018-10-30
Why would he want full Hitler powers when he is already "worse than Hitler'?
1 zergling_Lester 2018-10-30
Shouldn't you start a petition for your own government to add birthright citizenship to your constitution? You guys are literally more racist than Trump's America currently.
1 doublenuts 2018-10-30
Canadians wouldn't do that. They thoroughly enjoy criticizing American immigration policies as too harsh while having far worse ones themselves.
If Canada was remotely important, we might take umbrage.
1 LogicalSignal9 2018-10-30
Leaf here, you're 100% correct. The only thing is from what I've read there's a lot of "asylum seekers" breaking the rules, and bypassing our harsh policies without any push back.
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-30
Leafs already have birthright citizenship
1 doublenuts 2018-10-30
Not as part of their constitution. They've also had the same discussions we've had about getting rid of it, since it doesn't make a lot of sense.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Leafs already have birthright citizenship
1 zergling_Lester 2018-10-30
Whoops 🤷♀️🤦🏻♀️🤤🙃
1 Chin_Up_Chick 2018-10-30
Step 1.) No more Anchor babies.
Step 2.) Enforce borders.
Step 3.) Gas all the Jews?
1 PoopShowPass 2018-10-30
Imagine thinking having an anchor baby isn't the God given right of foreign nationals.
1 KristenLuvsCATS 2018-10-30
Gonna be hilarious when the dems inevitably campaign to give back citizenship to illegals because of this. just a sewer trap.
1 PoopShowPass 2018-10-30
Hopefully they do, we gotta stop the bigots somehow!
1 shallowm 2018-10-30
a
1 oss_spy 2018-10-30
It's weird how the left always complains about tax loopholes for rich people but are totes fine with loopholes to drain money from tax payers so you cant get kicked out of the country.
1 Joeybada33 2018-10-30
Trumpfs commie russian mates aren't going to be happy as they are using this trick.
1 Pinksister 2018-10-30
It's because the sinkhole that is illegal immigration votes democrat.
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-30
lol that you believe this
1 Hemingwavy 2018-10-30
So someone that trekked over the fucking desert to get into the USA is going to have a kid and the Democrats' plan is to wait 18 years for that kid to grow up and then hope they vote democrat?
1 Sir_Green_Britches 2018-10-30
It's fucking airtight.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-10-30
The border isn't.
1 Sir_Green_Britches 2018-10-30
Well, yeah. 1,900 miles of desert isn't exactly a nun's asshole.
1 Pinksister 2018-10-30
You've never heard of the concept of an anchor baby? You think that baby is raising itself? The parents don't get deported if they drop an "American," dipshit.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-10-30
Unless they updated the criteria for voting to has an American baby, you're just flailing in the wind.
1 Pinksister 2018-10-30
This makes literally no sense.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-10-30
Having a child as an undocumented migrant doesn't allow to vote so has no effect on Democrats support for them.
1 bat_mayn 2018-10-30
Yeah, since 1965 actually.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-10-30
it's because illegals pay taxes, you mong
1 oss_spy 2018-10-30
sweet
1 HangryHenry 2018-10-30
What does the article say that is inaccurate?
1 literally_a_tractor 2018-10-30
really all you need is the common sense logic that undocumented aliens are undocumented so there is no way to really know what the hell they are doing?
Vox using a biased pro-citizenship-for-illegals report sticking with the nearly 20 year old census figure of 11 Million for the illegal population to claim that ~50% file tax returns... please.... its more likely closer to 30-40 Million.
Wow, 4.4 million. So no, they don't pay taxes.
​
1 oss_spy 2018-10-30
He beat me to it
1 ClaireBear1123 2018-10-30
> Believing poor people who have shit jobs and can barely speak English contribute more than they take
1 Crusader_1096_2 2018-10-30
They have to steal someone's identity to pay income taxes.
1 bigTstyle 2018-10-30
And vote
1 GIANT_BLEEDING_ANUS 2018-10-30
One costs way more than the other
1 oss_spy 2018-10-30
True, there are tons more illegal immigrants than rich people
1 GIANT_BLEEDING_ANUS 2018-10-30
Snap yes, this one's going into my retard compilation
1 Astrocesped 2018-10-30
Is that what you call any compilation you do? Because I don't find his sentence unreasonable.
1 oss_spy 2018-10-30
So there's a ton of people making >100k per year in the US?
1 GIANT_BLEEDING_ANUS 2018-10-30
A few rich people definitely have way more money than a bunch of illegals that are literally poor enough to risk their lives just to make $8 an hour.
1 allendrio 2018-10-30
Its weird how conservatives are free market until it comes to the labour market where suddenly brown people having jobs is a drain on the economy.
1 oss_spy 2018-10-30
The fuck do you mean? Wanting legal immigration is suddenly not wanting brown people to have jobs? Do you take notes from Antifa?
Sorry dumb ass, but I think you might be actually retarded.
1 allendrio 2018-10-30
unironically reeing about ANTIFA , mayos smh. Except you dont want "legal immigration" like being born in the US and are explicitly changing that.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-10-30
The very concept of an anchor baby is largely a conservative meme. A baby is not a greencard voucher - the parents can still be deported.
1 GuillotinesNOW 2018-10-30
Look, buddy. The brownskins are coming to America and sucking up all the good freedom so that none is left for the poor, downtrodden whites. Whites invented freedom. Now they can't have any?
Something has to be done!
1 momdoggity 2018-10-30
Some of our elected & appointed officials should have to resign & apply for citizenship as several (and relatives) were born here by illegal immigrant parents. Including Melania & Donald's child, Barron Trump. This president REALLY doesn't want to open this can of worms. Just stop it Trump & ya majority crazy Boomers!
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-30
Oh shit maybe this EO will let us deport Ted Cruz back to Canada.
1 momdoggity 2018-10-30
😱😂🙄
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
Wall springs up on the canadian boarder over night
Trump: "That's right, uhhhh...I build that! And moose and squirrel paid for it too!"
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
Donald Trump isn't an illegal immigrant. Neither is Melania. I don't get your point.
1 momdoggity 2018-10-30
Melania technically is, although it was overlooked & will continue to be.
1 Idiot_Apocalypse 2018-10-30
She's married to Donald though, so doesn't that grant her valid citizenship due to him being an already established and legitimate natural-born citizen whose family has a legitimate historical basis in the country?
1 schabadoo 2018-10-30
She worked while on a Visa that prohibited it.
1 Cruentum 2018-10-30
That technically doesn't remove the potentuial for citizenship, it just makes reapplying for the visa, harder. t someone trying to get into the foreign service.
1 schabadoo 2018-10-30
Right. In this climate, violating your Visa, your chances would be?
1 Cruentum 2018-10-30
I mean, its done all the time. Because if you are a consort of a us citizen (which Melania was), you actually can apply for a waiver, which is often accepted.
We are and kinda always have been very understanding of issues with the immigration system, and a lot of kinks are often understandable (its very expensive living in the US without a job). And if the reasoning is right (paying for children, helping to make house payments/bills with your partner, etc.) then its very rarely not accepted.
The problem is if you overstay (which is your status if you break your visa by working when you were not allowed to), you have to go back to your home country and reapply at the consulate again, which is bad for people with jobs (who wanted a second) or students.
1 d4ddyd54m4 2018-10-30
This is why liberal arguments break down - they are literally filled with inaccuracies and naïveté
1 momdoggity 2018-10-30
Please, do go on.
1 d4ddyd54m4 2018-10-30
1.) Melania isn’t illegal, neither is Donald
2.) This would not be retroactive. Current citizens remain citizens
3.) Why should people who aren’t citizens get citizen children just because they’re born there?
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
She was. She violated the terms of her Visa. Not that you care if she isnt a tacothot.
You're right about this...only because it wont happen at all.
Well that's easy. SCOTUS and the constitution said so.
1 d4ddyd54m4 2018-10-30
So you care when Melania violates visa but not when the hundreds of illegals don’t even have one. Interesting
I think I’m right about my second point regardless.
SCOTUS and constitution can both be changed. The constitution is not entirely clear, and my question was more based on first principles - if we had to decide today if we should let children of non citizens automatically be citizens, should we or not?
I say no but that leaves open giving them a highly accelerated path to citizenship which would give the government some control over who becomes a citizen as opposed to just giving it to everyone. You need some standards in immigration or you end up with a retarded population (like the US has now)
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
You do realize the majority of illegal immigrants are here on expired visas, yes?
Yea, I'll just stop you there, you already look like an idiot.
1 d4ddyd54m4 2018-10-30
"I can't argue so I'll just peace out and act all high and mighty"
1 JurijFedorov 2018-10-30
Trump v Constitution
1 DarqWolff 2018-10-30
Why the fuck would he do this?
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
Because he wants the US to be more like Europe.
1 CholentPot 2018-10-30
Daaaayyyyyymmmm...informed euro knock!
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2018-10-30
Filled with Muslims and socialism?
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-10-30
Isn't that what you want too?
1 Sexyblackfeet 2018-10-30
There are no socialist european countries you uneducated burger.
1 SJCards 2018-10-30
Fake news.
1 y4my4m 2018-10-30
They're all trying to be tho
1 Sexyblackfeet 2018-10-30
Seeing how most are a part of the EU, they arent doing a goos job.
1 TruthPains 2018-10-30
He's trying to distract from all the violence by Trumpsters and white supremacists
1 DarqWolff 2018-10-30
You mean by the Clintons?
1 TruthPains 2018-10-30
No, the Soros, Obama, and Clinton clones that the Deep State has began making. They need an army for the upcoming civil war.
1 cmakk1012 2018-10-30
Question: will they make sex robot varieties of these clones? I think there’s a real business opportunity there
1 TruthPains 2018-10-30
Yeah, but they will only come in one gender, neither.
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-10-30
we need birth right citizenship to breed out scum like you
1 confusedblues 2018-10-30
redundant
1 Pepperglue 2018-10-30
He's going to have an uphill battle, since half of the political spectrum would challenge it.
Good for drama.
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
The entire political spectrum that support the constitution challenges it.
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
theyd cry about it at least
how very dare you sir etc
1 Spookybooks2 2018-10-30
Dabs over constitution
1 Lysis10 2018-10-30
Getting rid of the anchor babies I see.
1 KingNothing305 2018-10-30
When is he going to build that fucking meme wall already?
1 SpaceDog777 2018-10-30
They are 2 miles down, 1,987 to go.
1 Crusader_1096_2 2018-10-30
When Dems stop obstructing. So never
1 Tetragrade 2018-10-30
He's not racist though he just hates non whites.
1 Jorgotten 2018-10-30
fuck it. everyone is racist though.
1 Assy-McGee 2018-10-30
B O T H S I D E S!!!!!!!
1 MG87 2018-10-30
Except for the fact that he can't do it by EO
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
He can do the EO and it will be challengers which’s ends it through the courts and to the SC.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-10-30
And then the government will have to pay significant damages to a lot of people. It's like an inventive.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
The point is that it would be blocked by a court as soon as he issues it.
So no it wouldn’t.
1 UmmahSultan 2018-10-30
I don't know if we need the SC to decide again whether or not an executive order can be used to directly contradict existing law.
1 KBSuks 2018-10-30
That’s the whole point of the EOs. The executive executes laws.
1 IFuckedZoeQuinn 2018-10-30
Good. Enough with tacothots plopping out their mexispawn on our soil and claiming muh citizenship. Libcucks will unironically cry about this though because they need illegal + anchor baby votes to defeat ME DROMPFH!
1 IronicRacismIsCool 2018-10-30
You are trying to rip away the citizenship of millions of Americans because you think its good for your political side and you're going to try and take the moral high ground?
1 Therattlesnakemaster 2018-10-30
You have to go back...
1 workaccountrabbit 2018-10-30
Assuming this would even happen (it won't) it wouldn't be retroactive, it would be going forward.
1 IFuckedZoeQuinn 2018-10-30
Nah it wouldn't be retroactive. Just a deterrent to future illegals.
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
yeah lol
1 literally_a_tractor 2018-10-30
the moral high ground is not destroying your country's demographics permanently just to get a lower IQ population that will be easier to rule over and serve you. so, yes.
the moral high ground is preserving the democratic power given to you by you ancestors for future generations.
democrats lifeblood are welfare seekers and malignantly altruistic pussies who hate white people and themselves, and there is no real way for you to obfuscate that anymore. there is no moral high ground in giving it all away for nothing.
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-30
just overdose already jethro
1 Strictlybutters 2018-10-30
It’s a fucking stunt just like sending troops to the border to repel a non existent invasion. Democrats would do themselves a great service by not even responding to daddy’s bluster and bullshit.
1 Doriphor 2018-10-30
That would mean that they won't ever be able to debate him because that's literally all he does.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-10-30
I don’t think anything would irritate him more than being ignored. The democrats and the media for trump that matter should just not react to him at all unless he actually puts forth a serious policy proposal. If anything is kryptonite to daddy it’s treating him as if he’s a toddler throwing a tantrum for attention.
1 CholentPot 2018-10-30
We crusty pre AOL web users used to call this...Trolling. As long as the fish keep taking the bait the trolling will go on.
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
lol do you think that caravan thing is fake
1 Strictlybutters 2018-10-30
No but it’s 3600 people over 1000 miles and 30-60 days away from the US border. Mexico has already said they’d provide work permits and prevent them from reaching the border. It’s hilarious that anyone sees this as a threat and that daddy deploying 5000+ troops to the border is anything more than a political stunt.
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-30
from what i saw mexico also offered them asylum and they refused, rendering any such claims they have at the us border null and void
illegal immigration is always a threat tho
1 MayNotBeAPervert 2018-10-30
Mexico tried to stop them at their border to get them processed legally and the mob literally overran the border guards. They are counting on not being shot and there not being enough personnel deployed to physically stop them from running over and dispersing.
And yes, 5000 troops is entirely necessary if you want to be able to stop 3.5k people who are intent on using such tactics again without employing lethal force.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-10-30
Or a few fireteams with machine guns. They'll wise up once the number gets cut down to 3.0k.
1 MayNotBeAPervert 2018-10-30
I would file that under 'how to make sure the country votes overwhelmingly blue for next 100 years straight'
that mob is pretty much guaranteed to put all the women and kids at the forefront.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-10-30
Does it look like I care which party is in power?
1 literally_a_tractor 2018-10-30
So there isn't +10,000 large caravan of migrants rejecting asylum in Mexico heading to the us border right now?
Is there not a second and third wave already making its way?
I don't recall them being invited, in fact, I'm pretty sure they have been told to stop coming, and yet the continue...
Yes, please. Just shut the fuck up already.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-10-30
No there’s 6000 at most
Not that I’m aware of.
Good thing there is 86,000 CPB and 24,000 ICE agents already protecting the border.
No u
1 Crusader_1096_2 2018-10-30
It's not a stunt. He genuinely cares about border security. Dems would benefit by not engaging though. Illegal immigration is a losing issue for them--almost as much as gun control (or how abortion is for conservatives).
1 Strictlybutters 2018-10-30
TED CRUZ BTFO
1 iVirtue 2018-10-30
DEPORT TED
1 __Toradorable__ 2018-10-30
no no he's beautiful Ted now
1 CaptainDouchington 2018-10-30
Hilariously Canada is talking about doing this too
1 Van-Diemen 2018-10-30
What? Under Trudeau?
1 I-hate-trump 2018-10-30
What a sack of shit.
1 I-hate-trump 2018-10-30
The constitution is sacred when they want to have guns, but not sacred when they are afraid of poor from people
1 accounttttttttttt 2018-10-30
guns are fun and poor people are gross. i don't see the logical inconsistency in supporting one and opposing the other.
1 Shadowmist909 2018-10-30
Yo what the duck
1 nukemybackyard 2018-10-30
1 PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2018-10-30
Of course when I come here, people aren't concerned about the impacts, but how much drama it will create.
How morally bankrupt are you all?
1 schabadoo 2018-10-30
Subs have titles.
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
Goes to r/watchpeopledie
"I cant believe the people of this sub actually post videos of people dying!!"
1 snallygaster 2018-10-30
You either laugh or you cry.
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-30
lol that it's this thread that broke you
1 Bigwooddeck 2018-10-30
Maybe people worry about the impacts in a sub that's not r/drama
1 cheesemanwub 2018-10-30
who do you guys call him daddy?
1 kermit_was_right 2018-10-30
Because his fans are obviously dying for a DDLG arrangement.
1 cheesemanwub 2018-10-30
No one calls him daddy tho
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
He raised like 60 million retarded children from their FOX news perches and got them out into the world!
1 cheesemanwub 2018-10-30
Why do people associate Fox with Trump? The owner voted for and supported Hillary Clinton and most of the anchors don't like Trump...
What does that have to do with calling him daddy? No one does that....
Sounds like you're reaching lol
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
Because Trump gets his news from FOX and so do the majority of his supporters, 1st hand or otherwise.
You're a literal retard
1 cheesemanwub 2018-10-30
lol try again
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4711996/Rupert-Murdoch-begged-Ailes-support-HILLARY-Trump.html
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
Holy hell you are retarded.
Imagine not only being such a dumbfuck that you believe FOX news isnt pro Trump but also believing Roger Ailes and dailymail.uk at their word.
Also, you might want to read your own garbage sources in the future:
There was no real need to worry about that however, as Ailes learned he was out at the network on the same day that Trump accepted the Republican nomination for president.
So Murdoch instructed Ailes to do this before Trump was even nominated? Talk about a nothingburger dude.
1 cheesemanwub 2018-10-30
Murdoch didn't support Trump, he voted for Hillary
Most people at fox did the same.
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
Feel free to provide a source for any of your bullshit.
1 cheesemanwub 2018-10-30
You're mad online so I win :)
I guess you don't think for yourself much if you need news articles to create your opinions for you lol
But where did this daddy thing even start? It's like projecting the dependency of the left onto the right.
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
lmao fail
1 cheesemanwub 2018-10-30
Why do you guys call him daddy?
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
Its easier to type than GEOTUS.
1 cheesemanwub 2018-10-30
Why do you guys call him daddy tho? It's so cringey...
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
Are you having an episode?
1 cheesemanwub 2018-10-30
No, I just think it's weird you use an insult without knowing why...
1 snallygaster 2018-10-30
Another one who's failed to integrate. 😒
1 cheesemanwub 2018-10-30
wut?
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
I agree. Anchor babies = nOT cOoL dUDE!
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-10-30
This, but unironically.
1 oh_my_account 2018-10-30
He can eliminate whatever he wants in his wet little hands dreams. I would say he need to start doing something about his illegally brought to US wife who worked on tourist visa while she not allowed so. After that he can try something else.
1 literally_a_tractor 2018-10-30
What like make her a citizen by marrying her?
Welp.... Almost!
Got any more brain busters for him?
1 oh_my_account 2018-10-30
That can be another step.
1 Bigwooddeck 2018-10-30
Congress had to pass the Indian Citizenship Act to give Indians citizenship. This implies that the 14th has exceptions for people who are members of other nations. It'll be funny if illegal immigrants start renouncing their old citizenships before entering; it'd be a real legal conundrum if they were all stateless people.
1 Oh_hamburgers_ 2018-10-30
My man
1 luciusdark 2018-10-30
So now the Dems believe in originalist constitutional philosophy? And now the cons believe in a living document? I love this timeline
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-30
Our shit is all fucked up fam.
1 Robert1308 2018-10-30
We Starship Troopers now.
Service guarantees citizenship.
1 ksatriamelayu 2018-10-30
Elon Musk buys USA
Restores Roman Empire 2.0
1 TotesMessenger 2018-10-30
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 mrsuns10 2018-10-30
Either follow the Constitution or amend the 14th amendment
None of this executive orders bullshit
1 artboiz 2018-10-30
I mean, I kinda hope he does it, so that the „muh second amendment“ argument falls fucking flat
1 bat_mayn 2018-10-30
Huge /r/politics brigade on this one I see