Sign into an existing account

[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz [op] 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 16:07:37 ago (+1/-0)

so it begins, he will have some opposition to his policies not only from the democrats, his own party and the judicial bench

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 16:06:37 ago (+1/-1)

The judge ain't wrong.

At a very minimum, you're gonna need a law passed, not an executive order. Odds are, you're gonna need an amendment.

I'd love to hear legal arguments to the contrary, but I don't see the loophole here.

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 3 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 16:21:39 ago (+3/-0)

The judge ain't wrong.

He is, though.

you're gonna need a law passed

Already did. The 14th amendment. Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 17:44:00 ago (+1/-0)

Really? The US Federal Government cannot charge an illegal alien with a crime? The US Federal Government cannot collect income taxes from illegal aliens? If an illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, it would mean that the US Federal Government would not have jurisdiction to charge or file suit against that illegal alien for ANYTHING. You sure about that?

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 17:53:01 ago (+1/-0)

[strawman]

lol

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 18:05:51 ago (+1/-0)*

It's not a strawman. A court must have jurisdiction to make determinations and judgements on cases before the court. No jurisdiction, no case. Similarly with the executive branch. In order to bring charges against an individual or bring a complaint against an entity, the crime or harm must have been committed within the jurisdiction of the US Federal Government. No different that a city cop pulling someone over for speeding outside city limits. No jurisdiction, no charge allowed.

When SCOTUS says this exact same thing, are you going to tell them that the jurisdiction requirement is a strawman argument for determining whether or not an illegal alien is within the jurisdiction of the United States?

Add to it further, when an illegal alien commits a crime in the US, that illegal alien has every single right that any American citizen has with regards to due process. They have the right to remain silent. They have habeas corpus rights. They have a right to an attorney. They have a right to a speedy trial. They have a 5th amendment right to not self incriminate. They have a 4th amendment right to be secured from illegal searches and seizures. They have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, freedom to redress grievances, and can write a newspaper and telling other what they saw, or did, or think. They can't be tortured to extract confessions. Etc.

Literally millions of examples, every year, that suggest illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 18:09:25 ago (+0/-0)

When SCOTUS says this exact same

I just don’t give a shit what a jewish court says. Illegals are not citizens and have no rights in the United States. Their spawn are not citizens merely because they were born here. The authors of the constitutional amendment explicitly said this, and it’s common sense beneath being said in the first place.

that illegal alien has every single right that any American citizen has with regards to due process.

lol no

Literally millions of examples

K, don’t care. Jews aren’t white just because they say so millions of times.

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 18:13:33 ago (+1/-0)

I gave you literally a dozen examples of the US government respecting the rights of illegals. You calling every example of such, a determination of a "jew court" doesn't change reality. In the US, illegals have rights. If you doubt that, go murder one, and see what happens. Tell the court that they didn't have a right to life. See what happens.

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 18:19:40 ago (+0/-0)

I gave you literally a dozen examples of the US government respecting the rights of illegals.

That’s nice. I don’t give a shit. Get it through your fucking retarded jewish head.

You calling every example of such, a determination of a "jew court" doesn't change reality.

Neat, don’t care. You’re not reading what I’m writing.

See what happens.

Okay, white genocide is guaranteed and we’re all dead already. You won, jew. Congratulations.

I don’t care. What you have to say. Because you are not. Reading what I am writing.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 18:47:47 ago (+0/-0)

Nigger, if you don't care what the courts, the government, or the lawmakers say on the issue, then why the fuck do you care if the are called citizens or illegals? Why are you even posting replies in this fuckin' thread?

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 19:09:36 ago (+1/-0)

You’re not reading. No matter how many times you get told this, you still refuse to change this, probably because you have to read to know you’re being told you’re not reading. There’s no discussion to be had with you. You’ll die with the nonwhites you defend and no one will remember you ever existed.

[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz [op] 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 16:32:36 ago (+0/-0)

if illegals are no subject to the jurisdiction of the united states then how can they be jailed and such?

you are an ignorant of the law. personally i'm agaisnt illegal immigration. however, to say that an illegal alien doesnt fall within federal and jurisdiction is asinine and again ignorant of the laws. yes i took 2 classes of law in middle and high school back then. now these illegals should be apprehended and deported as soon as they get caught unless they commit a more heinous crime on american soil

Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

The issue of jurisdiction and immigration status in the United States is indeed complex. The term "jurisdiction" in the legal sense refers to the authority of a court or government to govern or make legal decisions over a person or territory. In the context of immigration, individuals who are present in the U.S., regardless of their status, are generally subject to its laws and regulations. This includes criminal law, civil law, and most legal obligations and protections.

For example, undocumented immigrants (often referred to as "illegals" in public discourse) are still subject to U.S. laws and can be prosecuted for criminal activities.

[ + ] glooper

[ - ] glooper 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 17:16:34 ago (+1/-0)

Now do the international law around this and see what you come up with, also, try a different "source" and you might get a completely different take on how US LAW is interpreted..

What you posted is much short on legal and history fact and much long on "editorial" about how we're supposed to interpret this.

Good luck out there.

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 17:57:16 ago (+1/-0)

Why would we have to "do the international law around this". What international law? What court? What the fuck are you talking about?

The only interpretation of US LAW that makes any difference in the US is the interpretations made by US or State courts at the trial level or upon appeal. The US does not recognize ANY international court or ANY court of any other country in the world. Fuck them!

The final arbiters of the meanings and intentions of the US Constitution, the Supreme law of the land, and the 14th Amendment, will be the Supreme Court of the United States.

[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz [op] 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 18:43:16 ago (+0/-0)

Now do the international law

i dont adhere to international law i adhere to the u.s constitution. like i said the easiest way to solve this problem are two folds

1)prevent them to come here at all costs

2) try to pass an amendment to the 14th, that should do it but this one will be difficult because of partisan politics

[ + ] Imnotajoo

[ - ] Imnotajoo 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 17:18:19 ago (+0/-0)

So they can murder and rape withoutout consequence then?

Perhaps we need good illegals to shoot all the bad illegals

Perhaps we create kill squads to take out the trash and when caught they go to jail till the next election and trump pardons them

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 17:50:04 ago (+1/-0)

Not to say I support the assertion that illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, I don't, but rape and murder are STATE crimes, not US crimes. State courts would have jurisdiction in murder or rape, where the US Government does not have jurisdiction over anyone for rape and murder unless the rape or murder violates a federal law, as well.

[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz [op] 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 16:12:15 ago (+0/-0)

At a very minimum, you're gonna need a law passed, not an executive order. Odds are, you're gonna need an >amendment.

sadly the prospects of the constitution being amendment for this issue is almost nil. while the republicans hold the majority in both houses? they are going to get filibustered to death

i told you and others in another thread that his exe order would be deemed unconstitutional and here we are. told ya so.

the 14th is pretty clear. saw an article from zerohedge that tried to murk the waters on the 14th but even the readers where calling it bullshit because the reasoning didnt hold water

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 17:47:16 ago (+1/-0)

You didn't "tell me so". This is something I've known. It seems pretty obvious. And yes, there is no fucking way we could get ANY amendments passed in the current political environment. Giving Trump a "win" if at all preventable would be political suicide for anyone that's not MAGA.

I'd be interested in hearing an argument that congress could pass a law, but given the makeup of the courts, I doubt it.

[ - ] dirtywhiteboy 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 19:12:45 ago (+0/-0)

What are the first three words of the constitution? Now tell me, we're niggers considered people when this document was written? Now flail around and tell me how the judge is right.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 19:45:32 ago (+0/-0)

"We the people ...". Are you going to suggest that illegals are not people? What's your point here?

Yes. Free nigger citizens were considered people when the Constitution was written. Crispus Attucks, the first man to die in, and possibly the cause of, the Boston Massacre would have been considered a person at the writing and signing of the Constitution, you utterly dumb fuck.

SLAVES were considered 2/5ths of a person, not niggers. You gonna barf up the flat headed anti-white belief that the term "slave" meant nigger? Did you need a history lesson on where the term slave originated? It wasn't niggers.

The judge is right because 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.

And, slave don't mean nigger. When niggers were no longer slaves, they were considered people, whether you agree witg that determination or not.

[ - ] dirtywhiteboy 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 20:01:46 ago (+0/-0)

Who were considered people when that document was written?

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 20:34:04 ago (+0/-0)

That is the most fucking retarded assed question ever asked on this fucking platform.

Holy fuck! Kill yourself.

[ - ] dirtywhiteboy 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 20:35:29 ago (+0/-0)

Niggers are not people. Seethe.

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 21:44:39 ago (+1/-0)*

Was anyone who wasn't a US citizen a person? If so, who? Provide proof of this claim.

Boivire's Law Dictionary (1856) definition of a "person".

https://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=bouvier&Query=PERSON

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called
natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms.
Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever
may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a
man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the
rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it
imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial
person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Woodes. Lect.
116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts,
natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to
show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or
women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by
reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any
public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law
specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves.
Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say,
who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one
who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes
ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as
persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to
be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358.
Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.)
when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered
in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide
Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as
to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into
parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters
and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv.
Inst. n. 1890, note.

"Nigger" doesn't mean "slave" and "slave" doesn't mean "nigger", you utterly dumb, anti-white, fuck!

[ - ] dirtywhiteboy 2 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 21:55:16 ago (+2/-0)

tldr niggers arent people

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 monthsJan 24, 2025 06:38:50 ago (+0/-0)

Tldr, you're an illiterate fuckin' idiot.

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 2 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 16:21:14 ago (+2/-0)

[authors of the amendment explicitly said children of foreigners aren’t citizens and the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to them]

OY VEY IT NOT REAL CUZ I SAY SO

Kill the judge immediately.

[ + ] Sal_180

[ - ] Sal_180 -1 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 19:37:38 ago (+0/-1)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Where does it say "except foreigners"

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 20:14:57 ago (+1/-0)

Right here.

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.’ I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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.” *~ The Congressional Globe*, p. 2890; May 30, 1866

Eat shit and die.

[ + ] dassar

[ - ] dassar 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 22:05:45 ago (+0/-0)

Exactly, soy_180 is smooth-brain cognitively tarded,.

[ + ] PostWallHelena

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 21:48:00 ago (+0/-0)

Where it says subject to the jurisdiction thereof

[ + ] dassar

[ - ] dassar 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 22:03:34 ago (+0/-0)

It's in the terminology of 'naturalized in the United States' - naturalized means full US citizenship - not a person born to a foreign national (foreigner temporarily residing/ visiting in the US) or foreign resident (living in the US with non-US citizenship).
Naturalized includes either born to Parents with full US citizenship or otherwise denotes an individual that has completed all the steps required by legal/ lawful immigration status and residency to gain full citizenship.

https://www.siue.edu/human-resources/faqs/pages/what-is-the-difference-between-a-foreign-national-and-a-nonresident-alien.shtml

It really does mean 'except foreigners'

[ - ] HeavyBrain 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 16:30:22 ago (+1/-0)

Just like most of the shit that was done to guns since the what it feels like the 50s?

But yes judge is not really wrong there needs to be a law for that.

[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz [op] 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 16:40:42 ago (+1/-0)

there needs to be a law for that.

no, a constitutional amendment would just suffice. because that law would be struck down again on basis of previous precedents.

the constitutional way is the best way to tackle this issue once and for all. in the meantime, keep building that wall

[ + ] HeavyBrain

[ - ] HeavyBrain 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 18:46:00 ago (+0/-0)

Guess so, but in the end what good does it if the same amount is pouring in "legal".

Kicking them out and doing the Bulgarian way to boost white birth rates would be the way to go in a ok world.

[ - ] glooper 3 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 16:34:14 ago (+3/-0)*

9th circut coming in hot again!

Boy is everyone going to be suprized to learn, what has been done, is actually what was unconstitutional.
Go read the supporting clause ars-fags, go read all the supporting papers from the actual time (civil war) of the folks putting this together.

It was NEVER, EVER meant for the anchor baby situation. It was meant for the ex-slave negros and the injuns....

and for the record, the injuns decided amongst themselves at the time.... to go a different direction, which spun up a whole 'nother legal question that had to be settled (the sovereign nation shyt also many negros wanted repatriation and sovereignty and got the country of Liberia paid for, constructed by, and setup by the United states, everyone likes to forget that detail)

[ + ] jfroybees

[ - ] jfroybees 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 16:58:47 ago (+1/-0)

Roe v Wade was a major precedent and we know what happened with that. The last pick of trump's will be a problem. Amy something something.

[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz [op] 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 16:37:25 ago (+0/-0)

there was a case in the 1800's i believe that tackled this issue. an american of chinese ancestry sued the govt because it was denied to him his citizenship even though he was born here. guess what happened?

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 17:57:06 ago (+1/-0)

His parents were citizens, though. Anchor babies, by definition, have no citizen parents.

[ + ] Bonanza

[ - ] Bonanza 1 point 3 monthsJan 23, 2025 20:56:07 ago (+1/-0)

No, his parents were actually not citizens. In fact during the time the Chinese Exclusion Act was in force, meaning no Chinese could be naturalised as American Citizens.

However, they were LEGAL domestic employees in the country working in a LEGAL capacity, meaning since they were in the country legally and employed legally, even though they were not citizens, they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and their offspring which was born on American soil was then by legal definition an American Citizen.

The 14th Amendment does not apply to illegal invaders.