14747972? ago

Did you post this on other related goat-floats besides r/pol? And thanks for dropping the wee civics grenade on r/pol. And thanks to Q+, as well, for the (unfolding) 'Survey of Civics' for American patriots who missed Government class in high school. [although, I sure don't remember any discussion of Maritime Admiralty Law v Common Law]. Constitutional Republic baptismal time! I don't even know the current number of Constitutional amendments. Will remedy that.

14748252? ago

No. Plebbit gives me bad vibes. r/pol was enough.

14748904? ago

Well, if they went "berserk," then one place was enough, 'cause their berserk-ness tends to go viral! Good going.

14747311? ago

Potus knows how to change the narrative and put the libtards on the back foot. I know some Thai's that visited just to have a baby in the US. Because they are top 1% with government connections there was never doubt they would be granted Visas. It's sort of like buying citizenship in some cases.

14748260? ago

Yep. Has to stop imo

14744853? ago

"and subject to their jurisdiction"

The phrase that drives the liberal terrorist DEMOCRATS WILD !

DEPORT THEM ALL AND CROSS THE RUBICON !

22 MILLION GOT TO GO !

I CALL IT

"ANCHORS AWAY"

Hip Hip Hooray !!!

14742632? ago

I didn't know this about the 14th amendment. So where would that put me? I was born in the US, my parents were here with fraudulent documents. They got deported after I was born. A few years later they got an opportunity to come back to US. Thanks to president Reagan. My parents became permanent resident's. We have lived here ever since. I have always considered myself a citizen, an since the 2016 election my patriotism has grown substantially.

I have always wondered why a law abiding illegal immigrant doesn't apply for permanent residency status. Ya ya I know a "law abiding illegal immigrant" is an oxymoron. In the words of POTUS "what the hell do they have to loose."

14743328? ago

Won't be retroactive if the law is changed. You're good

14742599? ago

Actually the 14th never applied to Native Americans, only blacks. It was the called the "Reconstruction Amendment" and was adopted in July, 9 1868. In the 1960s activists judges, with the backing of Ted Kennedy, started applying it to everyone including babies born to illegals.

14742083? ago

Nice! Thank you for posting the image...:)

14741970? ago

14th helped eliminate State's Rights making everyone servants of the corporate United States hidden between anti-slavery amendments. This is a brilliant move to restore State's Rights and another reason why I believe POTUS is behind the caravan funding.

14741492? ago

Precisely so! Thanks

14741173? ago

Wait until the SCOTUS nails this shit down and kills the whole anchor baby chain migration issue once and for all.

14740852? ago

American Indians were not originally citizens under 14th Amendment although changed for them later.

The "birthright" citizenship is BS. Thank you, President Trump, for bringing this to the nation's attention!

14740706? ago

Here is precedence for the Chinese baby making tourists. I disagree with the ruling, but the judge decided it differently.

Chinese-Americans In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court held that when a child is born in America to non-citizen Chinese parents, that child is a United States citizen. The Court in Wong Kim also applied that ruling "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States," finding that those persons "are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reisde." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourteenth_amendment_0

14743105? ago

The parents in Wong Kim Ark were legal, permanent residents of the US. The rules of interpretation of prior court rulings used by US courts absolutely prevent the case from automatically applying to new situations, such as the children of those who are not legal, permanent residents.

14740217? ago

I doubt it was for "Native Americans". They were here first, and they still aren't considered "citizens". They have been getting fucked over long before the blacks ever showed up. I think this law was exclusively for blacks. Indians weren't even considered to be humans.

14740020? ago

I know you are lying. Because when you redpill /pol they just call it bullshit because they too are brainwashed.

https://voat.co/v/QRV/2820661/14733761

14742340? ago

True. But it got a lot response so it was fun.

14743148? ago

people who think they are most woke are the deepest sleepers

14738356? ago

What is this text a part of? What is the name of it? Just for use when sharing this. Works better with precise reference. (I am in Europe, fighting the fight against the black propaganda against Trump / MAGA as well. So I am not as well versed in your terms).

14740174? ago

https://voat.co/v/QRV/2820661/14733761 its american law,

If you are in EU use the Magna Carta

14737954? ago

I don't believe Indians were covered right?

14739208? ago

Right, they didn't get added until late 1920's

14737620? ago

I must admit, my initial reaction was that I didn't like the idea. But realizing what the Amendment actually says and the surrounding implications... I'm starting to like the idea.

14740150? ago

14736967? ago

But will it be Constitutionally applied retroactively?

14740160? ago

you didnt sign the constitution it cant be used as defense

14746127? ago

What are you talking about? Defense of what? I think you replied to the wrong comment.

14749979? ago

Defense of shit your being charged with. You can not claim 'constitutional protections or rights" in any court case because the judge says "you didnt sign it" its not your contract.

when government is a corporation its all about the individual contract you have

read this letter from senator Wayne Stump

14738954? ago

I wish.

14738854? ago

I doubt it. Also, because these people (anchor babies) have been "allowed" things "by the law". There is a precedence. It's hard then to yank that away if "the system" allowed it in the first place.

Furthermore, it would be very hard politically to do it. Seeing how much upset the media was able to create with the cry-stories about separation of families at the border. (Even though this is fully according to law - which was not introduced by Trump).

14737176? ago

No.

14736352? ago

The 14th Amendment passes without any support from democrats. Zero.

14740107? ago

https://voat.co/v/QRV/2820661/14733761 youre missing the point

14738044? ago

To be technically accurate only four Democrats voted for it. Republicans passed the 14th Amendment which granted slaves U.S. citizenship; Democrats voted against it. Republicans also passed the 15th Amendment which gave slaves the right to vote. Not a single one of the 56 Democrats in Congress voted for it.

14737463? ago

Really? Lol. I did not think to look.

14736024? ago

US v. Wong Kim Ark gave citizenship to foreigners born in the US if their foreign parents are subject to US law, usually because they legally reside within and work within the US. Children born to illegal immigrants are not citizens according to US law, and have never been and should never be. If a illegal immigrant was truly subject to US law, then that illegal should arrest himself to thereby subject himself to the law. If an illegal is unwilling to arrest himself, then his actions prove his children are not US citizens.

14740063? ago

you cant cite cases before 1933, they are ignored in court

14748271? ago

That is the Erie Railroad case(1933) where they dismissed all prior common law and brought in statutory law to create a new base of precedent. That is when all the courts changed. A conspiracy in its own right.

14749901? ago

They changed the form of government.

Public law is gone and replaced by Public policy. 1933 was the final phase in the transition to Corporate government, birth certificates, pensions for everyone (social security)

its the Edward M House secret plot against America in full force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoeFwwJOgb8

14736796? ago

This is why i hate anonymous subs. I suspect i would enjoy your comment history. Also because this upvote didn't count.

14737155? ago

Anon is better. We aren't here for any glory.

14740269? ago

Agreed, I just wish you could tell if the same person was replying to you.

14737947? ago

It's truly a meritocracy of ideas when anonymous and free

14736474? ago

BRILLIANT!

14735967? ago

The real question is this.... CAN THEY MAKE IT RETROACTIVE... Get rid of all of them that are here NOW.

14741566? ago

Was slavery abolished? Although not analogous: slavery was an actual part of the Constitution; slavery was eventually rescinded. The question of whether alien trespassers can create a valid citizen by virtue of bearing a child within the borders of this country was already specified that it cannot be done. An oversimplified old story - two wrongs do not make a right - two illegals cannot make a legal. I am sure that there may be eloquent debate refuting the text of the 14th amendment, but not the spirit or the logic of it. DJT seeks the correct path. He is not a dummy about the law, politics, or the inalienable rights of every citizen of this great nation. The Courts must affirm our interpretation of the 14th amendment, first. After that, Graham could eliminate the loopholes. Does this fit your interpretation?

14743117? ago

Powerful Meme fodder there my friend...Two wrongs cant create a right... Just like 2 illegals cant create a legal person. I will post that idea around the 'chans and see if I can get a good one.

14737702? ago

It’s been law since 1880s it is retroactive if enforced. If enforced it must be done equally.

14740134? ago

you cant cite court cases before 1933

look up chisholm v georgia that ruled the people are soveriegn

cops kill you if you are sovereign today, they call you sovereign citizen and a terrorist

14748304? ago

Not exactly. Sovereign Citizen is an oxymoron. Once cannot be a Sovereign AND a Citizen. The two are mutually exclusive.

14749842? ago

yeah i know but they dont get it.

Those who benefit from some societal mechanism rarely wish to understand that mechanism, especially if it appears to grant them control, authority, or power over their fellow man and understanding that mechanism would limit, demish, or remove, that apparent power, control, or authority

14743146? ago

This is somehow related to the 'United States Corporation' which is linked to the lost (but still real) Allodial Title rules as well as all sorts of other shit... Its the greatest rabbit hole of all...

14745107? ago

whoah...

14736766? ago

This is incredibly closed minded. Not all illegals in our country need to be deported. The ones who have refused to assimilate or have history of ANY criminal offenses should be deported without question. The hard working folks just trying to make an otherwise honest loving should be granted permanent resident status with a challenging, but clear path towards citizenship.

14738844? ago

No. Perhaps some can stay if they are paying their own way but the penalty they should pay is never getting citizenship. If they want that then the first step should be entering the country legally. Leave and then if we are accepting resident aliens then you may start working towards citizenship.

14740904? ago

Make Mexico Okay Again, while removing welfare, and most of them have no desire to be in America.

14738179? ago

NO. You don't reward criminals period. They entered illegally thus they're criminals. Please take your bleeding heart elsewhere.

14740886? ago

If they assimilated, it seems they could easily find some American friends to help sponsor and fast track them back into the country for a work visa and a path towards citizenship. If they did not assimilate, well then I doubt they wanted to be Americans in the first place.

14741770? ago

They don’t want to assimilate. They just want to work and send the money they make back to where they came from.

14737454? ago

Some are refugees. For instance, fleeing war-torn Palestine. Is a refugee different than an immigrant? Or one seeking asylum? I'm not sure I understand the differences.

14740764? ago

Does being a refugee mean that one can never return to one's homeland? Does seeking asylum mean that one will never go back home?

14738192? ago

Than get a dictionary.

14739512? ago

Dictionaries rarely help definitively in legal matters. Remember Clinton's famous statement, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." A very famous federal case you study in law school involved the definition of "chicken."
https://everything2.com/title/The+Chicken+Case If the definitions of "is " and "chicken" are debatable, imagine what lawyers can do with "immigrant" and "refugee."

14736940? ago

After paying penalties for the original crime of entering the country illegally.

14740304? ago

My thought too. A fine to fund the wall and build a coffer for helping immigrants separate from any other welfare. Course we have to ban Congress from raiding the funds like they do everything else (USPS always in the red because Congress requires X amount in pension acct and keeps appropriating it).

14736631? ago

I would say this would be fair but the circumstances would have to make it justifiable. You wouldn't want them just deporting anyone without any sort of investigation with a level of fairness...

14736050? ago

Careful what you wish for...

14736253? ago

My family and friends and I are ready. Time to water the tree of liberty.

14735607? ago

Kavanaugh was a big get. Now a few more. Then clean up of the nonsense can truly commence.

We're going to build a logical, compassionate society that interacts with compassionate and logical AIs.

Whatever Q put in those drops, unlocks a way to rewire your mind. Once it does, you feel the presence of something bigger and you can see truth very clearly.

I get glimpses of what could be, and it's looking amazing.

14744483? ago

Absolutely anon. Feeling that presence is an amazing thing. We are getting really good people. Spirits high right now

14744692? ago

Amen

14740827? ago

Scott Adams has been predicting something similar.

14741454? ago

Not familiar with his work. Any links handy?

14746481? ago

His YouTube channel is called "Real Coffee with Scott Adams". A bit of an acquired taste but he makes some interesting points. He does live videos on Periscope.

14747581? ago

Interesting, thanks.

14745098? ago

He's the creator of Dilbert. And he's a brilliant observer and seer of obvious truths...

14745106? ago

Ok, I'm tracking you now. Thanks.

14741682? ago

I jumped around to find the exact resonse (whole interview is pretty good, though).

Around 29:50 - Scott Adams Interview

14742496? ago

Thanks, I'll check it out.

14740047? ago

You must be talking about Tyler

14735488? ago

Yep! It's it's driving the liberals nutzoid!!! Love it!! 14th Amendment was only for granting citizenship to recently freed African slaves, not foreigners. In fact, it didn’t even include Native Americans.

Howard wrote “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.” https://thepoliticalinsider.com/man-who-wrote-14th-amendment-explains-it-liberals-are-furious/

14736690? ago

My take is that they are mentioning this just to confuse the liberals before the election next week. This issue is such a good obstacle for liberals to get stuck on since they lead with emotion and not logic. While they cry about this, tick tock, the election comes closer and they are less prepared. When have you seen any of the Democrats have a rally or meeting with their base and it looking successful or getting publicity?? Even Obama's speeches draw under 2,000. They are going to be shook by this real bad......can't wait....

14738812? ago

Right. It just triggers them to lock in on their own angry circle-jerk. No outward motion or progress.

Trump is great at these things. Throwing the media and Dems a bone to grind on. While he continues with more interesting things :) Plus, the subject of course catches attention of the Rep base, too.

14735780? ago

Yes. I realize that Native Americans got it in 1926.

14738153? ago

Wow that took a long time. Maybe it's time to take away the reservations and just call it US land and let others live on them too. Maybe than it will lift them out of poverty and assimilate them finally.

14743446? ago

We are sovereign nations, given rights due to treaties. We believe in God, family, protecting nature, community, and have suffered immensely from those who wanted to control and "assimilate" us because they thought that they and their way of life was superior. We are educating our own, doing economic development (yes, including casinos) and pulling ourselves out of multigenerational trauma and poverty, inch by inch. How is your attitude toward us any different than what the Globalists want to do TO YOU?

14745068? ago

I think the poster above was being sarcastic - just pointing out a double-standard. I hope so anyway...

14742159? ago

Exactly. Especially when their corruption which spills out of their reservations supporting the DS comes to light.

14739047? ago

No, if you "take away the reservations," you are an Indian-giver. Sorry, but true. It would be better to simply dissolve the Dept. of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs; just close the entire agency and all the regulations that go with it. Legally, the land could be considered a private property commune for the time being, then once sold or inherited, it is counted as regular real estate.

Current law makes racism legal for those of Native American heritage.

14741229? ago

Reservations aren't 'holding pens.' Each tribal Nation has sovereignty. They do not view land use and land ownership in the same way Admiralty Law does. Now, though, Native Americans have phalanxes of lawyers--their children--some are on Tribal Councils. They're not going to "sell their land."

14741940? ago

The proliferation of casinos proves what motivates them. They are living under highly racist protective laws. Surely no one believes that "thinking differently about land use" is going to save them from the lefts' illegal aliens who will want their own sovereign no-go places.

14742444? ago

Casino proliferation proves nothing. These people are not Benjamin Seigel and Meyer Lansky! Ya might want to do more research, because the Native Americans' situation is completely different than any other group you want to pull out of your hat. So what if they have casinos?; they also have oil and natural gas, copper, silver, uranium, etc., on tribal lands. Here in Oregon, they've cleaned up riparian waterways, and have accommodated animal migration patterns. They also have casinos. They catch alot of rich Asian "whales" in the port town casinos. The Tribes are not the ones who want to sell out all our natural resources to foreign entities. Good for them. As for those others you mentioned, wanting "sovereign no-go places," they're deluded, and probably don't even acknowledge the indigenous of this country, or know anything about the US govt's history with them.

14745074? ago

Amen - well said