Time to get on the TRUMP train

Now that winter is here, Wendy’s hot chili on a cold night is superior. I recommend adding the graded cheese on the top.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/928136...&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V

It's a shame Trump abandoned him but I understand why


https://youtu.be/r_yDuVZe5UM?si=o9UBF8J5bfj37jiM

A hedge fund manager thinks 7.25/hr is enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hutmaster

Look at all these Trumpanzees that are so clueless that they don’t understand basic law. If you are born in the United States you are automatically considered a natural born citizen. There are some that would like to change that but as of now the law is the law. It’s all right there in the 14th amendment and lots of Supreme Court case law to affirm it.

Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.

The trumpanzee strategy is just like their leaders….respond with lies and deflections. Opposition to trump doesn’t make one a Biden supporter or a libtard…..and I didn’t vote for Gavin either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

This take on the 14th amendment is parroted everywhere by people who have never looked into the facts.


This is from over 5 years ago:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

I've had discussions with relatives who are German citizens about this issue. Germany is generally considered a more "progressive" country than the United States, and even their laws state that the only children born to a non-citizen parent or parents who can obtain citizenship are born to permanent German resident permit holders or parents who have been living in the country for a verifiable minimum of 8 years. And even then, to maintain citizenship they must complete a list of requirements by age 23.

The reason why I bring this up is because legal precedent in the United States is similar.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...._Wong_Kim_Ark

Quote:

---

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

So even the only case that can somewhat argue the side of "land a plane here, have a baby = citizen" or "cross a river illegally, have a baby = citizen", clearly states that this right is only granted to the children of citizens or permanent residents.

---

Only posting the tweet screenshot because even a widely respected progressive historian/law professor went public with admitting it's a bullshit take that actually needs challenged.

---

---

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1881504161059287438

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

As we move on from Roe v Wade, which honestly probably should have been left as is, the next liberal salt fest will be when the bullshit interpretation of the 14th amendment is finally challenged, rightfully ending birthright citizenship. This will happen after Trump or DeSantis wins in 2024.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

Unchecked immigration is just another form of colonialism. The rest of the country is finally seeing what we've been dealing with in Texas. The southern part of the state is becoming more third world by the day. I used to love vacationing in South Padre Island, various coastal cities, and beach towns, but drastic sudden changes in demographics has made me never want to go back. The corruption in this part of Texas has gotten out of control as the Latinos take over (just Google it) - literally hundreds of cases brought to light. The funniest example was a school using the state's program that takes money from wealthy districts in North and East Texas to redistribute to disadvantaged districts and using it to build themselves an actual water park.

People often say the constitution is what makes America great, and yes it helps, but it has always been by and large the collective will of the people here that has made this country what it is. Unfortunately Mexicans and Central Americans tend to just make the places they inhabit in our country in large concentrated numbers no different than the places they left. The Democrats have conveniently made it impossible to call this shit out without being labeled a racist and a bigot. Even in the state Abbott governs, he cannot mention anything related to this without the same. Eventually there will be no one left to question this and uphold the law, and when that happens Texas will just be North Mexico. This is why part of me hopes Trump wins - there is a very good chance he takes a shot at the bullshit interpretation of the 14th amendment and ends birthright citizenship.

Any of you pussies who have opposing viewpoints on this issue have simply not yet experienced what we have, and I hope your city becomes the next sanctuary. In Texas there have been hordes of people for decades who are actively being encouraged not to assimilate just walking over and moving in.

---

I've talked about this over the years with some very brilliant people. If not for politics, there would be a 100% chance that the court rules against birthright citizenship. Unfortunately a logical and just world isn't what we live in, but I'd still say it's probably 2 to 1 or better that the court makes the correct decision in the coming challenge.

Here is your reminder that the 14th amendment was only originally passed to ensure citizenship for slaves and their descendants. Even to this day American Samoans are not "subject to the jurisdiction of" the United States in the sense of this amendment with automatic birthright citizenship. At the time it was passed, neither were Native Americans.

Unfortunately there is a good chance that cuck-Roberts and Coney Barrett side with the libtards on this one. Let's hope not.

Q. But what did the authors of the amendment mean by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? Who were they intending to exclude?

A. There was extensive and sometimes heated debate over the amendment, with three categories of persons discussed: the U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats, Native Americans, and some immigrant groups. One of the primary sponsors of the amendment, whose proposed language became the final text of the first sentence of Section 1, was clear when asked what exclusions were envisioned by the term “subject to the jurisdiction.” Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) replied: “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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”



This is not fake:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

I've talked about this over the years with some very brilliant people. If not for politics, there would be a 100% chance that the court rules against birthright citizenship. Unfortunately a logical and just world isn't what we live in, but I'd still say it's probably 2 to 1 or better that the court makes the correct decision in the coming challenge.

---

I guess those brilliant people you spoke with didn’t speak English. “All persons born” means exactly what it says. Conservative judges use the plain meaning doctrine to interpret the Constitution. And there is zero ambiguity in those three words.

I don’t have any problem ending birthright citizenship, but lol @ Trump thinking he can change the Constitution by executive order.

I don't have any opinion on birthright citizenship in a legal sense. I am not a lawyer. Just as a citizen, I hope Trump is successful because whatever they interpret the words to have meant 150 years ago, common sense dictates they didn't envision the current world at that time.

This is a right-wing opinion on this issue, but it would be a left opinion on something like guns.

I don't believe they envisioned the current society when talking about a well-armed militia of citizens as that is now a ridiculous defense against anything in an age of advanced weaponry. Like guns, so many immigrants from undesirable places are already here that a fix is almost too late, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use some common-sense regarding words put down on paper hundreds of years ago. The notion of the constitution as some infallible religious text has always been silly to me. Amazing document with incredible foresight in general but not handed down from some God.

I wouldn't ban selling guns or immigration. Tweaks are in order though. Modernizations that deal with the current reality. The whole concept of a living document versus the strict constructionist argument though is generally something where conservatives fall on the latter, so it wouldn't surprise me if they use the literal words, and it's struck down because to get into anything beyond the definition of the words lends itself to it being a breathing document.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

I've talked about this over the years with some very brilliant people. If not for politics, there would be a 100% chance that the court rules against birthright citizenship. Unfortunately a logical and just world isn't what we live in, but I'd still say it's probably 2 to 1 or better that the court makes the correct decision in the coming challenge.

---

I guess those brilliant people you spoke with didn’t speak English. “All persons born” means exactly what it says. Conservative judges use the plain meaning doctrine to interpret the Constitution. And there is zero ambiguity in those three words.

I don’t have any problem ending birthright citizenship, but lol @ Trump thinking he can change the Constitution by executive order.

---

I don't pay any attention to your posts, but weren't you supposedly a lawyer? This take is embarrassing if so.

Druff, do you support the blanket pardon of the Jan 6th terrorists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

I guess those brilliant people you spoke with didn’t speak English. “All persons born” means exactly what it says. Conservative judges use the plain meaning doctrine to interpret the Constitution. And there is zero ambiguity in those three words.

I don’t have any problem ending birthright citizenship, but lol @ Trump thinking he can change the Constitution by executive order.

---

I don't pay any attention to your posts, but weren't you supposedly a lawyer? This take is embarrassing if so.

---

Want to bet a grand SCOTUS strikes this down?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

I've talked about this over the years with some very brilliant people. If not for politics, there would be a 100% chance that the court rules against birthright citizenship. Unfortunately a logical and just world isn't what we live in, but I'd still say it's probably 2 to 1 or better that the court makes the correct decision in the coming challenge.

---

I guess those brilliant people you spoke with didn’t speak English. “All persons born” means exactly what it says. Conservative judges use the plain meaning doctrine to interpret the Constitution. And there is zero ambiguity in those three words.

I don’t have any problem ending birthright citizenship, but lol @ Trump thinking he can change the Constitution by executive order.

---

Trump signed the executive order because he wants the issue to go to the Supreme Court. VaughnP earlier gave the historical perspective/intent of the 14th Amendment.

I googled: Does the Supreme Court rule on the intent of language?

The response was:

"Yes, when interpreting laws or the constitution, Supreme Courts do consider the intent of the language, often trying to understand what the drafters meant when writing the text, by looking at historical context, legislative records, and the plain meaning of the words used, to reach a decision on how to apply the law in a specific case."

If you think that just the plain meaning of words are all they consider then take a look at these words "shall not abridge freedom of speech." Today that means STFU, asshole, or you'll go to jail.

Mickey shits himself when he can't get out of his wheelchair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardBrodiesCombover.

Mickey shits himself when he can't get out of his wheelchair.

---

You, shitfaced, and simp are on my list of next to put on ignore. You will join sloopy joe, sonatine and bcr. To much time is wasted on trolls and trolling. So I put you guys on ignore to use my time for something else. You don't add anything to the forum anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardBrodiesCombover.

Mickey shits himself when he can't get out of his wheelchair.

---

You, shitfaced, and simp are on my list of next to put on ignore. You will join sloopy joe, sonatine and bcr. To much time is wasted on trolls and trolling. So I put you guys on ignore to use my time for something else. You don't add anything to the forum anyway.

---

I was just adding context

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

I don't pay any attention to your posts, but weren't you supposedly a lawyer? This take is embarrassing if so.

---

Want to bet a grand SCOTUS strikes this down?

---

If I wanted to bet this I'd wait until it is actually heading there and bet on Polymarket - there's already one market for if it gets struck down before the end of the month. Again, this case will be decided on politics, not on the merits, and Roberts is almost surely going to side with the team of DEI, libtardian justices, all they need is one more. Lastly, if I were going to bet with someone here it wouldn't be with the forum equivalent of a "job guy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

I guess those brilliant people you spoke with didn’t speak English. “All persons born” means exactly what it says. Conservative judges use the plain meaning doctrine to interpret the Constitution. And there is zero ambiguity in those three words.

I don’t have any problem ending birthright citizenship, but lol @ Trump thinking he can change the Constitution by executive order.

---

Trump signed the executive order because he wants the issue to go to the Supreme Court. VaughnP earlier gave the historical perspective/intent of the 14th Amendment.

I googled: Does the Supreme Court rule on the intent of language?

The response was:

"Yes, when interpreting laws or the constitution, Supreme Courts do consider the intent of the language, often trying to understand what the drafters meant when writing the text, by looking at historical context, legislative records, and the plain meaning of the words used, to reach a decision on how to apply the law in a specific case."

If you think that just the plain meaning of words are all they consider then take a look at these words "shall not abridge freedom of speech." Today that means STFU, asshole, or you'll go to jail.

---

Conservative judges only consider legislative intent when the language of a statute is ambiguous. Here that is not the case. Trump is just throwing some red meat to Team Retard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

Want to bet a grand SCOTUS strikes this down?

---

If I wanted to bet this I'd wait until it is actually heading there and bet on Polymarket - there's already one market for if it gets struck down before the end of the month. Again, this case will be decided on politics, not on the merits, and Roberts is almost surely going to side with the team of DEI, libtardian justices, all they need is one more. Lastly, if I were going to bet with someone here it wouldn't be with the forum equivalent of a "job guy".

---

No. They are going to side with the Constitution. And it’s going to be 9-0. It’s as simple as that. This one is so easy they might even let that idiot Clarence Thomas (who is an originalist) author the opinion.

Plus, Trump is going to get his ass handed to him in every single federal court. SCOTUS might not even grant certiorari on the matter and just let the lower court’s rulings’ stand, so they don’t waste their time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

Want to bet a grand SCOTUS strikes this down?

---

If I wanted to bet this I'd wait until it is actually heading there and bet on Polymarket - there's already one market for if it gets struck down before the end of the month. Again, this case will be decided on politics, not on the merits, and Roberts is almost surely going to side with the team of DEI, libtardian justices, all they need is one more. Lastly, if I were going to bet with someone here it wouldn't be with the forum equivalent of a "job guy".

---

https://x.com/raoul_duke20766/status...652496095?s=20

I hope I'm wrong on this one, but it just seems like Roberts and Barrett are going to fail everyone here.

https://x.com/FischerKing64/status/1...233929564?s=20

https://x.com/RealTheoWold/status/19...464752629?s=20

"The 14th amendment's birthright citizenship clause was written specifically for the children of freed slaves. It was not intended so that somebody could cross the Rio Grande, give birth, and have their child automatically considered an American citizen.

The Wong Ark Kim case that the left always cites to claim this as settled law applied to the children of laborers from China who were legally brought to America to work on the transcontinental railroads.

We don't give the children of foreign diplomats born in America citizenship and neither should we give it to the children of illegal aliens.

Time for SCOTUS to do the right thing and end this scam."



Go back one page for a logical explanation for why the current interpretation is bullshit. I hate how much power SCOTUS has.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1997...565475536?s=20

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1997...565475536?s=20

---

Sad that a sitting governor is incapable of understanding basic English words.

It is vastly understated how many preggos come here to drop them solely to gain citizenship.

They then bring over their brood all on welfare.

https://x.com/adgirlMM/status/1997379764299198664?s=20

Wtf happened here





The Dells at the Whitehouse announcing that Trump account scam

https://x.com/ilan_wurman/status/199...694624823?s=20

All of this and the replies are worth reading. Over the years I have researched this almost surely more than anyone here has, likely even combined. Being as objective as I possibly can, the current interpretation is absolute bullshit and not at all what the men of that time intended it to be - no other way to say it.

https://x.com/EWess92/status/1997339506928754713?s=20


https://x.com/EWess92/status/1997339506928754713?s=20



https://x.com/EWess92/status/1997339515959058583?s=20


https://x.com/EWess92/status/1997339524033126754?s=20


https://x.com/EWess92/status/1997339532228780490?s=20

https://x.com/EWess92/status/1997339541573616025?s=20

https://x.com/EWess92/status/1997339544840995118?s=20

We need an explanation for how this still doesn't apply to American Samoans and originally specifically excluded "Indians not taxed", but somehow included the children of literally everyone else in the world under any circumstance that came here illegally and popped out an anchor baby. Dumbest fucking shit ever.

"Indians not taxed" proves how retarded the current prevailing interpretation is by itself - the reason for this is because the "Indians not taxed" were subject to tribal law first, not subject to the jurisdiction thereof the United States. They didn't want the children of Natives counting as citizens for census and congressional representation purposes, but they definitely would have been all for millions of Mexicans and Central Americans crossing the border and having their kids be.

No one can provide a real counter argument to this point or any of the other key points without basing it on vibes or woke, pozzed AI and agenda-driven legacy media opinions that are stated as facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

We need an explanation for how this still doesn't apply to American Samoans and originally specifically excluded "Indians not taxed", but somehow included the children of literally everyone else in the world under any circumstance that came here illegally and popped out an anchor baby. Dumbest fucking shit ever.

"Indians not taxed" proves how retarded the current prevailing interpretation is by itself - the reason for this is because the "Indians not taxed" were subject to tribal law first, not subject to the jurisdiction thereof the United States. They didn't want the children of Natives counting as citizens for census and congressional representation purposes, but they definitely would have been all for millions of Mexicans and Central Americans crossing the border and having their kids be.

No one can provide a real counter argument to this point or any of the other key points without basing it on vibes or woke, pozzed AI and agenda-driven legacy media opinions that are stated as facts.

---

Do you not understand the word "all"?

The anchor baby shit is stupid and illogical, and should be eliminated.

It's like saying that if my wife happens to be in your house when she gives birth, you have to support my kid for the next 18 years.

They should eliminate it, but allow all existing anchor babies to keep their status.

In digging deeper on this, I did know that the Heritage Foundation strongly supported Barrett's nomination, but I didn't know that she was previously a Senior Legal Fellow in their Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

They have of course for years now been lobbying for the end of birthright citizenship harder than anyone - it's basically one of their core tenets.

I know for a fact Trump has planned on going after this since the beginning of his first term. One would think and hope he more or less nominated her with an indirect under the table assurance of how she'd rule on this - the Ginsburg Rule be damned. It's not illegal for him to outright ask any question like this to a potential nominee, but direct answers from a potential nominee are unethical.