Very curious to see how the Sup Ct will rule on this.
2 Likes
Hey.
So what’s your AI prediction on how the court will rule?
2 Likes
I’m guessing Clarence Thomas will rule the state bans are unconstitutional, and maybe Alito also.
3 Likes
Hay is for Horses
2 Likes
Hey.
Hey yourself
2 Likes
I think the vote will be close, too many libtards on the supreme court.
2 Likes
I think it was Kavanaugh who said that SCOTUS should take an AWB case soon. Gorsuch has expressed originalist views on 2A. It depends on the squishy ones in the middle, Roberts and Barrett. Possibly Kagan will stick to precedent and rule for us like in Hemani, but I can’t imagine her doing so without the squishies.
2 Likes
As if it matters after the birthright ruling, how do you come back from that?
1 Like
That video is “Insane Clown Posse - Its All Over” by Psychopathic Records. I could not retrieve a usable transcript for that video.
If you paste the transcript or describe what it covers, I can work from it.
Kilroy was here
As a the sole resident Puerto Rican in here, I was actually relieved by that ruling. PR’s were granted US citizenship by Congress, (conveniently in 1917 just in time for WWI). Anyway, Congress just has to pass legislation revoking PR citizenship and make revocation retroactive so that a New Yorican-born Puerto Rican like me no longer has birthright citizenship. And bam, just like that, get deported to El Salvador’s Supermax or some country in Africa or who knows where else the C-130 is headed!
Anyway, that video looks and sounds like some environmental climate change end of the world apocalyptic calamity!
As for the Sup Ct hearing the case, I’m guessing Alito may also vote with Thomas, while Kagan and Sotomayor are likely to vote in favor of the ban. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
1 Like
I’m wondering that, too.
It’s an unbelievably bad ruling. How can we rule that 2A follows the understood meaning at the time, and then ignore the congressional discussion that “under the jurisdiction of” does, in fact, exclude illegal migrants? Besides which, how does it make sense to reward parents who snuck in, in violation of immigration law? It sets up a terrible incentive structure.
But, we have to deal with what happened, right or wrong.
Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that Congress should pass a new law to block birth tourism, or at least citizenship for children of illegally-present parents. Statutes from the mid-20th century added exceptions to the 14A, and so new statutes can do likewise, he says. But since 6-3 said the EO was unlawful and 5-4 said the order was unconstitutional, I’m not seeing yet how anything short of a constitutional amendment can solve the issue. By the majority, those mid-century statutes were only codifying what was already understood from the 14A, as elucidated in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Gorsuch, despite joining Thomas’ dissent, suggested that based on domicile, if an illegal had no other home, he should be considered domiciled in the US, and therefore the children should be citizens. So even Gorsuch’s dissent is not complete.
If Congress were to pass a statute, but not an amendment, I have the sinking feeling that this court would strike the statute down as unconstitutional as well. But with the court so finely balanced, it’s worth a good shot to at least try to pass a solid statute.
1 Like
Look, no offense, I do love you as a brother, and sticking to the easy documented facts for the moment there is documented Chinese birth tourism in Saipan/CNMI and documented U.S. businesses marketing citizenship linked birth packages to affluent Chinese clients. Separately, there are reports of ultra wealthy Chinese men using U.S. surrogacy arrangements to father dozens or even over a hundred U.S. born children.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/what-to-know-surrogacy-china-billionaires-3734339e
Ok, that was just the easy to document facts, lets now consider if you will the nefarious actors who do not share our western values, what they can do with a few new generations of legal youth here in the west
Chinese Communist Party and PRC state agencies using espionage, influence, coercion, and pressure on dissidents abroad
Islamist extremist organizations, recruiters, financiers, and propaganda networks seeking to replace constitutional law with religious political control
Foreign governments conducting transnational repression against critics, refugees, journalists, or former citizens living in the West
Foreign funded political, academic, religious, media, or nonprofit networks operating without transparency
Immigration fraud networks exploiting visas, asylum, birth tourism, sham marriages, or false documentation
Criminal organizations using migration routes for trafficking, money laundering, narcotics, fraud, or coercion
Foreign lobbying and financing networks buying influence over officials, universities, media, or public policy
Domestic movements teaching contempt for constitutional liberty, equal law, free speech, private property, or national cohesion
Schools, institutions, and political organizations that discourage civic duty while treating the country only as an enemy, resource, or battlefield
Government agencies that fail to distinguish peaceful immigrants and lawful dissenters from coercive foreign networks, ideological recruiters, and organized fraud
The standard should be conduct, evidence, transparency, and allegiance to constitutional law, not race, nationality, or religion alone.
I haven’t even touched the ugly yet either, but the fact is the west is in steep decline already, quite f’d really, and SCOTUS just made sure there is no coming back when it was in their power to defer to law makers to set the intent straight, cases like you mentioned, or the times when the 14th amendment was created, blacks born here due to slave trafficking, but how now does congress do that with a SCOTUS decision like this?
And Trump, does he express outrage?
No, people say he’s trolling, pffft, yeah ok w/e
SCOTUS is not the only traitor here and civil war is a false flag away
Lets look at predictive programming in media, as easy one like movies, In a story like Civil War, the country does not fall apart because one side suddenly becomes an army. It begins with a shocking event, a bombing, assassination, mass shooting, or video that appears to prove one side attacked the other,and before investigators can establish what happened, every screen supplies a culprit.
The President speaks of emergency powers, rival governors refuse federal direction, media outlets become war rooms, and neighborhoods divide according to which version of the event they believe. Each new act of retaliation is called defense. The real danger is not tanks rolling through every town; it is a people already trained to distrust courts, elections, police, news, churches, and one another, then pushed by fear into believing that law no longer protects them.
That is why the film no longer feels impossible: not because its exact plot is coming, but because a single exploited crisis could turn existing division into a test of whether Americans still have the restraint to wait for truth before they demand vengeance.
Don’t believe it? Look at historical false flag events and the aftermath, it is a repeated play in progress right now, America is under attack.
@equin you prepared for redneck rebellion?
That my friend is on the horizon
You should, history repeats, and simple people with real grievances don’t separate Jews from Israel.
What I need form both of you is to sign up on our new support tier in any capacity
and help me create a place of discourse with AI that is programmed by us for us, us being peace makers who wish to think first and shoot last, are we enemies or are we manipulated to fight?
If we fight and the nation turns to shit then guess what happens when a savior rises up?
All collective minds surrender to it, and what will that collective borg mind think?
The danger is not that people suddenly choose tyranny because they love evil. They are frightened, exhausted, divided, and promised safety after chaos. A crisis identifies an enemy, emergency power is offered as protection, and freedom is surrendered with applause because people believe normal life will return. That is how manipulated hate and hardship can create a revolution without people recognizing what replaces the old order until it is too late.
All Jedi killed? Who might they be? Clones take their place, how might that happen?
What do you guys want SIXGUNS to be?
I need help, we need help, that means send a signal and join ranks
1 Like
Kilroy was here
Great points, Robert. And yes, I’m well aware of the abuses of birth tourism. As a former civil prosecutor for INS (before it became ICE), I feel I have some qualification to speak on immigration issues and have even successfully argued on appeal on US citizenship issues before the US Immigration Court. In fact, I’m wondering how and why Customs and Immigration even permit entry of foreign pregnant women from countries known to have abused birthright citizenship test. You’d think a simple pregnancy test requirement would help prevent that, but maybe I’m naive on how exactly that can be circumvented. The Voice of America video you linked to mentioned visa waivers to Saipan, which astonished me and made me wonder why we even allow that, but maybe I’m misunderstanding that.
Anyway, have you read Roberts decision and all the dissents? It’s a lengthy one! I’m not through reading it, but it includes some interesting historical English common law and Congressional contexts on the jus soli legal concept of birthright citizenship. It also expounds on the plain meaning of “within the jurisdiction” clause, despite the dissent’s contorted explanation in my opinion. I feel Roberts’ statements on that could help with the plain meaning of the 2A’s “shall not be infringed” clause despite anti-2A arguments attempting to limit the 2A with the “well-regulated” clause.
By the way, Trump’s statement that the US is the only country that allows birthright citizenship is inaccurate. There are about 30-35 other countries who also have similar birthright citizenship laws.
It was a split decision, though, meaning a future court can always overturn it. I agree that the decision doesn’t allow much room, if any, for Congress to act.
1 Like
I’ve not read it, can you sum up?
1 Like
The short version: it’s a legal argument piece, not a ruling. It walks through why birthright citizenship under jus soli has usually been read from the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” language, and then questions how strong that reading really is.
It’s basically saying the common “born here, citizen here” rule rests on case law and long practice, but the text itself gets more complicated once you dig into the “jurisdiction” clause and the historical intent behind it.
The article leans hard on original meaning and tries to show there’s room to argue the issue isn’t as settled as people assume. If you want, I can give you the 30-second version of the legal takeaway instead of the article summary.
Kilroy was here
1 Like
lets see you do it
Oh, man. I’m sorry to say I’m too lazy to sum up a Supreme Court opinion on a constitutional issue, much less one of this length!! Luckily, the Supreme Court itself summed it up for us in what’s called a Syllabus, which is provided in the first few pages of the opinion in the link I provided above.
1 Like