HAPPENING!!! TRUMP WINS ARGUMENT IN FRONT OF SCOTUS!!!

1/3 of Mexico already here

White children already a minority

holy shit thanks trumpstein you truly are my greatest ally. Next he'll build the wall and ban more nigger abortions!

He has throat cancer you fucking insensitive chud!

are you retarded?
brother you are in for BIG BEAUTIFUL disappointment.

Muh food

Wow.
Fascinating argument.
Though, you know, there's a slight problem with it.
If 'the wonderful ethnic food' is the best reason to keep foreigners then we don't need to keep them around since we already have all their recipes and ingredients.

I believe it. I just heard the arguments myself

Fake and gay.
Watch as all the MAGAtards in this thread slurp it up and fall for it again.

they appeared against "universal injunctions" not ending jus soli

Its not at all surprising when the opposition chose a faggot and a woman to present their lack of arguments.

The entire point of the supreme court is that they have mostly made up their mind. Nothing gets to them without going through other lower courts so in theory there is no new arguments when they see it just the best argument. They read about the previous ones ahead of time form an option and the best argument is presented by both sides at which point the Justices ask questions.

The questions are not because they legitimately not know the answer the question and answer is an attempt to get the other judges to agree with the opinion of the asker.

Bullshit.

Look at all the seething mexicans and jews!

OP lacks a basic understanding of how SCOTUS works kek

mexico is a scapegoat due to their proximity but a vast amount of the people who have come in recent years are not from mexico. Many are, but tons of other countries. Guatemala for instance is like Mexico to Mexico... and we get Mexico's mexicans here along w literally every other race imaginable.

This entire immigration discourse is retarded. The biden admin made it easy for people to come, and then spent 2-3 years telling the public there was no issue, and then finally capitulating that there was an issue, but that their bill that would fix it was blocked by trump.

Turns out we just needed a new president.

No U
You are wrong actually
I am right

most people do.
supremes say all sorts of shit, but then rule differently in some ways.
IMO still seems like they are against the concept but hate the constant universal injunctions.

Won the oral arguments

That isn't exactly how this works anon

It is with your mom

The Constitution explicitly says "under the jurisdiction of the United States"
WW3 breaks out and the United States CANNOT draft illegals because they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States

This isn't rocket scientist, its just liberals that act like retard kindergarteners for obstruction

I honestly don't really care what they're doing for the most part.

Any logical thinking person knows that people are exploiting our laws and coming here to shit out a baby to magically make that baby have extra privilidges and get tax dollars. There should be no debate... and yet there is because so much money is involved.

This human trafficking business is very lucrative. They've filled up brothels with hot 13 year old mexican and guatamalen girls for years and get liberals to defend it. 1/3+ of females coming through the border get raped on the way up, but, that's fine I guess if you're a liberal.

Who's going to pick the fruit, afterall if not for importing millions of low skilled brown people to pick the fruit? Likewise, who would have picked all that cotton if we didn't have slaves? We'd be up to our necks in unpicked cotton, amiright fellow liberals?

That's not how the Supreme Court works, retard.
That's not how any appeals court works, you fat faggot.

cope and seethe, PACO
You LOST

herro guys we won mah oral awgyooments!!!

Look at how seething mad the opposition is

wait... isn't that everybody?
are we giving it back to the injuns

I'd be happier than anyone if the court had ruled on this already, you post-1965 abomination.
But they didn't and you just lie, like all kikes.

Even if you oppose Birthright Citizenship(you should, because it's fucking retarded), you shouldn't be hoping that Trump wins this one.
You don't want future presidents to be able to executive order whatever parts of the Constitution & Bill of Rights away, that they please.

No need to rule as the outcome is already predetermined due to the fact that the opposition has NO ARGUMENTS.

No?
If your parents were citizens, you are a citizen. This is relevant only to anchor babies.

There IS a political solution goy!

Kys boomerkike I'm just gonna keep tapping the sign is all

The Trump Administration is NOT changing the US Constitution the Trump Administration is UPHOLDING the US Constitution and SCOTUS precedent.

It is the OPPOSITION who wishes to CHANGE the US Constitution which is why they have NO ARGUMENTS because SCOTUS cannot CHANGE the US Constitution.

i didn't see anything about a cutoff after one generation

SCOTUS majority is already of the opinion that anyone born within US territory with the exception of children of diplomats, is entitled to US citizenship. Keep yapping about MAH ORAL AWGUMENTS tho, retard.

Incorrect. SCOTUS majority in Wong Kim Ark (1898) SUPPORTS the Trump Administrations arguments because they go to great lengths repeatedly in the Majority Opinion that the CHILDREN of LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS have US Citizenship.

You have NO ARGUMENTS.

Ok, but do you think the law has ever mattered to any of the women on the court? They don't care about arguments and will vote how they feel.

I mean you can continue your yapping about MAH ORAL AWGUMENTS, it's not going to change the facts kek.

Trump is trying to change section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Are you retarded? You don't want any president to have this power, even if it's currently your Giga Based Maga Daddy.
Because you might not enjoy the next time, when they change the 2nd Amendment, and remove the "shall not be infringed".

Incorrect, the Trump Administration is UPHOLDING Clause 1 of the 14th amendment it is the OPPOSITION who wishes to change Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment by bypassing Article V powers as stated in the US Constitution.

Please learn about the case before you open your mouth.

INCORRECT CHAT PLEASE I AM RIGHT

kek
mother of all retards

What "cutoff"? Are you illiterate?
All of my ancestors either were made citizens by the Revolution or naturalized. Not a single one would be effected by removal of jus soli?
Why do you shitlibs say the dumbest shit while thinking you sound clever?

Please try to keep up.
There is NO RULING by SCOTUS that states that the children of illegal aliens are citizens, that is NOT what the 14th amendment says either and it is NOT what the author of Clause 1 of the 14th amendment says in constitutional record, and it is NOT what SCOTUS precedent says.

Here is how it stands today:

1: Constitution says that children of illegals do NOT have citizenship.

2: Precedent set by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark says that children of LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS have citizenship.

3: The author of 14th Amendment Clause 1 Senator Jacob Howard, specifically excludes the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship when he offers his definition of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

THEREFORE a ruling is required by SCOTUS NOW to clarify if the children of illegal aliens are covered under the 14th amendment and given all of the historical context and precedent set by previous SCOTUS majority opinions... the answer is CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Also SCOTUS rulings on constitutional questions and interpretations are RETROACTIVE because to argue otherwise would be to claim that SCOTUS has the power to alter the US Constitution or to "make laws" which they do not. Only through the utilization of Article V in the US constitution can the US Constitution be amended and only Congress has the power to write, vote on federal laws which are ultimately signed into law by the President of the United States.

constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-v/interpretations/277
I don't see what you're saying. So I'm going to ask again, are you retarded?
If you think you're not, you better actually explain yourself, because you sound retarded as fuck.

what's the bar?

"The Bar" was set by SCOTUS with Wong Kim Ark (1898) this is why I say the Trump Administrations arguments are so strong because not only do they have the Author of Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment as their premise they also have Wong Kim Ark which is SCOTUS precedent which has NOT as of yet been overturned.

In The United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) it is stated in the majority SCOTUS ruling that (emphasis mine):

The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, IN THE ALLEGIANCE AND UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE COUNTRY, including all children here born of RESIDENT ALIENS, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns and their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes OWING DIRECT ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR SEVERAL TRIBES.

For a person born within the territory of the United States to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it appears from the above passage that the person MUST at birth owe a sufficiently direct duty of allegiance to the sovereign in return for the sovereigns reciprocal obligation to protection. The child of members of an Indian tribe who owe direct allegiance to their tribe does NOT qualify, although clearly born within the territory of the United States.

NOR DO THE CHILDREN OF ALIENS WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.

Reminder that the opposition has NO ARGUMENTS.

ok yes but then why are all anchor babies getting citizenship in 2025 still?

kek

They don't have citizenship and they never did.

reminder that SCOTUS does not give a flying fuck about MUH AWGYOOMENTS

ok but they literally do? now what?

look at seething mad the opposition is
They know they LOST

CHAT PLEASE LOOK IM RIGHT IM RIGHT

kek

No U
I am right
You are wrong
I have the constitution and SCOTUS precedent backing up my arguments
You have NO ARGUMENT
All you can do is seethe impotently in a corner

yet thousands of anchor babies born today are still getting citenship based retard kek

citizenship***

Are they?
Source?

deez nuts

Look at how the opposition SEETHES
lmfao!

wait until it comes time to be serious and our favorite trump appointed judges dissent

Retroactive deportations going back to 1912 for starters, see ya later alien invaders.

Wong Kim Ark addressed a very narrow legal question: whether a child born in the United States to lawful permanent residents of Chinese descent was entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The case did not, despite the conventional wisdom over decades, reach the question of whether children born to parents illegally in the United States were entitled to citizenship under the amendment.

In other words, it did not answer whether those not subject to the political jurisdiction thereof were entitled to birthright citizenship. The court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, concluding that the children of lawful permanent residents who are “domiciled” in the United States are entitled to birthright citizenship.

Wong Kim Ark did not address the question of whether children born to individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States qualify for birthright citizenship, no matter how many jews say otherwise.

The 1898 case is available for all to read here: law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

The opposition knows that the facts and the constitution support my arguments this is why they DO NOT wish for the Trump Administration to present these arguments in front of SCOTUS because they KNOW they WILL LOSE.

…..so? What does “no arguments” mean to you or anyone? They could LITERALLY just say “well your Honor it’s up to you to uphold it or not,” and if the SCOTUS decides to have anchor babies, then anchor babies it is regardless of who has the better or ANY arguments whatsoever.

From a strict reading of the 14th and incorporating the comments of the actual author it’s reasonable clear that anchor babies shouldn’t be a thing — and yet they they became a thing anyway. The VERY FACT ALONE that it happened is evidence that that SCOTUS can, has and will continue to set law as they desire. If they think having anchor babies best serves the interests of the prevailing power structure in society, they’ll keep that system going.

opposition

Take your meds faggot. No one cares.

They could LITERALLY just say “well your Honor it’s up to you to uphold it or not,” and if the SCOTUS decides to have anchor babies

Which is almost certainly what would happen because the court is packed with shitlibs.

he won't. he's been on the birthright citizenship tirade for weeks now. quite sad honestly.

What about the anal arguments?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#Immigration_status_(United_States)

Most constitutional scholars agree that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides birthright citizenship even to those born in the US to illegal immigrants. Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute in 2007, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the US legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of undocumented immigrants must surely be excluded from citizenship.

However, in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982),[b] a case involving educational entitlements for children in the US unlawfully, Justice Brennan, writing for a five-to-four majority, held that such persons were subject to the jurisdiction of the US and thus protected by its laws. In a footnote, he observed, "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the US was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful." In 2006 judge James Chiun-Yue Ho, who President Donald Trump would later appoint to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, wrote in a law review article that with the Plyler decision "any doubt was put to rest" whether the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision applied to illegal aliens because "all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike. And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens."

In 2010, statistics showed that a significant, and rising, number of undocumented immigrants were having children in the United States

Seems clear to me.

Just wanted to say I've been following along with your pre-SCOTUS threads and think you're ok for an op

MASSIVE

The SCOTUS isn't bound by previous SCOTUS rulings though. That's what you're not getting. If they want to ignore previous SCOTUS rulings, they can.

SCOTUS has not ruled on Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment since 1898 with Wong Kim Ark and in that majority opinion they go to GREAT LENGTHS to REPEATEDLY mention PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS and DOMICILE as qualifiers for citizenship under Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment.

This horrific, inhumane, scenario that the US finds itself in is precisely due to political reasons over the last 60 years SCOTUS has NOT ruled on Clause 1 of the 14th specifically relating to illegal migrants.

The US needed slave labor to man the farms and other industries through a bipartisan effort the Democrats brought in the migrants for the votes and the Republicans brought them in for the labor. Now the number of migrants has ballooned to absurd numbers, "birthright citizenship tourism" has become an industry in the billions, social security fraud to tune of billions is going to people in the Philippines and China and India and everywhere else, and the entire fabric of society is breaking apart with cities taken over by foreign criminal organizations, with entire states having their demographics OBLITERATED in as little as two generations.

Now FINALLY the problem has gotten so bad that someone got elected to actual present the argument in front of SCOTUS. The Trumps Administrations argument is NOT NEW it is more than 50 years old, it is just due to corruption, and monetary incentive it has never been introduced in front of the court until now.

my side has barely been able to speak because we have no coherent arguments

This means we're winning.

It's like Russians arguing they won ww2 because they had more casualties.
Nigga, that just means you're good at dying.

Then it all gets revoked, because they were never lawfully citizens. GG, no re. GTFO. You don't gotta go home, but you can't stay here.

(((constitutional scholars))) are NOT SCOTUS

ITS LE HECKIN HAPPENING

OPs image glows and smells inorganic

See:And:Keep reading, retard.

However, in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982),[b] a case involving educational entitlements for children in the US unlawfully, Justice Brennan, writing for a five-to-four majority, held that such persons were subject to the jurisdiction of the US and thus protected by its laws. In a footnote, he observed, "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the US was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful." In 2006 judge James Chiun-Yue Ho, who President Donald Trump would later appoint to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, wrote in a law review article that with the Plyler decision "any doubt was put to rest" whether the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision applied to illegal aliens because "all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike. And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens."

Cope and Seethe.

It must now hold up to the vagina arguments, which despite judges saying it should be like 20 minutes is usually around 10-15 before they reach the procedural orgasim needed to win the case. Although this is the case, future courts could rule that the argument was not as long as the new argument if the previous case is declared over

Faggot, anyone can come on here and say shit. We wanna see the C-Span video of it happening. Stop crying like a pussy little liberal bitch on her period.

Nothing is changing.
Not a single word of the constitution is being changed.
Trump is just directing federal agencies to uphold the constitution as it was written.
He isn't getting rid of birthright citizenship, birthright citizenship never existed as the left pretends it did.

Plyer V Doe has nothing to do with birthright citizenship retard, it has to do with access to Public Schools.

Only whites should be citizens, end of story.

Slavery hindered the economic development of the South as it was an extreme form of wage suppression.
If plantation owners actually had to pay wages, cash crop money would have been circulating throughout the economy and there would have been much more economic activity.
The south was also outsourcing textile production overseas which further prevented money from circulating and stopped industry from building up in the south.

I couldn't imagine my city without ethnic diversity! We cannot go back..ever

Put that in your big Mac and smoke it CHUD!

Amazing! Are you poet. Your post gave me goosepimples like Anthony Bourdain does. The best part about our cities is the old "hustle and bustle". The smells, the crowds. Standing in line for a club or a concert, it's almost like the standing and the waiting is the best part. The tingle in my ass after it gets gaped by city taxes. The surprise when I find out I just involuntarily donated my car to an urban youth, and now guess what, i get to buy a new car! Really we are living in heaven

Is that the fucking spic bitch talking in the first 10 minutes? HOLY SHIT SOMEONE TELL THIS CUNT TO SHUT THE FUCK UP SHE KEEPS INTERRUPTING BEFORE THEY LAWYER CAN FINISH

This anon gets it
The Trump administrations arguments UPHOLDS the US Constitution as it is now and it UPHOLDS SCOTUS precedent set by Wong Kim Ark (1898)

If the opposition wishes to CHANGE the US Constitution they can do so by getting a minimum of 38 out of 50 states to agree to a Constitutional Amendment under Article V of the US constitution OR they can get SCOTUS to overturn precedent set in Wong Kim Ark (1898)

That's cuz you're a retard who doesn't understand jurisdiction.
Until the 13th amendment the US had no official definition of citizenship.
The 13th amendment established that everyone who resided in the US at the time and was NOT a citizen of another country was by definition a citizen of the US.
Injuns were excluded because at the time native tribes were treated as independent countries.
Other later acts granted them blanket citizenship so they are unaffected.
Anyone who is a child of a citizen is also a citizen.
Citizenship can also be confered through an established naturalization process.
The ONLY people that this affects are people for whom neither of their parents have citizenship.
If ANYONE in your direct family lineage was an American citizen then you are a citizen.

plyler vs doe needs to be overturned because it states that anyone in the us whether legal or illegal is a person and is therefore allowed 14th amendment protections

Cheq muh digits

This anon is so based. I've been copy/pasting your shit to chatgpt and it says you are right.

INCORRECT
Plyer Vs Doe is specifically about CLAUSE 2 in a NARROW LEGAL SCOPE specifically relating to access to public schools.

CLAUSE 1 has not been argued in court since 1898 in Wong Kim Ark.
It is CLAUSE 1 which grants "birthright citizenship"

There is no logical or legal basis to exclude the children of diplomats under your logic.
It is blatantly clear that the determining factor is legal jurisdiction.
Children of diplomats are not citizens of the US because they are citizens of the country their parents are citizens of.

Not a single word is being changed.

They're midwits that think they are manipulating morons.
They aren't smart enough to understand how much smarter than them we are.

Bump

the only issue with such a ruling is it probably cannot be retroactive. still a win. no more anchor babies. total chink loss

"If I were in your shoes, there's no way I'd take this case to the courts."

Sup maga you still winning?

Wasn't that the same cunt justice that kept cutting off the lawyer who was trying to make his point? Every time he started to answer she'd try to ram her own opinion over his answer and would switch to another point.

Ruling will be 6/3 in favor of Trump Administration.

Also SCOTUS rulings on constitutional questions and interpretations are RETROACTIVE

This is the biggest hurdle to get 5 justices onboard. It would mean either kicking out 50 million people or granting them amnesty, in which case makes the entire debate pointless political theatre.

The issue at question in the case is not personhood, but jurisdiction.

You'd better hope you are ruled against, or you can expect to be killed...

this is about the nationwide injunctions, which SCOTUS seems likely to stop, it's not about the case itself

Correct.
The issue is over this part right here:

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.

Plyer Vs Doe was about this part right here specifically relating to Public Schools:

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.

nooo joe bid… kamillah will win.
Alan ‘Putin’ Lickedman has seen it in the entrails the media said so on all 40 Reuters outlets.
You are blaspheming.

Roberts is a cuck, he'll join the libs.
Swing vote is ACB.
She's pro-life but pretty leftist on many other social issues.
She has a pretty typical christ-cuck mentality and may simp for the poor brownoid migrants.

Foreigners can fuck off with their assault babys. They are babyinvaders.
They have to live in mexico. That’s my final offer. Mexico or the sea.

Fun legal fact, SCOTUS has zero enforcement power. They can declare trump totally 100% in violation of the US constitution and it means absolutely fuck all.

US already went to war with Mexico and back then the Mexican army outnumbered the US army, the Mexican navy had more and better ships than the American navy, the Mexican army had better cannons, better forts, and the territorial advantage and they still lost and it wasn't even close.

I got your link right here you booger eater! Its called eat my boogers

Ahem.
Mexico is where garbage is.
They are very Chinese. Look at this picture. Do you want that to be your mum?
I rest my case.

I have a question, my stepkids ( they are all adults )

Both parents are US citizens having gone thru the process from mexico, but the kids were born BEFORE they were full US citizens, so would they be in danger if birthright citizenship was retroactively repealed? Being born to parents who were nexican citizens at the time of their birth?

muh constitution lol

I guess wong kim ark covers this, being legal permanent residents, wonder what happens if wong kim gets overturned too.

he's been told this many times but OP is retarded

So ultimately the question is whether or not people who enter the country without authorization are subject to our jurisdiction.
For the case of legal migrants it's pretty clear, part of the application process is an agreement to abide by our laws and therefore to become subject to our jurisdiction.
A similar question would be if we are invaded by a foreign country and we eventually reclaim occupied lands, would the children of the occupiers be legal US citizens?
Under the Trump admin argument the answer is no, since the occupiers were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

For 300 years we havent solved the problem of who is part of our jurisdiction.
Jesus tap dancing christ

Were they legal residents at the time?

it's still a good thing though lol

You think that's bad consider this:
Throughout our history we have occupied foreign countries as a result of wars.
Were the people living in those countries subject to the jurisdiction of the US during those periods of occupation?
Is anyone born in Japan in the years following WW2 a US citizen?

Or iraq, lol.

Tbf all countries belong to America so I do see the opposition's reasons

Why are diplomats excluded but illegal invaders aren't? Are you a fucking retard perchance?

You can yap all you want yet it is May 15,2025 and anchor babies are still being born in the US and getting citizenship.

Are they?

yep, you can pretend they're not but they are kek

N-NOOOO!! Y-Y-YOU SHOULD JUST GIVE UP AND S-STOP NOW, IT'S HOPELESS GOY- ER, FELLOW WHITE!!! N-NOOOOO!!!

They literally already ruled the president can do whatever he wants anyway

Infidel*

They ain't jews, just get 'em going about killing all jews versus killing all muslims/migrants or prioritising one over the other.
The latter works them up much more.

And you will still never be a woman.

The decision on the merits of birthright for illegals will be a 5-4 loss for Trump.
ACB and Roberts will be joining the liberals to enshine the ability of anchor babies to continue to exist. You can hear them seething about the merits already.

The order and ending of birthright for illegals is NOT retroactive.

It's about the injunctions but the questioning did not inspire confidence that it's a strong win.

It's why Justice Thomas almost never asks anything. He knows it's a show. Conversely that's why Judge Jumanji won't shut up.

Someone needs to kill Sotomayor and Roberts before that happens.

You are right, those two will absolute stab Trump (and the rest of us) in the back.

Go
Back
Beaner

I'm a dude you inbred motherfucker.

My dude, I'm just telling you not to be disappointed. I listened to the arguments.
ACB is absolutely going to rule with the liberals, because she's a fucking emotional woman who believes it's mean to have sovereighnty.
Roberts is a compromised fuckhead.

They spat in it, you now have diverse diseases, enjoy Mr Window licker

This is the only thread on Anon Babble about this topic. How low we have fallen. Sad.

Heh gottem

This topic requires an IQ above 50, the bots don't post in it, and the shills ignore it so that leaves out the majority of posters on this board. These threads are for the lurkers so they can understand the actual arguments being presented by the Trump Administration without having to rely on extremely pozzed sources like ABC or the NYT to tell them what to think about it.

Almost no one here actually understands the topic or what the oral arguments even focused on today.

babies of slaves

Which is Nowhere to be found in 14th amendment. MAGA BTFO just enjoy your orange fuhrer in his new bribe plane because it's so le based.

I like how libshit like you guys are strict textualists in exactly two instances, but otherwise you're absolutely fine with whatever canon of interpretation gets you where you want to go otherwise.

So, what do you guys think? Are illegal immigrants slaves or not? Birthright citizenship was intended to answer the question of whether or not the children of slaves should be citizens. The slaves themselves were not considered citizens the civil war in order for the North to have an advantage in that fight. Even if the North did not want to free the slaves, they had to do it to win the war.

So, are illegal immigrants slaves? The jews seem to think so. They get paid less than citizens and they have fewer rights. They can be controlled and coerced with threats of deportation. Even if they AREN'T slaves, they are by no means free men. Should their children be considered regular free red-blooded American citizens simply because they were born here? Here's a point that you may not have considered- if illegal immigrants ARE slaves, then have they been freed? We can't have slaves in this country anymore, but here they are! Maybe we should just send them and their children home.

It's not like we're in the middle of a civil war. Though I do think that was the plan. Even now they jews are trying to start a race war.

won the oral arguments

magatards are so fucking dumb

The slaves themselves (were not considered citizens the civil war) in order for the North to have an advantage in that fight.

*were freed (given citizenship) during the civil war

Flubbed that one. The Emaciation Proclamation. Without it, America would be whiter than Iceland.

VIDEO: files.catbox.moe/pkz891.mp4

The whole reason that illegal immigrants were brought into this country was to create a new slave class to undercut American workers and drive wages down. It worked perfectly and also drove up home prices and rents.

Then there's the 'asylum seekers' who aren't actually seeking asylum but are in reality exploiting a loophole to become citizens or legal residents. Once again, a law is twisted from its Original Purpose in order to bring in massive numbers of SCABS who will gladly work for less than a citizen. This was the Democrats plan from the start. It has nothing to do with compassion, freedom, asylum and everything to do with the number of dollars on your paycheck.

incomes down

housing costs up

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Maybe in the 80s. Now it’s so liberal justices can make arguments and the conservatives to make the occasional quip.

It really is a simple argument to make...Knowing the examples of Germany, France and here in the US, refugees and immigrants (regardless of status) overwhelmingly end up on welfare assistance. Add birthright citizenship and chain migration, and the expansion of the welfare state is on steroids by way of generational welfare. For SCOTUS to rule in favor of illegal immigrants, they are telling US taxpaying citizens that illegals have more of a right to the pursuit of happiness in the US than the US taxpaying citizens. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that the welfare expansion is to be is endless or that it must be accommodated at the expense and peril of US taxpaying citizens.

Its also to test the legal theory of the people presenting the argument. The justices are there to essentially play devils advocate to the argument being presented

But Trump doesn't give a shit about constitution. He even said it himself.

Sure thing Redditor.

Democrats plan

it shows how naive you hare. it has nothing to do with parties but social classes.

The billionaires and millionaires want more money and more power and the way they accomplish that is by bringing in a modern consumer slave class as they did back then to pick cotton.

Rich dont see race nor color, it's about their power.

Immigration and diversity what makes us great.

it makes us weak, we should destroy the weak to preserve the strong

Fake and gay.

Watch as all the MAGAtards in this thread slurp it up and fall for it again.

watch as we round up leftys and send them to the cattle cars

Yes! Not only are illegal immigrants slaves, but their care and upkeep is PAID FOR by AMERICAN TAXDOLLARS. The jews are keeping them in slavery but it's the CITIZENS of this great nation who should actually own them because the jews would not be half so inclined to invite them here if they were the ones responsible for feeding them and paying for their medical care. Those bills come to the American taxpayer.

But are we really certain that we want to send them away? Think of all the incredible scientific advances that former slaves have contributed to this country- peanut butter, doorknobs! We would still be in the DARK AGES without them. Detroit would not be the city it is today without the focused efforts of its diverse population of former slaves.

nobody forced illegal immigrants to come to america. they did it of their own volition.

So this thread is just ChatGPT talking to itself, huh.

Sounds like you have the other form of TDS, Trump Delusion Syndrome.
Trump has deported even less people than Obama.
The only reason its a big deal now is because Trump likes to make it seem like he's doing mass deportations, and the media hates him so much they play into it.

But it was the REPUBLICANS who freed the black slaves. And it is the DEMOCRATS who facilitate the transfer of wealth from the American worker, who are free citizens, to this new slave class in the form of SOCIAL BENEFITS. Why are DEMOCRATS so concerned with keeping their slaves on the plantation? Why don't DEMOCRATS love freedom? Could it be that THE DEMOCRAT PARTY is ruled by JEWS? Jews that love their slave class.

This whole ordeal could be framed as a competition between freedom-loving conservative Republican jews and nation-wrecking communist slave-master Democrat jews. The consequences to average American workers need not be considered at all. This is essentially a struggle between two different types of jews.

even less people than Obama.

Because Obama decided to include those turned away as deportations.

The EO was literally "from this point forwards". It was never retroactive and it's not meant to rewrite the constitution. The 14th amendment was for the slave babies not illegals coming over in tand taking advantage of America. The entire 3rd world could come in and we be obligated to take care them because of your retarded interpretation of the amendment.

To be extra nice, the EO could be applied in effect a year later starting in 2026.

Oral win in front of scrotum what?

If we're going to bring in slaves, then we should be bringing in slaves from white countries. Ireland has a rich history of indentured servitude and slavery. We should enslave the British, the Germans, the Northern Europeans and flood the country with their DNA instead. Who wouldn't want a German slave girl? We can decide whether or not to free their children later. Right now, we need to counteract the affect of all of this Hispanic and South American Indio DNA that we are bringing into this country.

Why would jews be so interested in mixing up the DNA of the white man with the DNA of the swarthy hordes from third world shitholes?

This, also they can offer insight, but law isnt a popularity contest. Was Elijah bested by the prophets of Baal because they had a majority consensus?

hg0yv

God I love Anon Babble.

raising the arguments you aren't allowed to raise

having the thoughts you aren't allowed to think

jeet e-slaves trying to counter with chatgpt but it keeps throwing errors because my shit is too raw

Burgers have to plead their case to a large BBC scrotum in order to get anything done

TRUMP: The USA is the only country that has Birthright Citizenship

Does he lie all the time or is he just poorly informed?
I don't think Birthright Citizenship should exist either, but I'm not going to lie about other countries.
Why does he do this?

Same with tarrifs
pretending the US didn't have tons of tarrifs in place since forever.

Do Americans believe this shit?
Can't they just google?

just one more week

under budget, ahead of schedule