BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP RETROACTIVELY ENDS FOR THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGALS AND TEMPORARY VISA HOLDERS IN 2026!!!There is no such thing as citizenship without consent. In the same way that an American citizen cannot declare himself a French citizen and vote in French elections without consent from the French government, a foreign national cannot declare himself a U.S. citizen without consent.Citizenship in a Constitutional Federal Republic means holding equal political power over the collective decisions. That is something only existing citizens hold the right to offer to others, something which must be decided through elections and the lawmaking process.The court's ruling in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 - just 16 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment -endorses "the principle that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." By making entry into the United States without approval a federal offense, Congress has effectively denied that consent.I argue that the 14th Amendment does not provide this consent. Instead it sets a limitation. To the authors of the 14th Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" conveyed a limit to natural citizenship grounded in mutual allegiance. That means if people are free to deny their old national allegiance, and an independent nation is free to decide its own membership, the recognition of a new national identity must be mutual.Immigrants living in the United States illegally have not accepted the sovereignty of the nation's laws. On the other side of the coin, the government has not officially accepted them as residents under its protection.The ruling made by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark further reinforces this interpretation of the 14th Amendment in that the court only considered PERMANENT LEGAL RESIDENTS like Wong Kim Ark's parents, but not residents here illegally or temporarily.
>>524085744END THE H1-B PROGRAM
bump
quality posts should be on page 1
>>524085744You think far too incisively for the sort of morons who think that "promote the general welfare" means we have to write a monthly check for every nigger in the country. Your argument would blow through their empty skulls like a breeze through the Grand Canyon.
notice how the shills and bots ignore this quality thread
>>524085744This needs to be a sticky.>the only political thread on /pol/ now
This argument or a near carbon copy of this argument is what will be presented in front of SCOTUS next year. The shills don't respond to the thread because they have no counter Birthright Citizenship ends in 2026 after SCOTUS will rule in favor of the argument presented in the OP.
BUMP.
bumping
bumperino
SCOTUS TO RULE ON CONSTITUTIONAL MERITS OF TRUMP EO ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP!https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/378052/20250926163053178_TrumpvBarbaraCertPet.pdfTHEY WILL MAKE THEIR RULING ON OR BEFORE JUNE OF 2026.THIS WILL RETROACTIVELY ERASE CITIZENSHIP STATUS FOR ALL THOSE IN THE US BORN TO ILLEGALS OR TEMPORARY VISA HOLDERS GOING BACK TO 1860S WHEN THE 14TH WAS RATIFIED!>Why would it be retroactive?The Constitution supersedes EVERYTHINGPOTUS cannot make EO's that are explicitly unconstitutionalCongress cannot make laws that are explicitly unconstitutionalWhen SCOTUS makes rulings ON the Constitution itself in their majority opinions on constitutional questions and interpretations those rulings are by DEFINITION, RETROACTIVE because to argue otherwise would be to claim that SCOTUS has the AUTHORITY or POWER to alter or amend the US Constitution which of course they don't.That power solely rests with Article V of the US Constitution, here I will quote it for you;>The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.SCOTUS CANNOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION THUS THEIR RULINGS ARE SEEN AS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS ALWAYS MEANT/ALWAYS WAS.
to page 1
I am OK with this, and can sleep soundly as long as I think I myself can move within my Kingdom which is North America and Europe! lolMay be delusional on my part... but I can't even imagine being denied that my right. So... I live like that, with that assumption so I can rest easily... this doesn't bother me much.
Is it nuts that I feel entitled to US access even if I may never go there! lolAnd can't stand illegal migration!
>>524085744BASED AND TRUETHIS WILL LITERALLY HAPPEN
boomp
>>524085744>HI I'M NUTS>that's why i be SCREAMIN LIKE A NIGRA and using WEIRD alt-CAPS >AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAConservatism is a mental defect.
>>524097759>reddit spacing>complaining about capital letters instead of presenting a counter argumentpottery
bump, not letting them slide this off the board.
HABEAS CORPUS WILL BE SUSPENDEDTHE INSURRECTION ACT OF 1807 INVOKEDCITIZENSHIP RETROACTIVELY REVOKED FROM CHILDREN OF ILLEGALS AND TEMPORARY VISA'Shttps://files.catbox.moe/8488rw.mp4
>>524085744>The ruling made by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark further reinforces this interpretation of the 14th Amendment in that the court only considered PERMANENT LEGAL RESIDENTS like Wong Kim Ark's parents, but not residents here illegally or temporarily.This should be how they rule on the issue, and it's what I hope the do, but I don't trust some of the cuckservatives on the bench to do it.
>>524085744everyone knows anchor babies are a scam and everyone wants this anchor baby shit to stopthe 14th didnt create a law for having anchor babies - jews just twisted that already jewy amendment to flood usa with golems and niggers and poos etc.
>>524085744It should also be looked at whether Hart-Cellar gave birthright citizenship to the children of just legal immigrants or illegals also.
up
gonna keep bumping this
>>524085744holy vpn. what would happen to somebody who's dead grandparents were illegal but parents weren't?
>>524104570Then they retroactively lose their citizenship. If their grandparents were illegal citizens then their parents never had citizenship because they are not protected under the 14th amendment.This would go back to 1868If you could prove your lineage that dates back to BEFORE 1868 then everyone in the chain would be a citizen because it would predate the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
>>524104720unfathomably based but it almost certainly won't go through, and would be an absolute nightmare to actually undergo. this isn't even mentioned the sheer amount of resistance it would get from blue states.they will cuck out to the jews to save their own skins.
>>524085744>BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP RETROACTIVELY ENDS FOR THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGALS AND TEMPORARY VISA HOLDERS IN 2026!!!No it doesn't, you retarded lying faggot.
>>524106057Yes it does and the argument that the Trump Administration and OP is using are all laid out in the OP.Present a counterargument or fuck off
>>524106114It's being challenged in court and will never get through you delusional nordcuck. This is just bread and circus for MIGA retards who think ZOG will just roll over and make this country white again, it's not going to happen.
>>524106193>challenged in courtnigger, SCOTUS has already decided to make a ruling on the merits of the argument. By June of 2026 SCOTUS will have their rulingThe >challenge it in courtphase is over, it ended on December 9th, 2025 when SCOTUS announced their schedule for Spring of 2026 and in it was this case. Now you can make an argument why SCOTUS will or should rule differently than how the argument laid out in the OP suggests but that would require effort and brains and you possess neither qualities.
Pic related is what SCOTUS will make a ruling on next year.
>>524089568>waah waah nobody cares about lying bait
>>524107241>seethingpresent a counterargument>Hint: You will notThere is nothing you can do to stop SCOTUS from siding with the argument presented in the OP.They will rule 7-2 or 6-3 in favor of the Trump Administrations argument because it is undeniable, iron-clad, irrefutable.
>>524107358the lie is that it would be retroactive, as OP tries to bait. show where doe it say 'retroactive' or shut the fuck up.
>>524107598When SCOTUS makes rulings ON the Constitution itself in their majority opinions on constitutional questions and interpretations those rulings are by DEFINITION, RETROACTIVE because to argue otherwise would be to claim that SCOTUS has the AUTHORITY or POWER to alter or amend the US Constitution which of course they don't.That power solely rests with Article V of the US Constitution, here I will quote it for you;>The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.SCOTUS CANNOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION THUS THEIR RULINGS ARE SEEN AS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS ALWAYS MEANT/ALWAYS WAS.
>>524107683all that is bullshit interspersed by screaming in capital letters.
>>524107769>it's bullshit because... because I SAY SO!
>>524107840yes, I say there's nothing in there about changing laws retroactively.
