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. This is a landmark case and will have a bigger impact on America's demographics than even Hart-Celler.The media doesn't want to talk about it because they are TERRIFIED by it
What difference does it make when illegals don't get deported even if they have no citizenship
>>524412399Will this repeal the millions that got amnesty through Reagan and the chain migration that followed?
this presidential term has been based as fuck. all vance needs to tell me is that he'll continue it and i'd be sold.
I look forward to all the retards defending birthright citizenship.
>>524412399That's nice but can we restart the diversity visa lottery. Exclusively for white people.America is the greatest country on the planet and it's where I belong, and I've been shut out because of an ungrateful portugese shitskin bastard
>>5244123992 more weeks
>>524412542SCOTUS rulings on Constitutional Questions are retroactive, but they can modify how far back that applies. They could say it goes back to when the 14th was ratified in 1868 or they could say it goes back to 1929 when the Permanent Resident Status system was created by congress. The world will only know how far back they will make it retroactive by June of next year. Originally this was supposed to be decided on in an Emergency Docket Case in May of this year but they chose to separate the merits of the case from the National Injunctions that were used to bring the case to SCOTUS in the first place. Then many were speculating that SCOTUS would hear it in the next term in October but they chose not to, it wasn't until December 10th that SCOTUS finally scheduled the merits of the Birthright Citizenship case for Spring 2026 session, and due to the enormity of the case they are likely to drag their feet all the way until the very end of that in June.
>>524413064>Everyone born after 1868 can be labeled an illegal if the current government of Zion Don or later Israel governments does not like them since no one can be a citizenWow this will be fun and sane
>>524413226Sure you can, just trace your ancestry to two legal residents before July 9th, 1868. You ARE a "Heritage" American, right?
>>524412399The Athenians are the only ones who practiced proper democracy. All citizens would vote on whether someone gets citizenship or not and there would usually have to be someone who vouches for this potential citizen or should I say candidate citizen. If they do get the citizenship and commit crime, the one who vouched for them would be punished too. The reason why this system is the only one that makes sense is because it protects the citizenry from the dilution of politcal power. Whenever someone gets citizenship, everyone else's political power is diluted, therefor they're parting with a part of their political weight and only the people who hold the political power are the ones who should have a say on whether they share it or not. It's sort of like deciding if someone will sleep over at your house. The government itself is what the people exercise their political power on and through, which is why it should have no say as to whether someone gets citizenship or not as it dilutes political ownership of the government itself.
>>524413064>>524413226Not far back enough. Most jews came in afterward as well, so that should be interesting.
>>524412399Nothing happens supreme court women (roberts and barret) will side with libs.
>>524413508That's too far backThe furthest back they could go is 1868 because this is a constitutional question on the 14th Amendment and that wasn't ratified until July 9th, 1868.
