From https://pastebin.com/5GGvmrrxTo the People of the United States of America: It has become the matter of great conflict what entitles an individual to the classification as a citizen of our Union. In the quarter millennium since the founding of our nation, the most enduring experiment in self-government, the understanding of citizenship has been oft understood implicitly but seldom codified in its totality. As the fundamental particle of the Union and the ultimate beneficiary of its destiny, there have in the course of time been attempts to elucidate this definition. As most commonly understood by the establishing pillars of our Union, this came to mean (with exceptions later addressed) those bound by allegiance to the values and principles that we seek to uphold, sharing a language, ancestry, and willingness to sacrifice as brothers in arms to establish and protect our liberty. In the continued pursuit of righteousness, our ancestors once again came to see fit that the concept of citizenship be scrutinized. In a conflict whose toll in American blood surpassed that of every conflict which followed it, the People rid the Union of the abomination of slavery and expanded through amendment of our Constitution the definition of citizenship to include those peoples and descendants who had been subject of the Union while denied the natural rights so identified upon its establishment. As was argued at the time of its implementation, the purpose of this amendment was to conclusively rectify the matter of our Supreme Court’s decision to deny citizenship to the enslaved (and by extension all descendants thereof) in the matter of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The fallibility of the Supreme Court in this way for failing to uphold the values of the People at large as so evident by the Constitutional amendments made thereafter is best not forgotten.
Thirty years later, with the Constitution so augmented, the Supreme Court issued another decision: It established the precedent that, in line with the 14th Amendment as so determined by the Court, the descendants of legal permanent residents who are themselves subject of another sovereign entity are entitled from birth to the status of citizen. I am convinced that this decision was one codified with equally as dangerous an oversight for the purposes of protecting the values of the People as the Dred Scott decision, be it from load-bearing reliance on implication that such a decision apply exclusively to lawful residents, the presumption that the Union would forevermore maintain some strict manner of regulation regarding immigration within its territories, or both.
Unlike the ruling of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which the People saw fit to rectify through the means enabled by our Constitution, the precarious ruling established by United States v. Wong Kim Ark was instead allowed to persist as a sword of Damocles suspended solely by the thread of Congressional legislation pertaining to immigration that proved less perennial than our Constitution. Within a century of our Union’s establishment, citizenship had been expanded in scope to include those unjustly denied it under the institution of slavery. A century later, immigration reform saw to it that the systems in place to maintain the cultural identity of the Union were forfeit entirely. While motivations behind the advocates of such a change in preference for common cultural ancestry within the Union is the subject of debate exceeding the scope of this letter, the ultimate impact is clear: The removal of immigration regulations seeking to preserve the cultural cohesion of the Union, in conjunction with the 14th Amendment and its later interpretation in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, set in motion the series of events throughout the last sixty years that leaves the People on the precipice of our Union’s greatest threat.
The previous threats to the Union were more clearly demarcated: The threat of tyranny from sovereign powers foreign to us, the division of philosophies that saw the struggle to emancipate enslaved peoples divided into belligerent territories and uniformed military action, and the encroachment of foreign forces. This new threat, or rather this long forthcoming hazard to the liberty of the People and the continued existence of America as a sovereign for our interests and future as the descendants of those who Providence so favored, arises from a betrayal of that mission to protect the Union in the highest levels of our federal structure. Here, one quarter millennium since the founding of our great nation, the Supreme Court has ruled that persons born to parents illegally occupying the territories of our Union are entitled to full citizenship, flying in the face of all prior established intent and the spirit of both American identity and the common defense of the People’s own sovereignty.
It is neither the first nor last time that the Supreme Court will have ruled contrary to the principles of the People, the interests of the Union, or even the continued existence of America in the state recognized by those preceding their ruling, but it is evidently the most ruinous ruling for the spirit of the Union and the unity of the People it comprises. In ruling that foreign powers may, in full defiance of American law, lay claim to representation within our government, establish livelihood at the detriment of our People, and even ultimately take high office completely with legal approval, the Court has used its authority to surrender the nation to foreign sovereignties at the expense of the People.
Treason has, as a matter of defining any act that runs contrary to a particular political sentiment, become a sensationalized term. It is often called upon in matters where the survival of the Union is not called into question but instead some point of contention within ongoing debate over cultural or philosophical standing. In this instance, the threat is more dire. The Supreme Court has, through a combination of seemingly-unrelated rulings and at times inconsistent interpretation of our Constitution, set in a motion a vicious cycle that not only empowers foreign agents to deprive the People of the representation to which we are entitled, but hijacks the mechanisms by which our system of governance would afford us any protection from this undue foreign influence.
The Supreme Court provides the principal breach for the forfeiture of American sovereignty and the eradication of its culture with this newest reaffirmation and expansion of the deleterious Wong Kim Ark precedent. Though the majority roots its holding in questions of domicile and allegiance, presence (however temporary or unlawful) purchases no such loyalty. It allows the two prongs of legally encouraged plundering, in conjunction with the rulings of lower courts, and the reward for illegal invasion by conferring political representation to those who act with willful intent to violate the laws of America and take hold of its government through the now-formalized granting of citizenship via illegal occupation. That such migration occurs with the intent of assimilation is an assumption contradicted by documented example both abroad in similarly situated nations and, with growing frequency, domestically, where public figures have been unashamed in disparaging the very People from whose institutions and opportunities they profit.
You have a second amendment. If you can make a well argued case in court fragging judges, congressman, Senators even the potus it s not off limit
In the case of this legally encouraged, if not nigh-mandated, selling out of American prosperity to foreign powers, we have the matter of shareholder primacy in markets that are left unprotected from the demands of global labor outsourcing, where the financial incentive to deny careers and opportunities to American citizens in favor of importing workers from abroad or exporting jobs from American territories to foreign sovereignties creates a fiduciary obligation that leaves the American people no longer prioritized within our own nation for opportunity. This serves not only to help establish footholds of foreign cultures (often resistant to integration within the American identity and containing aspects in opposition to the values shared by the common cultural ancestry of the People) but to suppress the opportunity of American citizens by diminishing the value of their labor against a global market that legislation has rendered them fully incapable of matching them on price from the advantageous taxation exemptions granted to hiring foreign labor alone. Among skilled labor markets, advocates for this pipeline are often those with vested interest in its continuation and hesitation to disclose as such. For those who advocate for this system to continue in industries where the toil is rough and the pay is meager, the arguments often mirror those heard to justify the suppression of wages via undermining the bargaining power of the native workforce.
Regarding the Court’s decision to legitimize illegal occupation by granting citizenship to those who settle in defiance of the law: Our Union cannot self-regulate with its fundamental aspect of citizenship so compromised. This is not the stuff of conspiratorial delusion: Even now, it is a matter of fact that documented commercial networks exist whose sole purpose is to escort foreign nationals to America in order to give birth and procure a claim to the government and resources of the Union. The Court’s ruling is, in essence, a declaration that America and her treasures lie open to whosoever sees fit to seize them. There is no regard for the Union or its People in this ruling, and were circumstances less veiled in the theater of the judiciary, it would be recognized for the invitation of plundering by foreign powers that it is.
Americans, a people defined and united through a quarter-millennium of struggle, begin to find themselves increasingly surrounded by people who the Court and government claim are just as American as they are and are told not to believe truths evident before them. Optimistic members of generations prior to the child-bearing youth of today espouse platitudes regarding the People’s perseverance as being simply a matter of propagation. I will state under no uncertain terms: The People cannot out-propagate an invitation for all the world lay claim to their home. What are we to tell those who preceded us in the history of this great nation? Do we tell those who fought and died resisting tyranny to establish a prosperous nation that we forfeit the greatest society to ever exist because we were so ordered? Should the generations of our People who, despite their differences, united through moral and spiritual common ground learn that we simply discarded our People’s destinies when so commanded? If the People are to adhere to this ruling, the Union as they and their ancestors knew it shall be erased forevermore, and they shall never possess the authority within their own frame of government to reclaim it. Now is the moment where it must be decided that the Union stand in defiance of the Court’s current ruling or bid a long farewell to all its greatness. A CITIZEN.
>>538354878Youre fat and never got pussy lmao
>>538355207"Wrong" notably absent.
>>538354878>Kneel before ZOGOP is a subject in the (((occupied))) West.
