Donald Trump uses executive order to suspend 14th Amendment

Subject

Attached: Subject.jpg (793x587, 137K)

It wouldn't change the constitution at all you silly faggot

Example: A Mexican is a Mexican Subject unless they get a Green card or a citizen ship.

It says "subject to jurisdiction" it can also mean someone on who USA jurisdiction applies, anyone coming to the USA is subject to USA jurisdiction.

A Mexican coming to USA is subject to USA jurisdiction as long as he is in the USA.

A USA citizen going to Mexico is subject to Mexican Jurisdiction, as well as USA jurisdiction (since usa still applies it's law to it's citizen even when they go outside, for example having sex with a 15 year old might be legal in Mexico but it's illegal in the USA, so even if it wasn't illegal to fuck a 15 year old by 30 year old in Mexico, the usa citizen will be charged for that crime in USA).

Why would they repeat them selves if Subject and Within was the same thing.

Attached: 14th2.jpg (1580x352, 209K)

In that case there would be no point in including the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

That's how they would phrase birthright citizenship if they were actually trying to implement it. In reality the language is:
>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.

And they included the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to preclude some subset of people.

>I don't see anything in there that supports that says "unless they're illegals".

>All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
>subject to the jurisdiction thereof

You need to pick one, and only one:

>Children from immigrants don't get birthright citizenship because their parents aren't subject to US Jurisdiction.
>Illegal immigrants need to be charged and deported because they're breaking the law in US jurisdiction.

>Children from immigrants shouldn't get birthright citizenship because their parents aren't subject to US Jurisdiction.
>Illegal immigrants need to be charged and deported because they're subjects of another country's jurisdiction.
Wow, that was easy.

I will be stateless, I hope. FUCK THE USA.

Attached: Wanna build the ethnostate, babe?.jpg (1024x1325, 641K)

Anyone entering any country is subject to that country's laws, not their rights you stupid faggot.

>If you think Illegals aren't subject to US jurisdiction they can't break the law!

Idiot.

If American commits murder in Mexico the are Subject to theIR laws.
BUT IT DOENT MAKE THEM A Mexican SUBJECT

Attached: 1539922336651.gif (500x208, 914K)

OH! I see what the issue is, you don't have the correct definition of "jurisdiction". When you are within an entities jurisdiction you are subject to their laws, for example if you are in Texas you are subject to Texas laws and therefore within Texas' jurisdiction- you cannot be held to, say, Florida laws because you are outside their jurisdiction.

When the 14th Amendment says it applies to anyone within the United States jurisdiction, that means anywhere they are subject to US laws, IE people that are in the United States.

You're stupid. Stop that. Stop being stupid.

The only way that would make sense is if by Mexican law, committing murder made you a Mexican citizen. But it isn't and you're an idiot for trying to argue as such. Now run along back to Gab where that sort of idiocy is normal.

Oh, wait...

That's a false interpretation, and one that illegal immigrants are very clearly exploiting when they come here just to have their babies. Trump is trying to rectify that, not appeal the amendment.

>democratic president
>2020

Still doesn't apply to illegal immigrants. They break the law by entering without proper immigration. Living out your life while breaking the law makes you an outlaw, Outside the law. Living outside US law also means they are living outside US jurisdiction.

Attached: ahsz8aajsf211.jpg (1920x1080, 733K)

No, you idiot. They are already runing from law, they are fugitives. If they were to be subjected to the law they would be deported or in jail.

Illegals aren't subject to U.S. jurisdiction, because if they are discovered they are deported to the country to whose jurisdiction they are subject.

Are children of fugitive criminals not US citizens now?

Do you plan to revoke citizenship of every person who breaks the US law in any way? That's what your logic implies.

Except that's not how Jurisdiction works and I'll prove it.

Let's say some dirty, maple-chugging snowback crosses the St. Lawrence and is discovered by police raping the shit out of a 14yo schoolgirl. While searching his belongings they find 20 Kilos of illegal Kinder Surprises and the severed head of a Niagra Falls police officer.

By your definition of jurisdiction he is not subject to US laws and cannot be charged with a crime because he is an illegal immigrant and illegals are not inside US Jurisdiction. All we can do is detain him and send him back to Canada.

Luckily, your definition of jurisdiction is incredibly flawed and not in any way how the law is applied in the real world.

Attached: 8FD2CED1-4F1A-4458-968D-3B2452045B25.png (1242x2208, 3.98M)

Hey wow, someone said something in congress one time. Too bad nothing like that language made it into the actual amendment, otherwise you might have had a point.

Howard's language made it into the final amendment. He is the author and he explains that jurisdiction exception applies only to ambassadors or foreign ministers with diplomatic immunity which makes them not subject to the jurisdiction.

I honestly hope you actually believe something like what you are posting and I also hope the MSM is reporting the news in the same manner in which you are posting. The salt will be absolutely delicious.

btw, Trump isn't suspending it. He's correctly interpreting it -as the original authors and signers of the amendment intended it to be interpreted. And when democrats sue over it, this will be the first time it is taken up by the supreme court. The left need to prepare their gaping anuses for birthright citizenship to be declared unconstitutional. But the MSM won't... and the salt is gonna be oh so good.

Attached: 1478930647326.jpg (620x465, 54K)

I don't see that language anywhere within the actual amendment, is there a specific section where its stated?

Though I suppose it could make sense that it isn't included since saying that it doesn't apply to those with diplomatic immunity is sort of redundant.

Based

You do understand that this means that next president will interpret "well regulated militia" as army and confiscate the guns, right?
"Congress shall make no law" will be reinterpreted as "the president can use executive orders" to infringe on freedom of speech or religion.

If that shit with reinterpretation by the executive order flies then there will be no US constitution in no time.

If the broke the law to get into the US, they shouldn't be in the US, therefore any laws based on them being in the US should not apply until they leave and come back legally.

Look up the 1898 court case US v. Wong Kim Ark

Basically, guy was born to Chinese immigrants in 1873 at a time when there were laws in place that prevented Chinese immigrants from receiving US citizenship.

The case solidified birthright citizenship by stating that children born to non-citizen parents automatically have US citizenship unless their parents are in the country as employees of a foreign government.

See

If their crime was coming into the US illegally, yes. Even if they lie on their visa and they are coming here to have a baby, it's illegal entry and their baby should not be a citizen. The intention of this amendment wasn't for illegal border hoppers and preggo 'tourist' companies.

And then the next Republic president let's everybody get machine guns. Problem soved

Nice slippery slope memeflag

Hahahahaha you stupid fucking onions shill. Gets BTFO by the gd AUTHOR of the 14th amendment and its intent and still can’t admit defeat. At least you fags try I guess.

Except his parents were legal immigrants. Not illegals, fucking dumbass.

You and every other MSM article right now is saying exactly this, but the thing is, this chinks parents were LEGAL immigrants, who by law would be under US jurisdiction. This case has absolutely NOTHING to do with illegals.

he pretty clearly states that it applies to foreigners, aliens, and who belong to families of embassy staff or foreign ministers

now if he wanted it only to apply to embassy staff he would not have added "foreigners and aliens"

he is the author of the amendment and expalined, in writing, what the amendment applied to, . He was the author of the legislation, explaining the legislation so that judges could interpret it freely

but you know to me I really dont care. I say lets just get it on now. Lets do the race war your pushing for, because if your a nigger we gonna slaughter you by the bushels and if your a white traitor we gonna nail you to fucking lamposts ... there is no way out of this for you alive
if you win, you still lose, because if they kill all us "badwhites" then they gonna kill all the goodwhites too, and that includes you Mr shekelstein! either way your days are numbered
thats actually wrong, the court specifically ruled that he was a citizen BECAUSE his parents were here legally, on a valid visa, and engaged in legal business
from the decision
"have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business,"
have permanent domicil and residence .... in the US legally!

moreover international law holds that citizens of foreign nations are also subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign nation, this is well established itnernational law
if I as a canaidan citizen travel to the US I do not give up my rights as a canadian citizen ... I am still "subject to the jurisdiction" of the canadian government

these people in this caravan are still citizens of thier originating countries, and are still subject to its jurisdiction, making it impossible for them to also be subject to the jurisdiction of the US
you seem to think that the phrase "subject ot the jurisdiction" is only concerned with criminal law, but there are many other aspects of law... ie tax laws, contract law etc etc

>democratic president tries to remove the 2nd amendment
>civil war

wow okay great comparison

The second amendment is clear on firearms. The14th is not direct on anchor babies.

The intention of that amendment was establishment of the principle of "jus soli". Citizenship based on the territory, not hereditary.
Illegal border hoppers and 'tourist' companies are perfectly within that principle. Risks of that principle were understood at the time, just read some arguments about "a flood of immigration of the Mongol race", yet the amendment passed despite all the risks.

That is why we call MExicans MExicans because they aren't Americans.

so say you are a honduran travelling in the caravan, you are a honduran subject. that means honduran laws still aplly to you ... all the tax laws for instance, laws of contract, laws of marriage, family laws etc etc etc etc
in other words these people are still subject to the jurisdiction of there home countries in many aspects
interantional law, well established, (and the reason why birthright citizenship only occurs in USA and Canada) holds that a citizen of one country is not entirely "subject to the jurisdiction of another", for he cannot be beholden to two masters at once! the honduran in our example ows his primary allegiance to his home country, therefore he is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US
in the case of wong .... he was already a united states citizen, he was a citizen of the US, born legally in the US, to parents who were there legally, on a valid visa, for BUSINESS purposes (ie not diplomatic)
so wongs citizenship was being contested, not on the basis of where he was born, but whether he achieved it by birth or owing allegiance to another .... the united states government had legally allowed his parent to enter, therefore the US government became legally responsible for the fate of whatever befell the Arks. The Arks had a child, legally, so that child became subject to the jurisdiction of the US

The author states that of course illegal aliens wouldn't be included

SCOTUS was in the hands of the ;(((deepstate))) before trump

If they wanted to try and take guns they could. They wouldn’t dare. The only way they can win is by hoping we die of and get replaced slowly until the eventual new majority (shitskins) finish us off

>Implying election suspension isn’t coming next

Attached: D2AF2932-297F-421B-AB48-BAB045D202EB.jpg (400x400, 56K)

Sadly I think he's referring to legal precedents

Stupid argument that the 14th amendment covers foreign nationals. You know that constitutional rights are only for American Citizens, right? Or did you sleep through your half semester of civics?

That's because there was no concept of "illegal immigrants" until the 1970s. You're literally using the same logic that says "2A is bad because Jefferson couldn't into AR-15".

>>these people in this caravan are still citizens of thier originating countries, and are still subject to its jurisdiction, making it impossible for them to also be subject to the jurisdiction of the US you seem to think that the phrase "subject ot the jurisdiction" is only concerned with criminal law, but there are many other aspects of law... ie tax laws, contract law etc etc

Why is the idea that anyone who is on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction so fucking hard for you people to grasp?

If you are on US Soil, you are subject to US Law, and therefore within US Jurisdiction. You aren't automatically immune to US laws and regulations (including the Constitution) just because you're a foreign citizen. If you kill someone in the US, you will still be prosecuted for murder and you will go to jail.

This also applies to other kinds of law- a Canadian citizen is still subject to sales taxes and income taxes if he works within the US. If a Canadian enters into a contract in the US it is bound by US contract law.

IF YOU ARE SUBJECT TO US LAW, YOU ARE WITHIN THE US'S JURISDICTION BY DEFINITION. This is the basic definition of jurisdiction- you are either subject to US Law or you are not.

Jurisdiction is a yes/no binary. If you are one US Soil, you are subject to US Law. (With the only exceptions being representatives of foreign governments, IE diplomatic immunity.) If you are subject to US Law, you are within US Jurisdiction. If you are within US Jurisdiction, then you are subject to US Law, which includes the Constitution.

Period.

"Yes but..."

No. Shut up. If you are on US Soil and subject to US Jurisdiction you are covered by US Laws up to and including the Constitution.

ANY FUCKING QUESTIONS?

Chinese migrant workers who were ineligible for citizen ship could still have citizen children.

Jus solis not jus sanguis okay.

ITT foreigners arguing with Americans about their laws
top kek

The limitations through “and subject to the jurisdiction of the US” have been debated for 150yrs. What’s clear is that A. kids of diplomats don’t receive US citizenship at birth, B. kids of spies don’t receive birthright citizenship, C. kids of women who are part of an invasion army don’t, D. Native Indians didn’t until 1924 and a special Congressional Act etc.

What we also know from the SCOTUS is that if the parents legally settle in the US permanently, are employed privately and pay US taxes and follow US laws, that the kid gets US citizenship.

But we really don’t know what applies to A. tourist parents who aren’t permanent residents, B. illegal aliens or C. Canadians.

Attached: 5705BCFE-6140-4BE3-811F-CA74728A7B91.jpg (2560x1707, 407K)

>anyone coming to the USA is subject to USA jurisdiction.

That would render the language meaningless and we already know from the law that foreign diplomats’ kids born in the US aren’t US citizens.

>>Stupid argument that the 14th amendment covers foreign nationals. You know that constitutional rights are only for American Citizens, right? Or did you sleep through your half semester of civics?

The US Constitution applies to all people physically within the United States and its territories. If you are unclear on this, simply read the bill of rights and its amendments and note when it says "Person/People" as opposed to "Citizen/Citizens"

Rights are guaranteed to the People have freedom to assemble, but only Citizens can run for congress. People are secure against unreasonable search and seizure, but citizens are able to vote.

The fact that both catagories are used in different contexts means that the Constitution broadly applies to all people within US Jurisdiction, except where it specifically says certain rights apply only to citizens.

Maybe you should've payed attention in your half semester of civics.

Attached: WRONG.jpg (846x352, 27K)

You are just a bit wrong about the jurisdiction in practice.
Jurisdiction as it is interpreted by the US nowadays applies to persons outside the US soil if they commit crimes against the US.
For example look at the recent examples of Russian citizens residing in Russia being indicted by the DOJ for crimes committed against the US. Or look at how the US processes terrorists on foreign soil legally if they are captured alive. Or look at how the US requests capture of foreign nationals for drug trafficking, weapons trade, computer fraud, and financial crimes.

By precedent the whole world could be considered the US jurisdiction nowadays, because the US does apply its legal system to it at least partially. All the other countries are kinda similar to Indian reservations with some autonomy, technical sovereignty, and tribal laws, but still subject to some US laws through treaties.

If this trend continues the whole world might eventually become the US soil.

How do you plan on accomplishing that without control of the SCOTUS?

>The US Constitution applies to all people physically within the United States and its territories.

That is not how the constitution is generally interpreted. Tourists aren’t granted 2nd amendment rights, “enemy combatants” aren’t granted due process rights or trials and yes birthright citizenship isn’t granted to e.g. kids of foreign diplomats (if Kim Yong Un’s wife has her kid in NY during a Kim speech, the baby is only North Korean).

SCOTUS is controlled by the Congress.
If the Congress changes the Judiciary Act then the composition of SCOTUS will be changed by an appointment of new judges.

>go on holiday with pregnant wife
>wife has baby in america
>child is now a US citizen
>this makes sense to lefty retards

But how will you control congress without a blue wave? The walls are closing in on you.

>doesn't know what jurisdiction means
lmao dumb poo

they're trespassing, retard

yeah retard read this
they are still honduran citizens, they are still beholden to honduran jurisdiction

the international law on this is very clear.

you do not understand what the word JURISDICTION means in law. It is not as simple as the dictionary definition, that is a non-legal description.
the term jurisdiction refers to whom the person is beholden to, and they cannot be beholden to two nations at once. They are honduran citizens, they owe thier allegiance to honduras, honduran law applies to them ... therefore they are not ENTIRELY within US jurisdiction. Of course US criminal law applies to them, it applies to all humans within the boundaries of US. but there are many laws of US which do not apply, family law, the foreign contracts they have entered into, the foreign marriages they hold, foreign property they hold etc etc etc

they are not 100% within US jurisdiction, no matter how badly you want them to be. maybe you should spend a little less time protesting, and a little more time reading!

Attached: threewhiteliberalsc.jpg (720x714, 101K)

Are you illiterate or retarded?

wow you're actually mentally retarded,

Would it still be? Don't you remember the sketchy circumstances surrounding Justice scalias death. the "waterworks" comment about him in the Hillary Clinton emails?

It wouldn't suspend the 14th. The whole premise is that it wouldn't be subject to the protections of the 14th because its intention was to make freed slaves citizens. You're literally retarded or trolling. Fuck off

??
What kind of walls exactly? Unless you plan to tear down the US Constitution and install an indefinite dictatorship, the political control will switch eventually.

Attached: Party_divisions_and_control_of_the_house_and_senate.pdf.jpg (1462x2698, 707K)

then difference here is that the state gives out the citizenship of both state and federal, Trump would have to move that back to the feds to handle. There is no loliocense of guns in the federal level

the court can have more seats if needed

Tourists are absolutely granted 2A rights- do you know how many foreign nationals fly out to Montana or Alaska for hunting trips? Hard to hunt a moose or grizzly if the government confiscates your rifle on arrival because you aren't covered by the 2A. Not only that but we have plenty of foreign nationals that come to the US for firearm competitions, skeet shoots, etc.

Foreign diplomats are a very special case, since they are typically held to be subject to the laws and jurisdiction of their home country exclusively. (I.E., Diplomatic immunity.)

I considered bringing this up, however didn't because its not really pertinant to the discussion at hand. (We're discussing how the US Treats foreign nationals on US soil, not how they treat foreign nationals on foreign soil.) Secondly, our ability to subject foreign nationals to US Jurisdiction is solely dependent on our ability to physically excercise that jurisdiction, IE- we can charge Russian hackers with crimes all day long but it doesn't mean anything if the Russians don't hand them over, so in order for them to be subject to US Jurisdiction we have to have the cooperation of the Russian government.

>Tourists are absolutely granted 2A rights- do you know how many foreign nationals fly out to Montana or Alaska for hunting trips? Hard to hunt a moose or grizzly if the government confiscates your rifle on arrival because you aren't covered by the 2A.

You need a special tourist firearm license. 2nd amendment rights under current implementation laws only apply for people with permanent immigrant visas.

Are there persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition?

Yes, a person who —

(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

(2) Is a fugitive from justice;

(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner issued after a hearing

at which notice was given to the person and at which the person had an opportunity to participate, and includes a finding that the person subject to the order represents a credible threat to the intimate partner or child or the intimate partner OR explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against the partner; or

(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm or ammunition,is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms and ammunition.

atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-persons-who-cannot-legally-receive-or-possess-firearms-andor-ammunition

Just do away with the 14th all together.

>civil war takes place
>jews and their useful idiots die
>mfw

Attached: patriot pepe.jpg (720x720, 69K)

Mario Apuzzo: Sen Jacob Howard (the framer who co-wrote the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause stating in 1866 that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded persons born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1 st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2895, 2nd col.)).

What did Senator Jacob Howard really say?

This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons

Completely changing the meaning.

>2020 dem president

Attached: 1539033702668.jpg (500x495, 60K)

>in order for them to be subject to US Jurisdiction we have to have the cooperation
That's exactly how Indian reservations on the US soil were treated for a long time in the beginning. Kinda like foreign nation inside the US with some sovereignty and with ability to subject individuals to the US jurisdiction only through cooperation or force.
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 changed all of that though.

>rednecks with hunting rifles will win THIS time!

Attached: 1493314751846.jpg (500x513, 55K)

...Again, from the top. I should just make a flow chart for this.

If you are subject to US Laws, you are within US Jurisdiction. If you are not subject to US Laws you are not within US Jurisdiction.

Let's try another example, because the first three worked so well. Canada just legalized cannabis, so it is perfectly legal for you to buy, sell, possess, and consume cannabis under Canadian law.

Cannabis is illegal under US Federal Law. It is illegal to buy, sell, possess, and consume cannabis per Federal Law.

If a Canadian citizen comes to the United States and is caught buying, selling, possessing, or consuming cannabis, they are arrested, charged, and convicted, and sentenced under US Federal drug laws.

Because they are on US soil.

Doing something that is illegal by US Law.

Being a foreign citizen does not make you immune or outside of US law. If you are on US Soil you are subject to US Law, therefore you are within the jurisdiction of the US.

This is a simple concept, so let's put our money where our mouth is, shall we? I propose that one of our Canadian friends who believes that US jurisdiction only applies to US Citizens, buy the biggest, stankiest, blunt you can find. Pack it into your overhead luggage and fly out to Dallas, TX. Once you are on the ground, walk up to first police officer you find, light that blunt and take a big fucking hit of it right in front of him, before blowing the smoke in his face.

If you're correct and you aren't subject to US Jurisdiction, you'll be fine- the worst they can do is detain you and give you a free trip back home. (And really, who wants to stay in Dallas for more than a few hours anyway?)

So how about it, Foreignfriends? Want to play a game?

>Democrat
>2024
>implying implications
Guess again

Attached: trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second-e1519882524664.png (640x368, 175K)

>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.
>subject to the jurisdiction thereof
>subject to the jurisdiction thereof
>subject to the jurisdiction thereof

This does not appply to foreign born invaders.

>All persons born in the United States
You must push hard on abortions for illegals

Alright, not gonna type it out again, but read , and , for a definition of what legal jurisdiction means.

TL:DR: If you are on US soil, you are subject to US law and therefore within US Jurisdiction.

If you're still not clear on this then you are working from an incorrect definition of what "US Soil", "US Law" or "Jurisdiction". These are pretty simple concepts so if you're still lost then you should probably just kill yourself because at this point you aren't capable of functioning in society.

You can't do that indefinitely, can you?!

>>TL:DR: If you are on US soil, you are subject to US law and therefore within US Jurisdiction.

Unless you are a foreign diplomat or foreign national employed by another government.

well, strictly speaking they could. Use the executive order to suspend the 2A, at that point you can use federal and state gun registries to identify gun owners. Just a simple step from there to use an executive order to suspend elections. At that point you can round up all the gun owners, in order to keep America safe from firearms, of course.

The civil war was started and won by a republican you dumb fuck.

Except the public support Trump in suspending the 14th, they don't support suspending the 2nd.

CAN YOU DO BASICALLY ANYTHING WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER?

Shill is correct and a schlomo at that. I can't believe nobody has realized that the 14th amendment not only affects immigrants but also those with dual citizenships. I'm sure I don't have to spell out what this mean but we have been infiltrated at the highest levels of our govt by some people who have no loyalty to this country and yet they are afforded every right real American citizens have including the right to vote and introduce legislation that does not benefit American citizen only their interests and the interests of another country.

>2018
>people still threatening the 2nd
>people not being realistic
>people don't realize it's impossible
>people are NPCs
>NPCs don't have common sense
A real attempt at disarming America will instantly cause civil war. The population and its adherence are the greatest resource we have. So it will never happen. Gun deaths are more acceptable that the death toll of a civil war.