[JUST]

Wrong on both counts. What's "racist" about wanting the same laws as most developed nations about not letting random people shit out kids on US soil and claim voting rights?

What?

OP you damn fool! have faith in KEK he will save us once again like he did in the 2016 election

Attached: the-cult-of-kek-holy-trinity-memetic-entities-kek-father-pepe-son-pek-holy-ghost-2000x1200.jpg (2000x1200, 406K)

I hope so much that Trump keeps everything. It's not only good for the world but seeing the lefties triggered is incredibly fun. Go vote!

?? OP are you a faggot?

Jesus Christ you guys are so fucking stupid

He needs congress to approve a budget for the wall; there's at least two GOP caucuses that don't want to support the wall and the DC conservatives are on the record saying they'll always try to block Trump for seizing the RNC. That's why it hasn't been done yet

this faggot hasbeen watching too much fake news. Remember kids trump had a literal 3% chance of winning and he mopped the floor with these commie scum. All the false flags the last 2 weeks cant stop them

>Go vote!
I keep seeing this shit everywhere, is this some new millenial catch phrase?

>Democrats
>communists
kek

Attached: 1541101382069.jpg (720x960, 43K)

did i hurt your feelings faggot?

No. You're just ignorant. Dems are just as capitalistic as Repubs. Both are cancerous in their own ways.

If not enough of you vote they win. If you're convinced to go vote it means lots of people are, meaning they will not win. So, go vote if you can!

It's protected by the constitution, not the SCOTUS
If anything, making a bill, getting it contested in court, and then having it kicked up to the SCOTUS would probably end favorable for the GOP.

Yes, my brother. Imagining alt-timelines is too much to bear. It's accelerating.

Attached: 1514785396161.jpg (632x800, 147K)

>If anything, making a bill, getting it contested in court, and then having it kicked up to the SCOTUS would probably end favorable for the GOP.
It really wouldn't.

>conservative court wouldn't interpret the 14th as intended
okay champ

The intent was to cover everyone but foreign diplomats or invading armies.

Your based 4dchessmaster had 2 years to build that shit. Didnt budge. Accept it already you retards both democrats and rupublicucks are controled oposition of the elites

Attached: IMG_1028.jpg (728x784, 130K)

>caravans lining up one after the other to get in
>every time the military has to spend zillions sending assloads of soldiers to erect temporary barriers and barbed wire and whatever else
>after two or three rounds of this, military decides it will be cheaper and more effective to have a permanent wall
>congress won't do shit, so no choice but to pay for it with the military budget

This was proposed before and Trump said he was considering it but preferred going through congress. But if congress is officially impossible he'll have his opening to pull the trigger.

>Forgets that the army corp of engineers exists
>Forgets that the US president is the highest MILITARY rank
>Forgets that Trump recently gave the military HUNDREDS of BILLIONS.

Attached: 1541355453212.gif (900x900, 3.65M)

>under the jurisdiction of thereof
I recommend adult literacy courses

t. idiot who doesn't know how any of this shit works

Attached: 1494220863134.jpg (497x427, 29K)

SCOTUS has never ruled on it. Legal experts who aren't shills for one party or the other say it's an open question.

>cover everyone but foreign diplomats or invading armies.
>invading armies

Haven't turned on the news for a few months, I see.

>I recommend adult literacy courses
By your logic, law enforcement can't deport these people because they're not under U.S. jurisdiction. See how you can twist yourself into knots?

This.

The only thing SCOTUS ruled on is whether children of immigrants who came to work legally in the US are citizens.

Nothing about birth tourism or tortilla niggers getting citizenship for shitting a kid across the border.

>oh shit, i'm losing the argument
>I know, i'd argue semantics like a retarded cunt
the intention was a bandage fix for slaves, nothing more.
But i'm sure you ignore that much like you fags ignore the written intentions behind the 2nd amendment

>Haven't turned on the news for a few months, I see.
I'm pretty sure that a migrant caravan doesn't qualify as an invading army.

Now, I do think that they should be sent back if they try to sneak over the border. If they present themselves at a port of entry, though, Trump doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

>One of the key drafters, Sen. Lyman Trumbull stated during the debates that the language confined citizenship to those “born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and excluded foreign citizens. Later, in a federal statute, Rep. John Bingham said the law embodied “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.”

jonathanturley.org/2018/11/02/after-150-years-courts-should-clearly-and-finally-define-the-question-of-birthright-citizenship/

Wrong you fucktard.

Law enforcement CAN deport them, because they are infringing on the constitutional rights of CITIZENS.

1. We are keeping the house
2. We still aren't getting the wall

Don't let the incels trigger you user. Trigger them by giving them a red tide to suck on. Go vote!

He does, because they refused Mexico's offer of housing.

The moment they refused, they are no longer eligible for refugee status in any other country.

>the intention was a bandage fix for slaves, nothing more.
The debates at the time referenced the Chinese, gypsies, and so on. It was intended to deal with much more than the former slaves.
>But i'm sure you ignore that much like you fags ignore the written intentions behind the 2nd amendment
No. The Second Amendment protects the right of private firearm ownership. It's a fail-safe against a tyrannical government with the obvious side benefits of hunting and self-defense.

Read

>The moment they refused, they are no longer eligible for refugee status in any other country.
Can you point to a source for that? I'm curious.

Dumbest shit I’ve read all day

No, being present in the country doesn't infringe on constitutitonal rights. Otherwise any American could sue any other American for infringing on their rights by breathing, you dumb fuck.

>Nothing about birth tourism or tortilla niggers getting citizenship for shitting a kid across the border.
I do think that this has to be fixed, but it would require a constitutional amendment. Kids should only get citizenship if their parents are citizens or long-term residents.

Hell, we could probably simplify that down to citizens only, but I think that long-term residency would pass easier.

Except for cases on the 14th amendment have already been ruled on by the Supreme Court, and it is accepted that illegals don’t have a right to birthright citizenship.

(((elites)))

It really wood. Just because cnn tells you orange man bad, doesn’t mean they are right. Burthright citizenship is not protected by the constitution, it was never meant to be. And the Supreme Court said no in 1891 already

So I can randomly choose to travel to Finland and live there without submitting paperwork? Tell me more!

There's been a tactical marketing blitz by (((big companies))) to use the neutral statement "vote!" because they incorrectly assume it will cause a blue wave.

Attached: C8kihn2XcAAjZZ5.jpg (1117x625, 114K)

>Just because cnn tells you orange man bad, doesn’t mean they are right.
I don't even trust CNN.
>Burthright citizenship is not protected by the constitution, it was never meant to be.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

>da jews
I am a jew. Do you think i am a rotschilt or a banker?

You forgot to hide your flag, dreidel-nigger.

You must be forgetting the clause that states and is subject to us jurisdiction.

There’s nothing to argue about. It’s already been decided by scouts. Even the author stated specifically illegals didn’t count

Communists... It's what all the millennial Democrats are calling themselves these days.
Where the fuck have you been?

Jesus Christ. Japan must be filled with retarded weebs.

Those Demofag supporters are just confused.
If Dems WERE communists I'd be more likely to support them. But no, they're just capitalists.

Merely being present legally, with a PERMIT, so long as you keep the nations laws doesn't.

The moment you perform a crime(Like entering the country illegally), you do infringe upon rights.

Way to admit defeat.

>Way to admit defeat.
Never.

Incorrect as usual.

Being offered housing in a safe country means that the US is no longer REQUIRED to accept their applications as refugees. It does not mean that the US CANNOT accept their applications.

If they can convince a court that they would not be safe in Mexico either (easy if the Mexican offer was very temporary, possible if they're running from a gang that's very powerful in Mexico too, hard otherwise) then the US is still required to take them.

Note that this is very much an individual thing - if Jorge Valdez is on the run because he snitched on a Zeta smuggling operation, he can probably convince a court that Mexico's dangerous too. If Juan Vaca is on the run because the chief of police in his home village in Honduras wants to fuck his daughter, then a court would rightly rule that Juan Vaca would have been safe in Mexico and doesn't get to stay in the US.

Well when u counter an argument with facts that prove you wrong with the shittiest straw man ever you basically did

This has been argued already here (W0QKOkLq) argued pretty well imho against birthright citizenship and why the 14th doesn't cover tortilla niggers

Nah. I already answered that argument, faggot.
>The Framers protected everyone but foreign diplomats and occupying armies.

No, you have to submit paperwork.

The thing is, it doesn't infringe on my rights to have you here breathing our air without the right paperwork. It's an immigration violation, not a human rights violation.

Is that your way of not acknowledging the fact that International Jewry funds white genocide and globalism by funding predominantly Left-Jewish-owned corporate America and much of global politics at this point? You would have a much easier time by acknowledging these facts and then you would be considered not part of the problem (ie. the small minority contingent of Jews who recognize facts and are opposed to white genocide and opposed to a globalist world order under Zion).

If you answer yes, expect animosity to grow.

Attached: rothschilds nwo bank of england uk illuminati.jpg (360x525, 52K)

If I'm not infringing on rights why would I be barred from living in Finland? By stopping me from living there without paperwork you'd be violating my rights.

Except if you want to go that route, you have to concede that it requires being a tax payer(Since the framers excluded feather niggers, who did not pay taxes).

Since tortilla niggers aren't paying taxes, they aren't covered by the 14th.

Well just saying it doesn’t make it right...
Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

So basically in America I can file a civil rights lolsuit against you if you drive 35 in a zone posted 30? Or if you download illegal MP3s? Or if you don't abide by the terms of a clickwrap license agreement?

Stop being an idiot. If I kidnap you and beat you up, I'm absolutely infringing on your rights. If I walk across the desert because I have the dumbass idea that living in America is better than living in Honduras, I'm not infringing on your rights.

this will be the new wall the wall of death.
youtube.com/watch?v=LZxH0Duyj4g

Attached: madman.jpg (770x800, 75K)

>(W0QKOkLq) argued pretty well imho against birthright citizenship and why the 14th doesn't cover tortilla niggers
I think that it shouldn't cover illegals, but it almost certainly does.

>Since tortilla niggers aren't paying taxes, they aren't covered by the 14th.
Well, if we get really technical about it, they're paying state taxes. The only way that they'd ever pay Federal ones is if they stole someone's Social Security Number.

This is some confusing shit.

Read that again. If you look at it properly, every sentence has proper connective tissue except for:
>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.
So, does it read like this?
>This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners AND/OR 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.
Or like this?
>This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, AND THOSE 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.
Capitalized words are my additions, obviously.

And that's why we have refugee and asylum processes. Because if you're just 'lol I wanna live where the weather's good', we can tell you to fuck off. If it would actually kill you to send you home, we have to let you stay here whether we want to or not. And even if we're sending you home, we have to go through due process to make sure that we ACTUALLY have the right to send you home.

I'd be fine with open borders with Argentina, BTW. Long as they're reciprocal and I can come over there in June when it gets too goddamn hot over here.

Technically, yes, you can.

Though 1 and 3 won't hold up in court.
Downloading MP3s is a federal crime, not a civil one.

And again:
"... and the pursuit of happiness."
If illegal aliens are working for 20 cents on the dollar and I can't find a job because of that, they most definitely ARE infringing upon my rights.

>>Well, if we get really technical about it, they're paying state taxes.

True, however the 14th concerns FEDERAL tax revenue.
Which, again, means that tortilla niggers wouldn't be eligible for citizenship.

>If illegal aliens are working for 20 cents on the dollar and I can't find a job because of that, they most definitely ARE infringing upon my rights.
You technically don't have a constitutional right to a job.
>Loophole!

Should've started the wall right away.

The correct reading is

>This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are (foreigners OR aliens), AND 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.

While I believe the rest of the debate does clarify that the argument meant 'just the families of ambassadors', the plain text of the amendment is enough:
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Congress could decree that the US no longer has jurisdiction over illegal immigrants. After that point their babies would no longer have citizenship; however, the US would also not have the authority to detain them on immigration violations.

I'd be fine with you going there and him coming here. Permanently.

>After that point their babies would no longer have citizenship; however, the US would also not have the authority to detain them on immigration violations.
It'd be better to do a constitutional amendment, but I doubt that it'd pass.

>>Grasping at straws

I do have a constitutional right to the preservation of life though.
And since tortilla niggers have plenty of murderers among them, letting them in infringes upon that right.

>And since tortilla niggers have plenty of murderers among them, letting them in infringes upon that right.
Yeah. That makes more sense.

Conflating laws and rules with morality is such a Jewish thing to do. It's retarded to ask whether something is lawful, when you could ask whether it is right. A state should always pursue first and foremost what is good for its constituent people. From that standpoint letting in immigrants nilly willy is not right.

Where are all these fucking shills coming from

Hey anyone remember when Jow Forums was our place? Do we have to raid ourselves again tumblr style?

>>I think that it shouldn't cover illegals, but it almost certainly does.

Forgot to comment on this bit:
The 14th doesn't cover illegals.

Ever since it was ratified, every case that was brought in front SCOTUS(USA VS Wong Kim Ark chief among them) was dealing with people who came to the US for work via legal channels.

So it doesn't cover invaders.

>Hey anyone remember when Jow Forums was our place?
Immigration has ruined it. It ruins everything.

Hurts to be wrong eh? Bullets hurt more, liberals will learn that soon enough.

Attached: 1540169069452.jpg (624x434, 114K)

Trump's not getting killed by anybody unless somebody really wants to see americans start shooting each other nation wide

Attached: 1541324984916.jpg (498x1024, 71K)

Only ones getting shot in such a scenario would be the city dweller cucks.

I think 1 actually has the best chance of succeeding, actually - you going 35 in a 30 zone *endangers* people, and bodily integrity is a more important right than employment. 2 can succeed if I'm the rightsholder, but then it would be copyright law rather than civil rights.

>"... and the pursuit of happiness."
Pursuit and attainment aren't the same thing, and the Declaration of Independance is not actually part of the US Constitution.

Surprisingly few countries have residence-trade agreements for some reason.

Don't even be angry ironically, lest people spin it to smear us.

The far right has plenty of murderers, letting them operate infringes upon your right to life.

>The 14th doesn't cover illegals.
It very definitely was intended to cover people illegally imported to the US, given that the importation of slaves was illegal after 1809.

Attached: emancipation-736514.jpg (768x1024, 70K)

>Pursuit and attainment aren't the same thing

And yet you argue that illegal invaders are the same as legal immigrants, and should therefore be afforded the same protections.

The absolute state of retard commies.

>>The far right has plenty of murderers, letting them operate infringes upon your right to life.

That's what the 2nd is for.

>>It very definitely was intended to cover people illegally imported to the US, given that the importation of slaves was illegal after 1809.

Nigger slaves were brought to the states unwillingly.
After the 13th, they were given equal rights to citizens.
Before the 13th, before the civil war, most people didn't consider niggers as people.

Do you know what the 14th Amendment means? It means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. And the court is ours bitch.

It's over.

Attached: it's over.jpg (600x385, 56K)