Jump to content

14th Amendment - Birthright Citizenship


Anastasis

Recommended Posts

Section 1

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP

EXECUTIVE ORDER

January 20, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.  The Fourteenth Amendment states:  “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.”  That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race. 

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.  The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.  

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Sec. 2.  Policy.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

(b)  Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.

(c)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship. 

Sec. 3.  Enforcement.  (a)  The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order.

(b)  The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order’s implementation with respect to their operations and activities.

Sec. 4.  Definitions.  As used in this order:

(a)  “Mother” means the immediate female biological progenitor.

(b)  “Father” means the immediate male biological progenitor.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    January 20, 2025.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-hear-states-bid-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-01-23/

"I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."

The states argued that Trump's order violated the right enshrined in the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

If the order is constitutional then they need to free Laken Riley’s killer. 

Can you unpack that for me. 

FTR, imo the proper way to address any concerns re: birthright citizenship is through the constitutional amendment process. Bad precedent to set if EOs can be used to meaningful alter the common interpretation of an existing amendment. If there are problems in interpreting and applying the amendment, it should be clarified via the appropriate process. 

 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

If the order is constitutional then they need to free Laken Riley’s killer. 
 

The blatant stupidity is mind bottling. 

Doublethink is to know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My layperson's understanding is that jurisdiction is basically a geographical term describing the bounds of whatever agency is being discussed.

They're playing to their rabid supporters, I think, who can use the isolated phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same way they used the fragment, right to bear arms. Every idiot adherent thus becomes a legal scholar who has a quote to hang his argument on.

As usual, it doesn't matter what is correct, honest, or obvious.

spacer.png

Edited by RomaVicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Doublethink is to know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. 

Double plus good selection, my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Can you unpack that for me. 

FTR, imo the proper way to address any concerns re: birthright citizenship is through the constitutional amendment process. Bad precedent to set if EOs can be used to meaningful alter the common interpretation of an existing amendment. If there are problems in interpreting and applying the amendment, it should be clarified via the appropriate process. 

 

What he means is that if "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" means what proponents of the EO say it means, then we can't validly prosecute aliens, or unlawful residents. 

But I'm not sure that's really right.  There's "territorial jurisdiction," meaning subject to/must obey civil and criminal laws while residing or domiciled here, and "diplomatic jurisdiction," which means something like has allegiance or potential allegiance to another country.

One thing is abundantly clear from the legislative history and that is Indians and foreign diplomats were excluded or intended to be, from its ambit. Indians because they were and remain subject to different laws, and diplomats because they are immune from the aforementioned civil and criminal laws.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Stray negative
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago I read an article that exclusively carved out children of ambassadors and other foreign dignitaries who were born on US soil as those not "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause..  I have no idea if that was sound legal theory or not.  I'm still working on my post-doc research in infectious diseases, it's gonna be a while before I get around to conlaw.

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Years ago I read an article that exclusively carved out children of ambassadors and other foreign dignitaries who were born on US soil as those not "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause..  I have no idea if that was sound legal theory or not.  I'm still working on my post-doc research in infectious diseases, it's gonna be a while before I get around to conlaw.

Well, the concept of territorial jurisdiction is broad:  you do crimes or civil wrongs here, you are subject to our laws governing them.  Pretty much everyone located here satisfies that test.

Diplomats are immune from our laws, both civil and criminal, and thus outside our jurisdiction in pretty much every conceivable way.

maxresdefault.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=db585dd

And the history indicates that this guy's kids would not be citizens if born here.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Years ago I read an article that exclusively carved out children of ambassadors and other foreign dignitaries who were born on US soil as those not "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause..  I have no idea if that was sound legal theory or not.  I'm still working on my post-doc research in infectious diseases, it's gonna be a while before I get around to conlaw.

It’s very sound argument and would also include children born to an invading foreign army and their camp followers.  One of the issues with trying to retcon the 14th is that “illegal immigrant” was not a concept at the time. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the concept of territorial jurisdiction is broad:  you do crimes or civil wrongs here, you are subject to our laws governing them.  Pretty much everyone located here satisfies that test.

Diplomats are immune from our laws, both civil and criminal, and thus outside our jurisdiction in pretty much every conceivable way.

maxresdefault.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=db585dd

And the history indicates that this guy's kids would not be citizens if born here.

This applies, but gets very complicated depending on what exact visa and state the parents are on and which portions of the Vienna Convention privileges and immunities they are extended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What he means is that if "not subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" means what proponents of the EO say it means, then we can't validly prosecute aliens, or unlawful residents. 

Thanks for linking the CRS piece. From that document, the various concepts of "jurisdiction" as the focus of the debate here seems distinct from legal jurisdiction in the sense of one being subject to the states ability to prosecute a murder. But in reality I think that's all a side show. If you want to fundamentally change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment as it is being applied, it should be amended through the appropriate process. 

 

“Ascriptive” versus “Consensual” Conceptions of Citizenship What is generally considered the majority view, embodied in applicable law and policy, is that the Fourteenth Amendment does require U.S. citizenship to be automatically conferred on “[a]ll persons born … in the United States”; and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes from that general rule only certain common-law-based exceptions to the jus soli doctrine, for those born in the United States to foreign diplomats, hostile occupying forces, or members of recognized Indian tribes. Legally, the “jurisdiction” referred to by the Citizenship Clause is territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of a sovereign to enforce its laws within its territorial limits.104 This conventional interpretation has been called the “ascriptive” view (at least by some opponents) because it determines citizenship by the objective geographical circumstances of a person’s birth.105

On the other side, some argue that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require U.S. citizenship to be automatically granted to persons born in the United States to aliens, especially those aliens who are present unlawfully or who are domiciled elsewhere.106 The core of this argument is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to codify a limitation on the birthright citizenship principle that, in the words of two of its early proponents, “demanded a more or less complete, direct power by government over the individual, and a reciprocal relationship between them at the time of birth, in which the government consented to the individual’s presence and status and offered him complete protection.”107 The “jurisdiction” referred to by the Citizenship Clause, in this view, is a more “complete” jurisdiction that entails undivided allegiance.108 This opposing view has been called the “consensual” approach, as its proponents would “make political membership a product of mutual consent by the polity and the individual.”109 In short, as one of the aforementioned Hamdi v. Rumsfeld amicus brief argued unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court in 2004, “t is not the physical location of birth that defines citizenship, but the express or implied consent to jurisdiction of the sovereign.”110 It is 104 See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 683-686 (1898) (analyzing The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812)); see also, e.g., Dellinger, supra footnote 18; Robert E. Mensel, Jurisdiction in Nineteenth Century International Law and its generally acknowledged that opposition to the conventional interpretation is the minority viewpoint.111 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s very sound argument and would also include children born to an invading foreign army and their camp followers.  One of the issues with trying to retcon the 14th is that “illegal immigrant” was not a concept at the time. 

And (I hate to quote myself)- I would expect the EO declaring an “invasion” from the southern border to be part of the arguments as this shakes out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Years ago I read an article that exclusively carved out children of ambassadors and other foreign dignitaries who were born on US soil as those not "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause..  I have no idea if that was sound legal theory or not.  I'm still working on my post-doc research in infectious diseases, it's gonna be a while before I get around to conlaw.

Whether sound legal theory, good time to ask ourselves

1) Is it good policy?

2) Would it be good policy if we actually had a reasonable immigration policy?

Trump gets an A+ for actually bringing the issues to the forefront.  Unfortunately, it looks like we have the most cowardly congress ever in session, so the timing isn't particularly sweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

CRS is a little-known gem of the government.  It’s got to be surreal working for them.  All these smart and great researchers engaged in the Sisyphean task of producing nuanced and thoughtful analyses for idiots who will promptly ignore it. 

I have a friend who works for them.  He is a wild and freaky dude...but he's also super smart and incredibly well-informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Sounds like the kind of person the doge will target 

CRS is one of Congress's sacred cows.  They protect them pretty well, as they should.  It's an incredible resource.

Of course, MTG probably thinks they are all (((deep state))) and powered by jewish space lasers, so who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s also not executive, it’s legislative.  DOGE can’t go at it.  

Well, again, as I've been mentioning repeatedly since 2016....you need to caveat your points with the predicate of "presuming the Rule of Law applies, which is no guarantee."

We continue to be plagued by thinking about things as if the law, rules, and norms apply.  Stop.  You are facing an opponent who will say "hey, I carried the ball across the goal line, that's a touchdown."  And we respond "but...you carried it while driving an M-1 tank, that's not allowed."  And meanwhile, they're spiking the ball, 6 points are on the board, and the MAGAts are all yelling TOUCHDOWN!!!!

Stop thinking that any rules apply.  And start acquiring Javelins, because that's how you play defense in this new world.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

This would be the most impressive pretzel logic of supposed originalists of all time if they somehow find in favor of the administration. 

They don't "find in favor".

They bend the knee.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-hear-states-bid-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-01-23/

"I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."

The states argued that Trump's order violated the right enshrined in the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.

 

It doesn't boggle my mind. These shit weasals will say anything, make any argument, for orange god. Anybody with the minimum number of brain cells required to speak in complete sentences knows this argument is horseshit. 

What boggles my mind is WHY THESE FUCKS STILL ALLOWED TO PRACTICE LAW. 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

And (I hate to quote myself)- I would expect the EO declaring an “invasion” from the southern border to be part of the arguments as this shakes out. 

 

Same boggle as my previous post: Any lawyer making the argument that illegal immigration is an "invasion" should also be disbarred. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

What he means is that if "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" means what proponents of the EO say it means, then we can't validly prosecute aliens, or unlawful residents. 

But I'm not sure that's really right.  There's "territorial jurisdiction," meaning subject to/must obey civil and criminal laws while residing or domiciled here, and "diplomatic jurisdiction," which means something like has allegiance or potential allegiance to another country.

One thing is abundantly clear from the legislative history and that is Indians and foreign diplomats were excluded or intended to be, from its ambit. Indians because they were and remain subject to different laws, and diplomats because they are immune from the aforementioned civil and criminal laws.

Indians were made subject to US jurisdiction and granted full US citizenship in 1924. At the time the 14th Amendment was passed it was unclear but very likely that Indians were among the class of persons born within the United States who were not "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]." The clause was directly applicable to foreign diplomats. 

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s very sound argument and would also include children born to an invading foreign army and their camp followers.  One of the issues with trying to retcon the 14th is that “illegal immigrant” was not a concept at the time. 

Also this, and I assume friendly foreign soldiers too who were here with permission but still subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries. I saw a post recently about people who say their ancestors "came here legally" pointing out that all you had to do was show up on a boat. Even the southern border didn't matter unless you were a bandito or something (no racis).

Edited by 'stache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

107 The “jurisdiction” referred to by the Citizenship Clause, in this view, is a more “complete” jurisdiction that entails undivided allegiance.

What effect, then, could a ruling finding this to be the case have on people with dual citizenship? Clearly that would not fit any definition of "undivided allegiance"; just as clearly both participating states would have agreed to the acceptability of that within their respective territories. Right now, in most places citizenship by birth is sacrosanct and that by naturalization revocable (oh, hai Elon!), but if the tenet of "undivided allegiance" were upheld I could see a rogue court saying yeah, well, you can just dump that or lose your citizenship here (many nations, of course, already require this and do not allow for dual citizenship). Asking for a friend....

(Forgive the ignorance; I'm not a lawyer or a UT grad and as such am on Surly by sufferance alone, hoping to not have my residency revoked.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in a modern world I have no issue with revisiting birthright citizenship if the person born here was born of parents without permission to be here. That said, the process to discuss and propose that change is EQUALLY as important as the change itself. The demonization of immigrants first, the inhumane treatment of his first term and what's happening now, and the language and discourse around this issue is hugely damaging to all of us. 

Frankly, invoking an immigration bill that does protect dreamers, does protect current birth right citizens, provides a lawful path to work here especially in industries that need immigrant workers (much like the high end worker visa issues, we need a skilled/unskilled labor program too), then with all of that we could look at a Constitutional amendment to end birth right citizenship for people born of parents that are not here lawfully.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, troph said:

in a modern world I have no issue with revisiting birthright citizenship if the person born here was born of parents without permission to be here. That said, the process to discuss and propose that change is EQUALLY as important as the change itself. The demonization of immigrants first, the inhumane treatment of his first term and what's happening now, and the language and discourse around this issue is hugely damaging to all of us. 

Frankly, invoking an immigration bill that does protect dreamers, does protect current birth right citizens, provides a lawful path to work here especially in industries that need immigrant workers (much like the high end worker visa issues, we need a skilled/unskilled labor program too), then with all of that we could look at a Constitutional amendment to end birth right citizenship for people born of parents that are not here lawfully.

Don't give these cretins even an inch.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

Don't give these cretins even an inch.

I agree fuck Trump. it has to go to the states anyway, it's not going to pass. but intellectually, if done right it's not an unreasonable thing to raise for discussion. he's not doing that, if I didn't make myself clear, his approach is extremely detrimental to our country and its governance.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Bad precedent to set if EOs can be used to meaningful alter the common interpretation of an existing amendment. If there are problems in interpreting and applying the amendment, it should be clarified via the appropriate process. 

 

Just wait until the Democrats are back in the oval. Time to really focus on “well regulated militia”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Same boggle as my previous post: Any lawyer making the argument that illegal immigration is an "invasion" should also be disbarred. 

 

Every logical fallacy that can be used in defense of that EO will be used, and every argument that will be used in defense of that EO will be logically fallacious.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Indians were made subject to US jurisdiction and granted full US citizenship in 1924. At the time the 14th Amendment was passed it was unclear but very likely that Indians were among the class of persons born within the United States who were not "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]." The clause was directly applicable to foreign diplomats. 

Also this, and I assume friendly foreign soldiers too who were here with permission but still subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries. I saw a post recently about people who say their ancestors "came here legally" pointing out that all you had to do was show up on a boat. Even the southern border didn't matter unless you were a bandito or something (no racis).

I don’t think we have any SOFA agreements for troops here to govern that.  It’s really going to be a fairly narrow subset of people in practice who are “not under jurisdiction.”  If you’re not here as a diplomat to us or the UN, even kids born to visiting military and the like are citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Same boggle as my previous post: Any lawyer making the argument that illegal immigration is an "invasion" should also be disbarred. 

 

Judges are lawyers in a silk sheet. If there’s lawyers willing to make the argument, there’s judges willing to accept the argument.  Just have to prod until you find the path that works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

If the order is constitutional then they need to free Laken Riley’s killer. 
 

The blatant stupidity is mind bottling. 

 

you must remember, the orange dumb ass and his followers are the dumbest fucking people walking the planet. i just pray he tells them to drink the kool aid before kicking the bucket. that gene pool needs to die off 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Whether sound legal theory, good time to ask ourselves

1) Is it good policy?

2) Would it be good policy if we actually had a reasonable immigration policy?

Trump gets an A+ for actually bringing the issues to the forefront.  Unfortunately, it looks like we have the most cowardly congress ever in session, so the timing isn't particularly sweet.

You're a fucking idiot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Terrible things are happening outside. Poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. Families are torn apart. Men, women, and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared.”

Diary of Anne Frank 
January 13, 1943

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

“Terrible things are happening outside. Poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. Families are torn apart. Men, women, and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared.”

Diary of Anne Frank 
January 13, 1943

Great.  Stephen Miller just came in his pants.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half my friends are first generation Americans born of immigrants from all over the world.

Amazingly some of those immigrants are trumpkins. Their kids not so much.

I truly fear for them, and that alone is something no one should ever feel in this so called land of the free.

I keep a copy of my birth certificate readily accessible just in case.

My DL has a gold star on it. 

I'm sure it's just for travel reasons.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

state has to verify you first

Which is now meaningless, if Trump's EO stands up.  Because that verification was under the old pussy communist law that treated the 14th Amendment the way its been treated since Wong Kim Ark.  The new super freedom eagle liberty rule means that the citizenship of everyone is now an open question (well, not everyone.  Some folks will never have anything to worry about.  You know the ones).  If you are a US citizen who doesn't have a light complexion and nice, white, "real American" name, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your parents were US citizens and/or otherwise fully permitted to be here.  Don't have your parents' birth certificates?  That's what I thought, you dirty wetback beaner.  GTFO!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...