Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Napkiraly]

Honestly, I'm less concerned by the fact that he's promising his base that he's gonna do something illegal, than I am about the fact that it's a cruel ploy that would lead to at least thousands of stateless innocent children who rabid smooth-brained cunts like him could freely terrorize and abuse.

Guillotines when?

Yeah, removing jus soli or at least adding restrictions to it is clearly worthy of being beheaded./s

[Petrolheadia]

Have you just linked Jews to subversiveness?

That's kinda antisemitic.

This guy literally just blamed the 1965 Immigration Act which removed racial quotas on Israel.

I don't think calling him anti-semitic is particularly beyond the pale.

He blamed the 14th Amendment all the way.

And you seem to be strangely fixated on Jews, concerning the '65's broad scope.

[Valgora]

This guy literally just blamed the 1965 Immigration Act which removed racial quotas on Israel.

I don't think calling him anti-semitic is particularly beyond the pale.

He blamed the 14th Amendment all the way.

And you seem to be strangely fixated on Jews, concerning the '65's broad scope.

The 65 Immigration act, supported of course by Israel, managed to undermine the wishes of the Founding Fathers.

[Frievolk]

Have you just linked Jews to subversiveness?

That's kinda antisemitic.

I guess it depends on what you mean by subversive. I may be treading on dangerous ground here, but it is fact, even self admitted, that Jews promote immigration and even open borders.

*coughs* Not in Israel they don't.

[Greater Germany]

I guess it depends on what you mean by subversive. I may be treading on dangerous ground here, but it is fact, even self admitted, that Jews promote immigration and even open borders.

*coughs* Not in Israel they don't.

Too many immigrants apparently threatens their culture and identity.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-migrants-threaten-our-national-identity/

[Cedoria]

Makes the turgid sections of White America uncomfortable.


Apparently that's an evil so great as to justify a freaking national emergency these days.

For people who think of themselves as a master race, they sure seem rather whiny and pathetic.

Sweet racism bro

That your best response? Really? Pathetic, I can do better with my eyes closed.

[Cedoria]

Is that your response to everything now?

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Then your eyes need checking, I very explicitly said 'sections' of White America ie: not all.

[Cedoria]

"Anchor babies" - because apparently that's a massive problem even compared to other issues that seem to be of more importance.

Its a small problem of a much bigger one. Immigration is a big deal to the us, and the anchor baby discussion is a battlefield. It’s fallacious to say that it isn’t important.

Makes the turgid sections of White America uncomfortable.


Apparently that's an evil so great as to justify a freaking national emergency these days.

For people who think of themselves as a master race, they sure seem rather whiny and pathetic.

Calling people like me, racist, because you have nothing to contribute to the conversation? Spare me your rather weak insults

I did not call you a racist. I referred to people who are so uncomfortable with what is, seemingly, a minor issue in comparison to a great many, and I explicitly made a crack about how whiny white supremacists are.

Now if you ARE a white supremacist, you'd be justified in being offended by that, as you should be, because I intended it such. If you're not one, then you chose to see yourself in the remark, which is not my problem. If you're going to cry because I insulted white supremacists, go play the violin somewhere else.

My contribution to the conversation was made in an earlier post. I am happy to reiterate it in the event you don't like reading.

[Cedoria]

Except one very nice thing, there is no reason for the government of that country to punish those people.

If they want to maintain good ties with that country, they have a lot of good reasons to not seem complicit in a violent invasion

Not when it isn't a violent invasion you don't.

Your laws are not being broken, you have no reason to give two shits about it.

[Alvecia]

Most Western countries do not have jus soli or at the least have it with restrictions.

Here is a map of countries with Jus soli: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli# ... _world.svg

Makes me wonder if new world colonisation has anything to do with the disparity there.

[Rojava Free State]

According to Donald Trump, the world works in the following way.

*Donald is like the CEO of the US, and makes all business decisions on what this country does. He has the final say, and everyone else either gets with it or gets fired (I.e. run out of town, forced into hiding or murdered by one of his deranged, psychotic fans)

*Most world leaders are losers and are just jealous of Donald. That's why they're hating.

*Most of the media is also a group of envious losers. First amendment? Only losers support free speech. This is not america anymore, it's donald trump inc. get with it or get fired (run out, forced into hiding or killed).

*Anything negative that is said about Donald is false

*Anything ridiculously positive is true

*Kanye West is not insane

*Winner leaders respect Trump (Rodrigo Dutuerte, Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, the saudi crown prince, Jair Bolsonaro etc)

*A caravan of rabid, anti white central americans is on its way to massacre all the white people in this country

*All Arab people are terrorists and hate the US and when an arab person says they are pro american, theyre lying...unless it's the saudis. theyre fine

*The only good Jews are the ones who married into trump's family, cause they're "winners"

*Obama was born in Kenya

These, and many more falsehoods exist in Trump's alternate reality, and because of the falsehood that he is like a CEO, he thinks he can rewrite the constiitution immediately. Trump's fake patriot fanbase will support him as he tramples on our founding document, and wont realize how in danger our freedom is. Just another day in Trumpistan

[Ors Might]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant but the whole “illegal immigrants not being under US jursidiction and thus not subject to US laws” thing got me wondering. Since they hypothetically wouldn’t be under US jursidiction, would they still be able to press charges in US courts against say, militant citizens or the military? Or am I misunderstanding what jurisdiction entails? Because if I’m not, then the US could still deport them. They just wouldn’t be doing it through the courts or through any law.

[Valgora]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant but the whole “illegal immigrants not being under US jursidiction and thus not subject to US laws” thing got me wondering. Since they hypothetically wouldn’t be under US jursidiction, would they still be able to press charges in US courts against say, militant citizens or the military? Or am I misunderstanding what jurisdiction entails? Because if I’m not, then the US could still deport them. They just wouldn’t be doing it through the courts or through any law.

I don't think the military could be used cause it still might fall under needing to be under US jurisdiction.

But I don't thing that an illegal immigrant can press charges against anyone due to not being under US jurisdiction.

[Ors Might]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant but the whole “illegal immigrants not being under US jursidiction and thus not subject to US laws” thing got me wondering. Since they hypothetically wouldn’t be under US jursidiction, would they still be able to press charges in US courts against say, militant citizens or the military? Or am I misunderstanding what jurisdiction entails? Because if I’m not, then the US could still deport them. They just wouldn’t be doing it through the courts or through any law.

I don't think the military could be used cause it still might fall under needing to be under US jurisdiction.

But I don't thing that an illegal immigrant can press charges against anyone due to not being under US jurisdiction.

So then in this hypothetical, a nationwide militia could form to track down and forcibly deport illegals and technically face no consequences? It’d be something to avoid, certainly, but legally it’s be clear?

[Valgora]

I don't think the military could be used cause it still might fall under needing to be under US jurisdiction.

But I don't thing that an illegal immigrant can press charges against anyone due to not being under US jurisdiction.

So then in this hypothetical, a nationwide militia could form to track down and forcibly deport illegals and technically face no consequences? It’d be something to avoid, certainly, but legally it’s be clear?

As long as it ain't part of the government and the militia doesn't break any laws.... it should be legally clear as far as I can tell.
However, I'm no expert when it comes to the specifics of laws and shit.

[Ors Might]

So then in this hypothetical, a nationwide militia could form to track down and forcibly deport illegals and technically face no consequences? It’d be something to avoid, certainly, but legally it’s be clear?

As long as it ain't part of the government and the militia doesn't break any laws.... it should be legally clear as far as I can tell.
However, I'm no expert when it comes to the specifics of laws and shit.

Same here. As much as I might protest, nineteen year olds with morbid curiosities aren’t considered legal experts.

[Ifreann]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant but the whole “illegal immigrants not being under US jursidiction and thus not subject to US laws” thing got me wondering. Since they hypothetically wouldn’t be under US jursidiction, would they still be able to press charges in US courts against say, militant citizens or the military? Or am I misunderstanding what jurisdiction entails? Because if I’m not, then the US could still deport them. They just wouldn’t be doing it through the courts or through any law.

I would think that they would. My reasoning is that foreign diplomats in the US enjoy diplomatic immunity, and therefore are not under US jurisdiction, but if the Mexican ambassador to the US was strolling down the street and got jumped by Joe Arpaio, he would surely be able to take Joe to court.

[Ors Might]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant but the whole “illegal immigrants not being under US jursidiction and thus not subject to US laws” thing got me wondering. Since they hypothetically wouldn’t be under US jursidiction, would they still be able to press charges in US courts against say, militant citizens or the military? Or am I misunderstanding what jurisdiction entails? Because if I’m not, then the US could still deport them. They just wouldn’t be doing it through the courts or through any law.

I would think that they would. My reasoning is that foreign diplomats in the US enjoy diplomatic immunity, and therefore are not under US jurisdiction, but if the Mexican ambassador to the US was strolling down the street and got jumped by Joe Arpaio, he would surely be able to take Joe to court.

But in those situations, foreign diplomats are more than just individuals not under US jurisdiction. They’re under the jurisdiction of the nations that they’re representing and thus have a certain political status that illegal immigrants don’t. There’s a reason why corporations get away with hiring illegals and that’s even with them being under jurisdiction.

[Elysian Kentarchy]

Since I see the "jurisdiction thereof" part of the argument in favor of Trump (which does make Trump completely right if you believe in Constitutionalism and does not constitute a nullifcation the 14th Amendment since that had been the view of it by the guy who wrote it and by policy) just thought I would mention that if one reads the 13th Amendment one will note it doesn't abolish slavery but instead makes it legal to enslave people in prison. No reason to mention it but it is a fun fact that slavery is technically legal in the United States according to the Constitution.

[Vassenor]

Since I see the "jurisdiction thereof" part of the argument in favor of Trump (which does make Trump completely right if you believe in Constitutionalism and does not constitute a nullifcation the 14th Amendment since that had been the view of it by the guy who wrote it and by policy) if one reads the 13th Amendment one will note it doesn't abolish slavery but instead makes it legal to enslave people in prison. No reason to mention it but it is a fun fact that slavery is technically legal in the United States according to the Constitution.

And what does the 13th Amendment have to do with the fact Trump wants to just be able to rip parts of the Constitution apart without going through the required processes and thus not being subject to the normal checks and balance?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant but the whole “illegal immigrants not being under US jursidiction and thus not subject to US laws” thing got me wondering. Since they hypothetically wouldn’t be under US jursidiction, would they still be able to press charges in US courts against say, militant citizens or the military? Or am I misunderstanding what jurisdiction entails? Because if I’m not, then the US could still deport them. They just wouldn’t be doing it through the courts or through any law.

Jurisdiction just means ‘having legal power’. An ambassador can still bring a case before a US civil court against a US citizen. However, that citizen cannot press any counter-claims, since a US court cannot order a diplomat to do anything.

Regarding charges: criminal charges are never brought by an individual, but always by the government. So, the immunity of the diplomat is not in question, as they are merely the victim of an attack.

Diplomatic immunity does not mean the ambassador becomes entirely lawless. They can still engage in contracts under US law, they can buy train tickets, they can get parking permits, the whole shebang. However, no organ of the US (judiciary, executive, legisltive) can force an ambassador to do anything.

[Elysian Kentarchy]

Since I see the "jurisdiction thereof" part of the argument in favor of Trump (which does make Trump completely right if you believe in Constitutionalism and does not constitute a nullifcation the 14th Amendment since that had been the view of it by the guy who wrote it and by policy) if one reads the 13th Amendment one will note it doesn't abolish slavery but instead makes it legal to enslave people in prison. No reason to mention it but it is a fun fact that slavery is technically legal in the United States according to the Constitution.

And what does the 13th Amendment have to do with the fact Trump wants to just be able to rip parts of the Constitution apart without going through the required processes and thus not being subject to the normal checks and balance?

The fact that if you actually read the Constitution it would show that Trump would not be ripping it up anymore than if Trump issued an EO mandating chain gangs in all prisons? Illegal immigrants are not under US jurisdiction and are citizens of their home country still. There is nothing in our laws that says the President can't issue an EO saying "Read the damn Constitution and follow what is in it."

[Seangoli]

And what does the 13th Amendment have to do with the fact Trump wants to just be able to rip parts of the Constitution apart without going through the required processes and thus not being subject to the normal checks and balance?

The fact that if you actually read the Constitution it would show that Trump would not be ripping it up anymore than if Trump issued an EO mandating chain gangs in all prisons? Illegal immigrants are not under US jurisdiction and are citizens of their home country still. There is nothing in our laws that says the President can't issue an EO saying "Read the damn Constitution and follow what is in it."

And since illegal immigrants are not under US jurisdiction, they cannot be arrested, detained, or held accountable to our laws.

Equally, a quick read through of the Constitution provides no such definition of the term jurisdiction as such. Any claim that it does is wholly interpretative at best.

[Vassenor]

And what does the 13th Amendment have to do with the fact Trump wants to just be able to rip parts of the Constitution apart without going through the required processes and thus not being subject to the normal checks and balance?

The fact that if you actually read the Constitution it would show that Trump would not be ripping it up anymore than if Trump issued an EO mandating chain gangs in all prisons? Illegal immigrants are not under US jurisdiction and are citizens of their home country still. There is nothing in our laws that says the President can't issue an EO saying "Read the damn Constitution and follow what is in it."

"What is in it" being a line that anyone born on US soil is a U.S. citizen.

[Ors Might]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant but the whole “illegal immigrants not being under US jursidiction and thus not subject to US laws” thing got me wondering. Since they hypothetically wouldn’t be under US jursidiction, would they still be able to press charges in US courts against say, militant citizens or the military? Or am I misunderstanding what jurisdiction entails? Because if I’m not, then the US could still deport them. They just wouldn’t be doing it through the courts or through any law.

Jurisdiction just means ‘having legal power’. An ambassador can still bring a case before a US civil court against a US citizen. However, that citizen cannot press any counter-claims, since a US court cannot order a diplomat to do anything.

Regarding charges: criminal charges are never brought by an individual, but always by the government. So, the immunity of the diplomat is not in question, as they are merely the victim of an attack.

Diplomatic immunity does not mean the ambassador becomes entirely lawless. They can still engage in contracts under US law, they can buy train tickets, they can get parking permits, the whole shebang. However, no organ of the US (judiciary, executive, legisltive) can force an ambassador to do anything.

Then the question is whether or not illegal immigrants would have diplomatic immunity?

Also, is the US government unable to force a diplomat to leave its borders?