you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 123 points 1 year ago* (26 children)

Lest we forget:

Fourteenth Amendment, 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.

Pretty hard to argue that “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” doesn’t mean what it clearly states. It’s not even in legalese. The fact that this wasn’t laughed out of court says everything.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's what the Constitution says, and Trump now has nothing that can legally stop him from doing it.

    Which means the Constitution is dead letter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That goes both ways, and states need to start acting on it. They need to start passing a flurry of laws criminalizing ICE tactics. Pass laws making it a felony to:

    • Conduct law enforcement while masked

    • To search homes without a warrant

    • To enter various protected locations for law enforcement purposes when there isn't an immediate threat.

    They need to take cues from the anti-abortion playbook. Pass a law requiring all immigration detainees be transported in limousines. Require ICE to old prisoners in five star hotels. Require immigration officers to have at least two doctoral degrees. Make it a felony to do immigration enforcement without doing these things. Just start writing dozens of crazy laws criminalizing every aspect of ICE's operations. Then let the individual ICE agents try and challenge them individually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Better than that remove all immunity from law enforcement officers if...

    They do not have a signed judicial warrant.

    They do not verbally and visually identify themselves and the branch or organization they work for.

    Without those two things, they cannot be verified as law enforcement acting in official capacity, and they should be treated as regular civilians. If a bunch of regular Joes jump out of a van and try to black bag you, you should have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I would go even further. A masked individual tries to abduct people? It's perfectly legal for anyone to shoot them dead right on the spot. Law enforcement who dress like human traffickers should be put in the ground like human traffickers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They haven’t decided on the legality of it yet. They just decided that courts cannot issue universal injunctions. They can only stop it at a case by case level for those who are suing. If they decide it’s unconstitutional, then it’ll have to stop nationally, but a lot of damage can be done before then. I think they’ll decide in October…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    It is just a fucking piece of paper.

    If the judges and politicians and police don't care and no one else can do anything then it means nothing.

    It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.

    North Korea of America is where we are now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Uggh. I can work out whether to upvote you for the accurate summary of the source of law & state power or downvote you for the utter idiocy of the invasion statement.

    Russia can't - they're struggling to take over a country a fifth their size and have burnt through their Soviet stockpiles.

    UK & EU certainly won't invade, at most they'd send a peacekeeping force to protect civilians at a UN request (UN probably wouldnt pass it)

    Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.

    Mexico might just on principle (payback's a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.

    Same for South American Asian and African countries.

    That leaves China, and if you think the Chinese are stupid enough to insert themselves in your civil war and create a sole enemy for both sides to fight you have zero understanding of the Chinese strategy.

    The Chinese will wait for you all to decimate the country and each other, then come in and buy up the bits they want. Oh and invade Taiwan while y'all are busy destroying your country.

    Putin's plan to destroy the US has worked magnificently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Mexico might just on principle (payback’s a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.

    More accurately, we literally can't be bothered. Our state of affairs doesn't allow for a war, and by that, I mean that a huge national protest would ensue, and many politicians would strike it down for many reasons. Nobody here is interested, and after fighting narcos for so long, we'd rather have peace.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.

    Canada just needs to send one guy over to say “you should be our eleventh province” and most of New England will say “yes please, I’m sick of whatever shit the regressives are doing now”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.

    No other nations are going to be invading the US, let alone multiple of them. They don't have the logistics for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Other nations wouldn't invade. But in the event of a civil war, you can be certain they would be sending in plenty of heavy weaponry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Other nations wouldn't invade. But in the event of a civil war, you can be certain they would be sending in plenty of heavy weaponry.

    The US has more military equipment and munitions than the next 5 ranked countries put together - why on earth would there be a need to send weapons ?

    Secondly who would be sending weapons ? Russia needs to finish their own war before they could send help to Trump (who will probably have the bulk of the reserves initially), China is unlikely to want to side with either faction, although I'm sure they'd be happy to sell "consumer" Mavic drones to both sides (a la Ukraine).

    The remaining western democracies have barely enough capacity to keep Ukraine afloat, although they would side with a pro-democracy anti-Trump faction if it garnered enough support to have a chance but with the massive stockpiles in the US being 100x what the rest of the west has it would be like pissing in the ocean.

    In the event of a civil war pro-democracy Americans need to bring military commanders on side so they can utilise existing US stocks - you have the biggest ammo and weapons dumps in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The problem is and has always been "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

    People have been twisting that to mean that anyone that isn't born to American citizen parents means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I saw a person trying to all caps "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" screaming that this specific clause somehow is the piece that excludes birthright citizenship because something something loyalty to other countries?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So like ....kids of illegal aliens are ... sovereign citizens?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I think the argument was that if your parents are not naturalized citizens, then that means they're not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. So like, if the parents 'owe allegiance' to their previous country then it makes the kid a citizen of the parents' original country, and not the U.S.

    But it's all actually bullshit to try and justify not wanting brown people to be U.S. Citizens tbh.

  • source
  • parent