On the road to TYRANNY...

[Rumpole]

Their Spirit Never Ended

In the year 2024, a haunting sight,
Trump won the race, his power alight.
With a stroke of his pen, he aimed to decree,
An end to birthright citizenship, for all to see.

The Constitution trembled, its principles shaken,
As the path to creeping fascism was taken.
He disregarded equality, justice, and grace,
Embracing division, with a scornful embrace.

No longer a nation of dreams and hope,
But a land where intolerance began to elope.
Families torn apart, hearts filled with despair,
As the promise of America vanished in the air.

The outcry was fierce, voices raised high,
Defending the rights of those who would cry.
But Trump remained stubborn, unmoved by their plea,
His vision of exclusion, his twisted decree.

Yet in the shadows, a resistance took form,
A united front against this brewing storm.
Voices united, hearts filled with might,
Fighting to reclaim what was just and right.

The battle was long, the struggle profound,
But unity prevailed, as truth did resound.
And in the end, the people did rise,
Casting away the veil of divisive lies.

With hope and courage, they sought to restore,
The values and ideals they cherished before.
Birthright citizenship, once again embraced,
As freedom's beacon, not to be erased.

Though the scars may remain, a reminder true,
Of the dangers when power goes askew,
The people stood strong, their democracy defended,
In the face of darkness, their spirit never ended.

Humbly tendered,
Poem by ChatGPT-4 rendered from a prompt by Rumpole

Critique: Hmmm, not too bad for a machine. Not epic or going to win contests,
but good enough to supplement the article, the basis of this thread.
(and if you on the right want to enlist ChatGPT to write you a poem
to counter this one, I welcome the exchange, but know that the Chat
will dutifully fulfill your request, but not a drop more than your request.
So, if it doesn't do as good as job as the one above, that's on you, not Chat.)

​

Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office​

Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office

Former President Trump is returning to his calls to remove birthright citizenship, with his 2024 White House campaign announcing Tuesday he would seek to end it via executive order on his first day…

thehill.com

Former President Trump is returning to his calls to remove birthright citizenship, with his 2024 White House campaign announcing Tuesday he would seek to end it via executive order on his first day in office.

Trump announced his plan on the 125th anniversary of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court case that established the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

The proposal echoes a longtime demand of immigration restrictionists and a measure Trump toyed with while in office, attracting criticism from both immigration advocates and legal experts.

 

[JWBooth]

Just stopping by to ridicule the usual ridiculous horseshit.

 

[Meister]

That would end the anchor baby problem

 

[kaz]

Their Spirit Never Ended

In the year 2024, a haunting sight,
Trump won the race, his power alight.
With a stroke of his pen, he aimed to decree,
An end to birthright citizenship, for all to see.

The Constitution trembled, its principles shaken,
As the path to creeping fascism was taken.
He disregarded equality, justice, and grace,
Embracing division, with a scornful embrace.

No longer a nation of dreams and hope,
But a land where intolerance began to elope.
Families torn apart, hearts filled with despair,
As the promise of America vanished in the air.

The outcry was fierce, voices raised high,
Defending the rights of those who would cry.
But Trump remained stubborn, unmoved by their plea,
His vision of exclusion, his twisted decree.

Yet in the shadows, a resistance took form,
A united front against this brewing storm.
Voices united, hearts filled with might,
Fighting to reclaim what was just and right.

The battle was long, the struggle profound,
But unity prevailed, as truth did resound.
And in the end, the people did rise,
Casting away the veil of divisive lies.

With hope and courage, they sought to restore,
The values and ideals they cherished before.
Birthright citizenship, once again embraced,
As freedom's beacon, not to be erased.

Though the scars may remain, a reminder true,
Of the dangers when power goes askew,
The people stood strong, their democracy defended,
In the face of darkness, their spirit never ended.

Humbly tendered,
Poem by ChatGPT-4 rendered from a prompt by Rumpole

Critique: Hmmm, not too bad for a machine. Not epic or going to win contests,
but good enough to supplement the article, the basis of this thread.
(and if you on the right want to enlist ChatGPT to write you a poem
to counter this one, I welcome the exchange, but know that the Chat
will dutifully fulfill your request, but not a drop more than your request.
So, if it doesn't do as good as job as the one above, that's on you, not Chat.)

​

Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office​

Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office

Former President Trump is returning to his calls to remove birthright citizenship, with his 2024 White House campaign announcing Tuesday he would seek to end it via executive order on his first day…

thehill.com

Former President Trump is returning to his calls to remove birthright citizenship, with his 2024 White House campaign announcing Tuesday he would seek to end it via executive order on his first day in office.

Trump announced his plan on the 125th anniversary of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court case that established the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

The proposal echoes a longtime demand of immigration restrictionists and a measure Trump toyed with while in office, attracting criticism from both immigration advocates and legal experts.

Actually, being born in the US meaning automatic citizenship isn't in the Constitution ... anywhere. It's fine to support that, the Constitution doesn't ban it either, but you can't say it's a Constitutional right people have who break in. Nice try but fail. It's like saying someone who broke into your house gets to vote where you're going for dinner, it's pretty stupid to do that

 

[Hossfly]

Their Spirit Never Ended

In the year 2024, a haunting sight,
Trump won the race, his power alight.
With a stroke of his pen, he aimed to decree,
An end to birthright citizenship, for all to see.

The Constitution trembled, its principles shaken,
As the path to creeping fascism was taken.
He disregarded equality, justice, and grace,
Embracing division, with a scornful embrace.

No longer a nation of dreams and hope,
But a land where intolerance began to elope.
Families torn apart, hearts filled with despair,
As the promise of America vanished in the air.

The outcry was fierce, voices raised high,
Defending the rights of those who would cry.
But Trump remained stubborn, unmoved by their plea,
His vision of exclusion, his twisted decree.

Yet in the shadows, a resistance took form,
A united front against this brewing storm.
Voices united, hearts filled with might,
Fighting to reclaim what was just and right.

The battle was long, the struggle profound,
But unity prevailed, as truth did resound.
And in the end, the people did rise,
Casting away the veil of divisive lies.

With hope and courage, they sought to restore,
The values and ideals they cherished before.
Birthright citizenship, once again embraced,
As freedom's beacon, not to be erased.

Though the scars may remain, a reminder true,
Of the dangers when power goes askew,
The people stood strong, their democracy defended,
In the face of darkness, their spirit never ended.

Humbly tendered,
Poem by ChatGPT-4 rendered from a prompt by Rumpole

Critique: Hmmm, not too bad for a machine. Not epic or going to win contests,
but good enough to supplement the article, the basis of this thread.
(and if you on the right want to enlist ChatGPT to write you a poem
to counter this one, I welcome the exchange, but know that the Chat
will dutifully fulfill your request, but not a drop more than your request.
So, if it doesn't do as good as job as the one above, that's on you, not Chat.)

​

Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office​

Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office

Former President Trump is returning to his calls to remove birthright citizenship, with his 2024 White House campaign announcing Tuesday he would seek to end it via executive order on his first day…

thehill.com

Former President Trump is returning to his calls to remove birthright citizenship, with his 2024 White House campaign announcing Tuesday he would seek to end it via executive order on his first day in office.

Trump announced his plan on the 125th anniversary of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court case that established the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

The proposal echoes a longtime demand of immigration restrictionists and a measure Trump toyed with while in office, attracting criticism from both immigration advocates and legal experts.

People will soon assemble.


Remember Major Robert Roberts Rule for Rangers, especially #2.

#2. HAVE your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, sixty rounds powder and ball, and be ready to march at a minute’s warning.

 

[BackAgain]

Just stopping by to ridicule the usual ridiculous horseshit.
View attachment 790232

Lol!

 

[Winston]

Actually, being born in the US meaning automatic citizenship isn't in the Constitution ... anywhere. It's fine to support that, the Constitution doesn't ban it either, but you can't say it's a Constitutional right people have who break in. Nice try but fail. It's like saying someone who broke into your house gets to vote where you're going for dinner, it's pretty stupid to do that

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.

 

[Rumpole]

Actually, being born in the US meaning automatic citizenship isn't in the Constitution ... anywhere.

Okay, I suspect you want to debate the 14th Amendment, which contradicts your statement.
Fire away (see below)

It's fine to support that, the Constitution doesn't ban it either, but you can't say it's a Constitutional right people have who break in. Nice try but fail. It's like saying someone who broke into your house gets to vote where you're going for dinner, it's pretty stupid to do that

Your position is not the prevailing legal view, as I understand it having researched this, over the years.

The 14th amendment can only make sense from the standpoint of birthright citizenship for anyone 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it is further emboldened by the 9th, if there is any question about the constitutionality of the right of every citizen, regardless of who the parents were, to be granted citizenship. HIs move will be unconstitutional.
ANd as for the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof' a clause in the 14th, that was only meant to exclude a child born from the parents of diplomats, who are 'not subject to the jurisdiction' thereof, everyone else is included.

Unless you are talking about a baby born from foreign diplomats, I believe everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The prevailing legal consensus, supported by historical practice and court rulings, is that foreign nationals who are in the United States on temporary visas and give birth to a child within its jurisdiction are generally considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This means that their children are typically granted birthright citizenship under
the principle of jus soli (citizenship by place of birth).

The rationale behind this interpretation is that individuals on temporary visas, while not permanent residents or citizens, are still subject to various U.S. laws and regulations during their stay. They are required to comply with immigration laws, pay taxes, follow local laws, and are entitled to certain legal protections afforded by the U.S. legal system. As such, they are considered to be within the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of birthright citizenship.

If you are going to argue that the only reason the 14th amendment exists is to give former slaves the right of citizenship, while that might be one of the reasons it was implemented, it isn't the only reason, which explains why people of African American descent weren't mentioned, thus it was meant for everyone, equally, which is consistent with the egalitarian principles which are ubiquitous in the constitution.

Not to mention the fact that under United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401), a person is a United States national and citizen if:

• the person is born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
• the person is born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Inuit, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924)
• the person is of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of 21 years, not to have been born in the United States
• the person is born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person.

If it were only for former slaves, writ large, it would be in the Constitution and legislation.

Simply put, you are incorrect.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

The section I highlighted can mean that foreign citizens and their children would be exempt from birthright citizenship, since they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries.

 

[kaz]

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

That's like saying someone who breaks into your house gets an allowance because everyone in the house gets an allowance. They aren't here legally, it doesn't count.

Automatic citizenship isn't granted based on that, BTW, do you know what it is based on?

 

[toobfreak]

On the road to TYRANNY...​

RumpHole still fighting mental health.

Hey Rumpy, I think you were trying to spell TRANNY, right, Ace?

Target has your LGBTQ rainbow baby-bib on hold for you.

 

[kaz]

Okay, I suspect you want to debate the 14th Amendment, which contradicts your statement.
Fire away (see below)


Your position is not the prevailing legal view, as I understand it having researched this, over the years.

The 14th amendment can only make sense from the standpoint of birthright citizenship for anyone 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it is further emboldened by the 9th, if there is any question about the constitutionality of the right of every citizen, regardless of who the parents were, to be granted citizenship. HIs move will be unconstitutional.
ANd as for the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof' a clause in the 14th, that was only meant to exclude a child born from the parents of diplomats, who are 'not subject to the jurisdiction' thereof, everyone else is included.

Unless you are talking about a baby born from foreign diplomats, I believe everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The prevailing legal consensus, supported by historical practice and court rulings, is that foreign nationals who are in the United States on temporary visas and give birth to a child within its jurisdiction are generally considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This means that their children are typically granted birthright citizenship under
the principle of jus soli (citizenship by place of birth).

The rationale behind this interpretation is that individuals on temporary visas, while not permanent residents or citizens, are still subject to various U.S. laws and regulations during their stay. They are required to comply with immigration laws, pay taxes, follow local laws, and are entitled to certain legal protections afforded by the U.S. legal system. As such, they are considered to be within the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of birthright citizenship.

If you are going to argue that the only reason the 14th amendment exists is to give former slaves the right of citizenship, while that might be one of the reasons it was implemented, it isn't the only reason, which explains why people of African American descent weren't mentioned, thus it was meant for everyone, equally, which is consistent with the egalitarian principles which are ubiquitous in the constitution.

Simply put, you are incorrect.

You have to be here legally. I mean duh. People not here legally aren't legally recognized, it's just stupid.

Your pool has lap swimming from 4-5, Steve breaks in to the workout facility and starts swimming laps. They call the cops. Steve says, but it says the pool is open for lap swimming!!!!

What is wrong with Steve's argument?

 

[Winston]

Okay, I suspect you want to debate the 14th Amendment, which contradicts your statement.
Fire away (see below)


Your position is not the prevailing legal view, as I understand it having researched this, over the years.

The 14th amendment can only make sense from the standpoint of birthright citizenship for anyone 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it is further emboldened by the 9th, if there is any question about the constitutionality of the right of every citizen, regardless of who the parents were, to be granted citizenship. HIs move will be unconstitutional.
ANd as for the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof' a clause in the 14th, that was only meant to exclude a child born from the parents of diplomats, who are 'not subject to the jurisdiction' thereof, everyone else is included.

Unless you are talking about a baby born from foreign diplomats, I believe everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The prevailing legal consensus, supported by historical practice and court rulings, is that foreign nationals who are in the United States on temporary visas and give birth to a child within its jurisdiction are generally considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This means that their children are typically granted birthright citizenship under
the principle of jus soli (citizenship by place of birth).

The rationale behind this interpretation is that individuals on temporary visas, while not permanent residents or citizens, are still subject to various U.S. laws and regulations during their stay. They are required to comply with immigration laws, pay taxes, follow local laws, and are entitled to certain legal protections afforded by the U.S. legal system. As such, they are considered to be within the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of birthright citizenship.

If you are going to argue that the only reason the 14th amendment exists is to give former slaves the right of citizenship, while that might be one of the reasons it was implemented, it isn't the only reason, which explains why people of African American descent weren't mentioned, thus it was meant for everyone, equally, which is consistent with the egalitarian principles which are ubiquitous in the constitution.

Simply put, you are incorrect.

Nicely done, but let's throw something else in here. The current SCOTUS seems to have an obsession with the history of the Constitution. They attempt to interpret the founder's intent. Let me quote the opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK.

www.law.cornell.edu

There is the historical foundation for birthright citizenship. Only extreme revisionism can alter that status and most certainly not some damn two-bit executive order.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

People will soon assemble.


Remember Major Robert Roberts Rule for Rangers, especially #2.

#2. HAVE your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, sixty rounds powder and ball, and be ready to march at a minute’s warning.

.

Loving your sig!

I love the sound of chopper blades in the morning.

.

 

[Winston]

The section I highlighted can mean that foreign citizens and their children would be exempt from birthright citizenship, since they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries.

That is totally ignorant. So, does that mean tourists can come in and kill Americans? I mean the only way your concept works is that those people ARE NOT under the jurisdiction of the United States, it does not hinge on the hold of their country on them. That was discussed profusely during the drafting of the 14th amendment, and argued quite eloquently in Horace Gray's opinion in United States v. Wonk Kim Ark, linked previously.

 

[Winston]

You have to be here legally. I mean duh. People not here legally aren't legally recognized, it's just stupid.

Your pool has lap swimming from 4-5, Steve breaks in to the workout facility and starts swimming laps. They call the cops. Steve says, but it says the pool is open for lap swimming!!!!

What is wrong with Steve's argument?

Nothing, Steve is a foreign tourist, not under the jurisdiction of US law, hell, he could break in and do any damn thing he wants, who cares about the time slot. The only way, THE ONLY WAY, the US can deny birthright citizenship is if the parents are not under the jurisdiction of the United States, like say, an ambassador, who, along with his children, have diplomatic immunity. You willing to grant immunity to every illegal?

 

[22lcidw]

The people who live on the edge would die or live in the shadows if taxes fell by a significant percentage for any reason. And this is costing us in a huge way.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Actually, being born in the US meaning automatic citizenship isn't in the Constitution ... anywhere. It's fine to support that, the Constitution doesn't ban it either, but you can't say it's a Constitutional right people have who break in. Nice try but fail. It's like saying someone who broke into your house gets to vote where you're going for dinner, it's pretty stupid to do that

Among the debate leading up to the Fourteenth Amendment, was an expression that those who wrote it very specifically did not intend to grant citizenship to children of foreign nationals, merely for being born on American soil. It was meant to prevent former slaves and their immediate posterity, from being denied citizenship.

I suppose there is some room, should the right case be brought before the Supreme Court, for the court to rule based on the documents that record this intent. But that's a stretch.

As written, the language of the Fourteenth does seem to grant citizenship to anyone born under American jurisdiction. I think it would take a Constitutional Amendment to correct this.

 

[blackhawk]

TDSSSDD.

 

[Rumpole]

People will soon assemble.


Remember Major Robert Roberts Rule for Rangers, especially #2.

#2. HAVE your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, sixty rounds powder and ball, and be ready to march at a minute’s warning.

And then your fat lady is going to do what?