• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

bruto said:
Yes, I agree that if the law attempts to be ex post facto, it would be potentially an utter disaster. If it's retroactive for one generation it's retroactive for all, and would technically require certification of everyone's parents and their parents back to the founding of the nation. Or at least it would open up any native born citizen's citizenship to be challenged. On the other hand, if you allow the very idea of naturalized citizens, then birthright is irrelevant to them. Since it's part and parcel of naturalization that you were NOT born in the US, and NOT previously a citizen of the US, naturalization is inherently exempt from the complications of birthright citizenship. You can challenge their citizenship only if you can prove that they cheated in the process. So in a sense, the only people whose citizenship would be immune to the documentation challenge should be those who were naturalized!

If not only the citizenship but the legal residence of a person born in the US is dependent on the status of one's parents, it is a naturally endless process. If your ancestors were not documented immigrants at the time the United States was founded, none of their descendants can ever be. Now of course that is flamboyantly, flagrantly, floridly crazy, utterly ridiculous and unthinkably stupid, and in a rational world we would probably not have to wait and see, but we'd better wait and see.

Now of course, aside from the fact that such a law would be flagrantly unconstitutional as ex post facto, I could imagine that you could argue that a law basing the citizenship of a native-born American on the status of their parents would be effectively a bill of attainder, also forbidden. Of course I would not put it past the stable geniuses in charge of all this to opine that although a fetus is an innocent and fully vested citizen, the very act of being born makes them law breakers in their own right.

Of course any such legal denial of citizenship is never meant to apply to everyone. It is, from the get-go, a transparently selective, targeted law, unenforceable in the main while ready and waiting for the dictator's enemies.
Click to expand...
We will soon have something similar to this:

en.wikipedia.org

Nuremberg Laws - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
TragicMonkey said:
LOL y'all trying to work out the logic of what would be the law. Logic doesn't apply here: the point of the exercise is to give the king new powers to simply declare his foes and scapegoats non-citizens so he can take away their rights. It doesn't matter whether they were born here, or have a green card, or your ancestors were all Americans for ten generations. And no, the Supreme Court is not going to work through legal ramifications if this then that, etc etc. Its function is to justify whatever the king just did, if it agrees to hear a case challenging it at all. "But, but, but I was born here and so were 15 of my 16 ancestors!" So what? You have too much melanin and a Republican thinks throwing you out of the country (after a stint in a labor camp prison, perhaps) will be politically advantageous to him.
Click to expand...
Certainly. Legal ramifications are woke.
 
Resume said:
View attachment 66832
Click to expand...
Snatching it quick and and putting the medal round his own neck is peak Donald and very Napoleonic.

Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor of the French, taking the crown from Pope Pius VII and placing it on his own head,.
He asserted his absolute authority and France's transformation from republic to empire.

1765126303354.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
If you’re worth $500 million, why are your family members working in soybean fields?

BESSENT: I run a soybean farm

BRENNAN: You don't own one. You invest in it

BESSENT: People in my family go out and work on it
Click to expand...
By work he means sit at a laptop and watch all the farm equipment work from the camra installed. Occasionally approve a spare part for a machine that runs over 500 dollars. Also hire the accountants do the taxes, with negative income this year.
 
WELKER: Is there any hard evidence showing this particular boat was headed to the US?

TOM COTTON: That didn't come up in my briefing

WELKER: Are you comfortable having the US target a boat that you're not sure is heading to the US?

COTTON: I'm not just comfortable with it -- I want to continue it

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997687376974434308
 
WELKER: Lawmakers say the two men appeared to raise their arms potentially to signal a surrender. Why did Admiral Bradley interpret these actions as anything other than them trying to survive?

TOM COTTON: They were sitting or standing on top of a capsized boat. They weren't floating helplessly in the water. I don't think it matters all that much what they were trying to do

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997685923555803188
 
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you support this pardon of the former Honduran president?

ERIC SCHMITT: I'm not familiar with the facts or circumstances

STEPHANOPOULOS: What do you mean you're not familiar with the facts? It's been front page news

SCHMITT: You spew Democrat talking points every single week, which is probably why your ratings are so bad

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997682023129821281
 
Andy_Ross said:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you support this pardon of the former Honduran president?

ERIC SCHMITT: I'm not familiar with the facts or circumstances

STEPHANOPOULOS: What do you mean you're not familiar with the facts? It's been front page news

SCHMITT: You spew Democrat talking points every single week, which is probably why your ratings are so bad

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997682023129821281
Click to expand...
These chicken ◊◊◊◊◊ can't handle anything approaching a difficult question.
 
Resume said:
I don't know what I'd do (besides panic) if I were a birthright citizen upon hearing the SCOTUS is taking up the case.
Click to expand...
I had three grandparents born outside the U.S. (two Canada, one U.K.) My ancestry through my father's father has been in the U.S. since about 1650. If U.S. citizenship laws become like the Nuremburg Laws, I would NOT be considered a birthright citizen. I would be similar to being 3/4 Jewish.
 
Last edited:
shemp said:
I had three grandparents born outside the U.S. (two Canada, one U.K.) My ancestry through my father's father has been in the U.S. since about 1650. If U.S. citizenship laws become like the Nuremburg Laws, I would NOT be considered a birthright citizen. I would be similar to being 3/4 Jewish.
Click to expand...
I wasn't directing the post at you, but in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom