0
20

[–] lemon11 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

Just like they changed the interpretation of "shall not be infringed" and many other things. The text has aided in this abrogation of rights, or it has been powerless to stop it. Either way, the system built on it is gone, replaced with something else.

[–] [deleted] 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
14

[–] ahollowpoint 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

which is why you simply change the language, no amendments required.

0
2

[–] lemon11 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

And yet that specific right is being infringed. It's done the way it's done because changing the Constitution is very difficult, which it should be. They've simply routed around it. We have federal prohibitions and gun laws, the pale shadows of which required amendments in the past.

I used to fear a Constitutional Congress, because it would open the floodgates to actually destroy it. Now I realize that it would be throwing fresh meat into an empty pen, demonstrating that the wolves are hungry, even if our livestock is all dead.

0
1

[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You can't, but they can.

0
1

[–] beesmeesmonies 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

it's all "engineered" out of these offices....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3lSjXhMUVKEYouTubeYouTube

0
12

[–] StunningAndBrave 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

The key task before us is to start making sure more and more people link this destructive bullshit with the Tribe that is behind it all.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
10

[–] strongsad 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

I think the first red pill couple possibly be Emanuel Celler, to realize that he spent most of his adult life trying to pass this bill. And that they lied about the consequences of it.

0
1

[–] Hispeedtim2876 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

0
1

[–] lanre 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I try to go for easy, well-documented examples. Then let them discover the rest on their own, and match it with their life experiences.

0
0

[–] Improvisinglife ago 

For example?

0
4

[–] Doglegwarrior 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

You know how many fucking dual citizen kikes and fucking mudslim pieces of shit have a greater alligence the. Their citizen ship alligence to the united states? Muslims think our goverment is below a shiity joke. Many jew kike parasites openly have care more have more loyalty to israel then the united states we need to start revoking citizenship.

0
0

[–] GoatSufferage ago 

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

0
0

[–] Doglegwarrior ago 

Ok lets chang it no anchor babies at all. Put it in clear english???

0
0

[–] Ken_bingo2 ago 

This is not true. "subject to the jurisdiction" is more general than "owing allegiance to". What it means is that some other authority outside of the USA was able to subject the person to their laws. This is much more broad than "owing allegiance to". So Sen. Lyman is being taken out of context, just like they kikes do with the 'jurisdiction definition.

Where the kike trickery comes in is using a definition of "jurisdiction" that is preposterous in context. I let you check the dictionary for the details, but the key point is that the US being sovereign is a given i.e. taken for granted.

3
-2

[–] Diggernicks 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

That dirty catholic traitor JFK helped this happen.

0
1

[–] badruns 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

He was killed in 1963. Care to elaborate?

0
3

[–] getshanked 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

My niece was born in the US while my sister and her husband were studying abroad. She moved back home within months. Now in future she can come and go as she pleases. Seems fucking absurd to me.

2
-1

[–] Amon-Goath 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

This article is wrong.

Birthright citizenship is historically "a given" with all nations and THAT is what the 14th Amendment is based on. I'm not saying this amendment isn't often misinterpreted but not in this way.

Here is a longer and more detailed explanation of it- What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

The article I posted goes on to explain how this tradition has been used by civilizations since civilizations began. You have to belong to someone and typically it is the country you're born into or one that your parents(father) belong to.

It also explains how subject to the jurisdiction of doesn't apply to illegals or ANYONE here in any illegal manner whatsoever. You have to be in the US "legally" before the US government has "jurisdiction" over you, otherwise you can simply be shipped back to your own country.

Again, this article is just plain wrong. sorry.

0
2

[–] RoundWheel 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Except it's not true for the US. If the native American Indians do not qualify, illegals sure a fuck don't either.

It's mental to believe shiting out a kid in a place you've invaded provides citizenship. It's profoundly stupid to even imagine such a thing is true. Worst are the people who believe this lie. Dimwits.

Birthright citizenship, as the name clearly implies, it given to citizens, not invaders.

Every anchor baby is an alien invader and should be treated accordingly. The fact that their parents are scum doesn't excuse they are the product of a crime and a fraud upon the American people.

0
0

[–] Damnpasswords ago 

If a camp follower of a hostile army shat out a kid, it wouldn't be considered a citizen. If a traveling merchant tried to get citizen rights by plopping one down, they'd both be thrown out. It wasn't a given.

0
0

[–] Amon-Goath ago 

If a camp follower of a hostile army shat out a kid, it wouldn't be considered a citizen. If a traveling merchant tried to get citizen rights by plopping one down, they'd both be thrown out. It wasn't a given.

  • Damnpasswords

yeahhh, you didn't read my post or the article. Which makes you a dumbass.

1
0

[–] heretolearn 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

everyone keeps saying (((they))), yet, WE let them. and by WE i mean all the baby boomers and generations before mine that let all this shit happen under your noses. and now all you fucks do is whine and complain instead of taking up arms and resolving the issues.

1
1

[–] Korinthian 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Semitic semantics.

load more comments ▼ (7 remaining)