No More Identity Politics
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 05:47
VIEWED: 6691
PAGE 5 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You heard it here, boys.
We're Legal As Fuck.
Put the bottle down Jack. Your post makes no sense.
T
That's what "LegalAF" means. Yanno... The dumb shit clickbait channel you just posted another dumb shit clickbait video from.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Diplomatic immunity comes to mind. It's not enuf to be a citizen of another country visiting or living in the USA to be exempt from our laws, but diplomatic immunity will do. IDK if (some? all?) tribal reservations - which are their own nations - are subject to USA law.
there are those walking among us who are not required to obey U.S. laws.
We know we live in a 2-tiered justice system. I just found it cute that they don't make any attempt to hide it anymore.
Quote:
Now, IDK if "diplomatic immunity" was a "thing" back then when that was written, so I don't know if that's what is being referred to.
Well, right.... right? Who knows? Nobody knows. How many are there? How did they get this status? Why do they have this status? Are they citizens? If not, what is their business here and how long will they be staying? Are there any living on my block?
All questions that you'll never have answers to because nobody with more than 5,000 twitter followers is ever going to ask and Elon Musk isn't going to re-tweet it. It should go without saying that the media will never ask this question.
Quote:
If your quote is correct, then everyone born in the USA is automatically a citizen (except children of foreign diplomats who apparently inherit their parents' citizenship) and "anchor babies" are legal.
Oh... Trust me. I have no opinions on how true or untrue this quote is. It's an extremely watered down interpretation for normies of what might be thousands of pages of legalese.
Even if the agency didn't have a bias either way and was planted firmly in the realm of reality, I think that's a really tall order.
I wouldn't go making any assumptions based off of that, and even if they state that specifically somewhere in the document, I'd want to see the actual proof or at least look into other people's interpretation of it.
Even if there is a string of legal cases that set a precedent for them to come up with this assessment, and even if their assessment was 100% correct as the laws stand today, these are all very low-level to mid-level court cases that have yet to make it up the chain. Things may look very different on this issue in 4 years with the speed at which things are playing out right now.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You heard it here, boys.
We're Legal As Fuck.
Put the bottle down Jack. Your post makes no sense.
T
That's what "LegalAF" means. Yanno... The dumb shit clickbait channel you just posted another dumb shit clickbait video from.
Like I said, put down the bottle.
T
The Fourteenth Amendment begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It applies to diplomats ... official representatives of foreign governments. Apparently there has been some form of diplomatic immunity since ancient times, protecting messengers and envoys, but that was all formalized in 1961.
Well, right.... right? Who knows? Nobody knows. How many are there? How did they get this status? Why do they have this status? Are they citizens? If not, what is their business here and how long will they be staying? Are there any living on my block?
Doubtful any living on your block, since they tend to live in residences next to their embassies in DC, or attached to consulates (one step down from full embassy) in major cities, or the UN in NYC.
Get some sleep, SIX. And take a break from this place.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You heard it here, boys.
We're Legal As Fuck.
Put the bottle down Jack. Your post makes no sense.
T
That's what "LegalAF" means. Yanno... The dumb shit clickbait channel you just posted another dumb shit clickbait video from.
Like I said, put down the bottle.
T
The Fourteenth Amendment begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Like I said. Quit shitting up the boards with your clickbait trash everyday.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:It applies to diplomats ... official representatives of foreign governments. Apparently there has been some form of diplomatic immunity since ancient times, protecting messengers and envoys, but that was all formalized in 1961.
Well, right.... right? Who knows? Nobody knows. How many are there? How did they get this status? Why do they have this status? Are they citizens? If not, what is their business here and how long will they be staying? Are there any living on my block?
We know it applies to Diplomats. What gives you any reason to believe that's the only people that it applies to? That's not at all what the quote stated.
On lower levels they get away with shit like this all the time...
Quote:
A member of Congress generally cannot be held liable for statements made during official legislative activity due to the Speech or Debate Clause in the U.S. Constitution. This clause protects them from being sued for what they say or write in relation to their legislative duties.
Elaboration:
Speech or Debate Clause:
This clause, found in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, grants members of Congress (Senators and Representatives) immunity from lawsuits and other legal actions based on their legislative activities.
Scope of Protection:
The clause's protection extends to any speech or debate in either House of Congress, as well as related writings and actions.
Purpose:
The purpose of the clause is to ensure that members of Congress can freely exercise their legislative functions without fear of being sued or prosecuted for their words or actions, thus promoting the proper functioning of the legislative process
Exceptions:
The immunity provided by the Speech or Debate Clause is not absolute. It does not protect them from arrest for certain serious crimes like treason, felony, or breach of the peace. Additionally, while they are protected from civil lawsuits, they may still be subject to disciplinary actions by their respective houses (House or Senate).
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, from our discussion here, it seems that
We agree on "no more identity politics"
Anchor babies are legal (unless found otherwise by SCOTUS)
Chipping away our Constitutional rights has been a bipartisan project
...
Correct?
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd say that's a reasonable assessment of the situation.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Strongly disagree.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, from our discussion here, it seems that
Anchor babies are legal (unless found otherwise by SCOTUS)
...
Correct?
Just because you found a lefty shill site to support your opinion does not mean anybody needs to agree with you.
try using a decent search engine (I tried duckduckgo) and look for "Mark Levin birthright citizen"
then read or watch and educate yourself.
Mark Levin has covered this topic numerous times - because some folk are just slow.
His shows are in podcast form on numerous forums and formats, I hear.
Supreme Court Justices are known to quote his legal work in their Opinions.
He does a fairly good job explaining simply why there is no Birthright Citizen - unless and until SCOTUS specifically rules it so.
By Constitutionality, it is easy to see. But with Roberts and Barrett, tough to call.
Also, Amendments ARE part of The Constitution, just not the initial version. The First 10 were even discussed and debated during the Constitutional Convention, they just couldn't get enough Colonies/States to agree to get it ratified with them included, to start.
And Trump is not trying to change any part of The Constitution, he is trying to start enforcing it.
As a practical matter, the fallacy of Anchor Babies has been in practice for a while. So now there must be some cutoff date by which the Law can start to be enforced.
THAT was the purpose of Trump's declaration. IF it is decided to confer legal status to the fallacy of the past, that date can mark the turning point. Or any other date that SCOTUS chooses.
Regarding Natives, I believe their Laws are partially governed or restricted by their Treaties. Some can vote in U.S. elections. Some cannot. Some can adhere to specific rules and choose whether to or not.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It wasn't me that came up with the "lefty shill site", which I assumed was typical of conservative thinking. Bad assumption. I've been told this was meant to make former slaves citizens, which makes sense seeing as it was ratified in 1868. But just wondering ... the USA was rapidly expanding westward. Was that intended to make "natives" citizens as well?
Anyway, I'm pretty agnostic on the topic myself bc I haven't thought very much abiut it, but I'd certainly like "anchor babies" to be illegal.
*****
From my work in a regulatory agency, I know that in order to properly interpret a regulation (law, amendment) you sometimes have to dig into rule development notes (discusions, letters, other records etc) and on occasion nothing will do but to talk to the original author(s). Would be nice if we could buttonhole them in this case.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME