Post Illegal Alien Crimes Here

[TastySuckToy]

The immigrants are not.

You're such a dishonest shit. RightGuide said illegal immigration is bad, not immigrants.

You leftie loons have yet to explain why illegal immigration should be allowed when legal immigration has a system already in place.

 

[Rightguide]

The immigrants are not.

Illegal immigrants are.

 

[Rightguide]

You're such a dishonest shit. RightGuide said illegal immigration is bad, not immigrants.

You leftie loons have yet to explain why illegal immigration should be allowed when legal immigration has a system already in place.

They want to replace the American voting majority with foreign people who are more amenable to Socialism and central control. The know they can't sell that shit to real natural born Americans so Democrats decided to violate federal law and throw open the border to invasion. They should all be tried for treason.

 

[Politruk]

Illegal immigrants are.

They're not. They're just producers and consumers and taxpayers. They are of value to American society, and of considerably more value than any voting Republican.

 

[Politruk]

They want to replace the American voting majority with foreign people who are more amenable to Socialism and central control.

That's all pernicious lies when Tucker Carlson says it on Fox and it's no truer here.

 

[TastySuckToy]

They want to replace the American voting majority with foreign people who are more amenable to Socialism and central control. The know they can't sell that shit to real natural born Americans so Democrats decided to violate federal law and throw open the border to invasion. They should all be tried for treason.

That's one reason.

But another more demanding reason is money: the elites and big corperations want very cheap labour and wage suppression with an inflated work force and wage slave class, that can't appeal to the legal system because said illegals already violated it themselves.

Lefties have literally said that Americans won't clean toilets and do really cheap labour. But they dress up wanting a slave class as really being 'caring and helping the working class'.

Here's a good example of lefties slipping up and saying what they really mean:

 

[Buffalogurl]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/15/us/laken-riley-murder-trial/index.html
Here's an update to the Laken Riley....... this sub human admitted to " hunting women"... my question is where are the femm-nazis screaming for his blood/head on a platter
Say her name politruk....

 

[ll74]

They want to replace the American voting majority with foreign people who are more amenable to Socialism and central control. The know they can't sell that shit to real natural born Americans so Democrats decided to violate federal law and throw open the border to invasion. They should all be tried for treason.

You want to circumvent the law with executive overreach.

If they step foot on American soil, they can claim asylum. Want to change that, change the law

If you wish to remove birthright citizenship, feel free to work on the Amendment needed.

 

[Rightguide]

That's one reason.

But another more demanding reason is money: the elites and big corperations want very cheap labour and wage suppression with an inflated work force and wage slave class, that can't appeal to the legal system because said illegals already violated it themselves.

Lefties have literally said that Americans won't clean toilets and do really cheap labour. But they dress up wanting a slave class as really being 'caring and helping the working class'.

Here's a good example of lefties slipping up and saying what they really mean:

I wonder how many toilets any of those entitled bints have cleaned.

 

[Politruk]

You're such a dishonest shit. RightGuide said illegal immigration is bad, not immigrants.

There is no meaningful difference.

You leftie loons have yet to explain why illegal immigration should be allowed when legal immigration has a system already in place.

It is not allowed, by definition.

Beyond that:

"Why can't they just come legally?"[edit]​

The primary means of legal immigration to the US are through familial relationships with a US citizen, employment, diversity visas, or humanitarian grounds. However, there are caps to family sponsorship (226,000) and employment (140,000) visas, and there is a maximum seven percent per country whose citizens can receive family or employment visas. Research by Congress has found that employment-based visas have waiting lists extending for 100 years.[36]

Many people present as undocumented immigrants are unable to qualify for the aforementioned means of legal immigration due to lack of family connections or skilled employment; the employment based visas are limited to high-skill professions. Additionally, asylum is not available for people migrating for economic reasons. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops argues, "The Catholic Church believes that current immigration laws must be reformed to meet our country's need for low-skilled labor and facilitate the reunification of families."[37]

 

[Philthy_Phil]

.. my question is where are the femm-nazis screaming for his blood/head on a platter

You're right here.

 

[ll74]

I wonder how many toilets any of those entitled bints have cleaned.

Lol.... seriously

 

[Rightguide]

You want to circumvent the law with executive overreach.

If they step foot on American soil, they can claim asylum. Want to change that, change the law

If you wish to remove birthright citizenship, feel free to work on the Amendment needed.

Don't need an amendment only a ruling on the language in the 14th Amendment and revisiting the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898 and SCOTUS understanding that his parents were not illegal aliens. Get educated before you come back to argue this point with me.

 

[Politruk]

Don't need an amendment only a ruling on the language in the 14th Amendment and revisiting the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898 and SCOYUS understanding that his parents were not illegal aliens. Get educated before you come back to argue this point with me.

Not even in its present formation will the SCOTUS end jus soli citizenship.

 

[ll74]

Don't need an amendment only a ruling on the language in the 14th Amendment and revisiting the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898 and SCOYUS understanding that his parents were not illegal aliens. Get educated before you come back to argue this point with me.

Nope. It will take an amendment. SCOTUS already ruled on it. You think it was narrow enough of a ruling to not be valid and that's simply a bullshit online narrative.

You're not educated on that except from people who hate "anchor babies" and lie to you. Literally the only people who argue that point are people who want to end birthright citizenship and are not objective.

 

[Politruk]

and throw open the border to invasion.

Immigration is not invasion.
Type that 100 times before you post another word on this subject.

 

[Politruk]

They want to replace the American voting majority with foreign people who are more amenable to Socialism and central control.

I hope we all can agree, now, that the Immigration Act of 1924, crafted to bar out all but northern Europeans, was a national disgrace. And the reasoning behind it was that other immigrants could not internalize American republican institutions. Let us not ever again allow that kind of thinking to play a role in immigration policy.

 

[Rightguide]

Nope. It will take an amendment. SCOTUS already ruled on it. You think it was narrow enough of a ruling to not be valid and that's simply a bullshit online narrative.

You're not educated on that except from people who hate "anchor babies" and lie to you. Literally the only people who argue that point are people who want to end birthright citizenship and are not objective.

Shut up dipshit and study Wong Kim Ark (1898). Understand as well dipshit that the key to understanding Wong Kim Ark (1898) is that his parents were not illegal aliens. The critical aspects of the Wong Kim Ark case is that Wong's parents were not illegal aliens in the sense we understand today. They were Chinese immigrants living legally in the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act (which severely limited immigration from China but still allowed for some legal entry and residency). Wong Kim Ark's parents had residency status and were not considered "illegal" under U.S. law at the time. This distinction is essential to understanding the implications of the case in terms of birthright citizenship. All of which is probably above your IQ or education level.

The fact that his parents were legal residents of the U.S. gave the Court a significant basis for applying the 14th Amendment's jurisdictional clause to Wong's case. Their legal residency meant that they were subject to U.S. jurisdiction, which was a key argument in the decision to grant their son citizenship, as Wong was born on U.S. soil.

Why This Matters for the "Illegal Alien" Question:

The distinction between Wong’s parents and "illegal aliens" is crucial. Wong's parents were legal residents, and the Court’s ruling was based on the premise that individuals lawfully in the country were subject to the laws of the U.S., and therefore their children were entitled to birthright citizenship. This case did not address the status of individuals who are in the U.S. unlawfully (as illegal aliens).

If the parents had been undocumented or in the U.S. illegally, the situation might have been different because they would not be fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the same way as lawfully present residents. The jurisdictional argument in Wong Kim Ark was centered on the fact that the parents, despite their foreign citizenship, were living legally in the U.S., making their children subject to U.S. law.

So, could the Court Have Ruled Differently if the Parents Were Illegal Aliens?

It’s speculative, but likely, yes. If Wong’s parents had been illegal aliens—not legally residing in the country—the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause might have been interpreted differently. Children born to foreign nationals unlawfully present in the U.S. (as is the case with undocumented immigrants today) may not be seen as fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the same way as those born to legal residents. Trump's EO will be challenged in court and in the end It's highly likely they will rule against birthright citizenship as it is falsely understood today by the American left and the constitutionally ignorant.

A side note to the claim of absolute birthright citizenship, it didn't work for the American Indian who were were all "born here." It took the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, to grant them citizenship in 1924. Why is that? We know why, they weren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as contemplated by the 14th Amendment and its authors.

It can also be argued that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship provision was never intended to extend to military invaders or other foreign forces who are in the country with hostile intentions. The jurisdictional principle in the Wong Kim Ark case hinges on being within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, not on whether the individual is a citizen or legal immigrant. Thus, while the Wong Kim Ark case reaffirmed broad birthright citizenship, it did not imply that anyone and everyone on U.S. soil automatically qualifies for it, particularly if they are in the U.S. in a capacity that does not recognize U.S. jurisdiction (such as in the case of foreign diplomats or enemy forces). We know that many who have invaded the United States are here with hostile intent because they demonstrate it daily. The American people absent the Left can understand the absurdity of those people dropping a child on US soil and then being blessed with US citizenship.

As we go forward this issue and the arguments I have stated above will unfold in the media and the courts as well as here on Lit where I will stand ready to run your arguments through with both wit and clarity.

 

[ll74]

Shut up dipshit and study Wong Kim Ark (1898). Understand as well dipshit that the key to understanding Wong Kim Ark (1898) is that his parents were not illegal aliens. The critical aspects of the Wong Kim Ark case is that Wong's parents were not illegal aliens in the sense we understand today. They were Chinese immigrants living legally in the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act (which severely limited immigration from China but still allowed for some legal entry and residency). Wong Kim Ark's parents had residency status and were not considered "illegal" under U.S. law at the time. This distinction is essential to understanding the implications of the case in terms of birthright citizenship. All of which is probably above your IQ or education level.

The fact that his parents were legal residents of the U.S. gave the Court a significant basis for applying the 14th Amendment's jurisdictional clause to Wong's case. Their legal residency meant that they were subject to U.S. jurisdiction, which was a key argument in the decision to grant their son citizenship, as Wong was born on U.S. soil.

Why This Matters for the "Illegal Alien" Question:

The distinction between Wong’s parents and "illegal aliens" is crucial. Wong's parents were legal residents, and the Court’s ruling was based on the premise that individuals lawfully in the country were subject to the laws of the U.S., and therefore their children were entitled to birthright citizenship. This case did not address the status of individuals who are in the U.S. unlawfully (as illegal aliens).

If the parents had been undocumented or in the U.S. illegally, the situation might have been different because they would not be fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the same way as lawfully present residents. The jurisdictional argument in Wong Kim Ark was centered on the fact that the parents, despite their foreign citizenship, were living legally in the U.S., making their children subject to U.S. law.

So, could the Court Have Ruled Differently if the Parents Were Illegal Aliens?

It’s speculative, but likely, yes. If Wong’s parents had been illegal aliens—not legally residing in the country—the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause might have been interpreted differently. Children born to foreign nationals unlawfully present in the U.S. (as is the case with undocumented immigrants today) may not be seen as fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the same way as those born to legal residents. Trump's EO will be challenged in court and in the end It's highly likely they will rule against birthright citizenship as it is falsely understood today by the American left and the constitutionally ignorant.

A side note to the claim of absolute birthright citizenship, it didn't work for the American Indian who were were all "born here." It took the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, to grant them citizenship in 1924. Why is that? We know why, they weren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as contemplated by the 14th Amendment and its authors.

It can also be argued that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship provision was never intended to extend to military invaders or other foreign forces who are in the country with hostile intentions. The jurisdictional principle in the Wong Kim Ark case hinges on being within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, not on whether the individual is a citizen or legal immigrant. Thus, while the Wong Kim Ark case reaffirmed broad birthright citizenship, it did not imply that anyone and everyone on U.S. soil automatically qualifies for it, particularly if they are in the U.S. in a capacity that does not recognize U.S. jurisdiction (such as in the case of foreign diplomats or enemy forces). We know that many who have invaded the United States are here with hostile intent because they demonstrate it daily. The American people absent the Left can understand the absurdity of those people dropping a child on US soil and then being blessed with US citizenship.

As we go forward this issue and the arguments I have stated above will unfold in the media and the courts as well as here on Lit where I will stand ready to run your arguments through with both wit and clarity.

Lol....you have convinced yourself of the argument that Miller gave you and you actually spent way too much time on it,imo.

SCOTUS will rule. Good luck on your expectations.

 

[Rightguide]

Lol....you have convinced yourself of the argument that Miller gave you. SCOTUS will rule. Good luck on your expectations.

I stated these arguments in the past before he was out of school. You need to read them and better inform yourself.

 

[ll74]

I stated these arguments in the past before he was out of school. You need to read them and better inform yourself.

Yes, you spent a lot of time on your bullshit.

I don't need to read your racism. And certainly know that your echo chamber reinforces that. I'm confident that SCOTUS will uphold the amendment as written.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, you spent a lot of time on your bullshit.

I don't need to read your racism. And certainly know that your echo chamber reinforces that. I'm confident that SCOTUS will uphold the amendment as written.

Point out the bullshit, smart guy. Show me the racism. You take zero time to study subjects. You jump in with jerking knees to attack them because you dislike me. I take that as unbalanced stupidity.

 

[stxjimmy]

Has anybody pointed out the obvious, a Haitian ate my dog.

 

[ll74]

Point out the bullshit, smart guy. Show me the racism. You take zero time to study subjects. You jump in with jerking knees to attack them because you dislike me. I take that as unbalanced stupidity.

Lol....of course

Your threads and posts here reinforce.my perspective....the racism is clear. You "study" by finding people that agree with you.

I study by looking at what people post here, from all perspectives, and then listen and pursue people who make arguments that disagree with me to understand their arguments. I spend more time on sites that you visit than sites that you think I visit.

You're a racist and misogynist prick.

 

[Rightguide]

Lol....of course

Your threads and posts here reinforce.my perspective....the racism is clear. You "study" by finding people that agree with you.

I study by looking at what people post here, from all perspectives, and then listen and pursue people who make arguments that disagree with me to understand their arguments. I spend more time on sites that you visit than sites that you think I visit.

You're a racist and misogynist prick

You don't do any of that. You see a member's name you enter the thread to huff and wheeze out your hate and ignorance.