ทวีตที่ปักหมุด
It's treason/sedition (18 U.S. Code § 2384) if they violently oppose deportations, and "insurrection" (18 U.S.C. § 2383) if they non-violently oppose it, and this qualifies them for having their citizenship revoked by mere court martial under provision (a)-(6) of 8 U.S. Code §1481.
The formal legal definition of an “American citizen” is somebody whose exclusive allegiance is to the tribe of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (the former subjects of the Great Britain), which reigns sovereign over all territories within American dominion, and who crafted their republic specifically to “promote the general Welfare” of themselves and their posterity. That is, the free White men of good moral character, who inherited the crown’s claims of “discovering” federal territory, through “His Britannic Majesty” acknowledging the free and independent sovereignty of their United States in the 1783 Treaty Of Paris. Until Article 7 of the treaty proclaimed that “There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other,” there was no such thing as an “American citizen” within said United States of America. Instead, there were only “subjects” of the crown.
The legal theory of “citizenship” thus inherits its definition from the Mediæval English conception of “subjugation” wherever its definition has not been explicitly amended by treaty or by statute; as the United-States Supreme Court explains (See Calvin’s Case (1608) 77 Eng. Rep. 377, 407, 7 Co. Rep. 1 b; Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655):
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,’—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects.”
(“Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem” meaning “Protection draws allegiance, and allegiance draws protection” as the maxim is stated. Such is the natural-law argument stated in The Declaration Of Independence [2], which states that ‘His Britannic Majesty’ has abdicated sovereignty over the colonies “by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.”)
This country's founders crafted our republic specifically to "promote the general Welfare" of themselves and their posterity. To this end, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 grants Congress the exclusive power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization”. The first six times this was called upon, in the 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802, 1813, * 1824 Naturalization acts, this power was levied to restrict naturalization to “free White persons” of good moral character having been subject to Federal jurisdiction for varying minimum periods of residency; 1790 was before the Bill of Rights was passed, and the next three were before the establishment of judicial review.
What was the effect of the 14th Amendment? Well, there's a difference between "amending" a law and "repealing" it.
The 14th Amendment was passed to codify the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which the president vetoed for reason of (correctly) interpreting it as being unconstitutional. The 1866 Civil Rights Act read as follows:
"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"
Here are the words of the guy who wrote the damn bill:
"This will not, OF COURSE, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States," (see image 1)
digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewconten…
This is a list, not an interjection, because it has the word "or" concluding four list items. This grammatical rule has (rightly) fallen out of favor because it's dumb, but it used to be taught that lists were written "w, x, y or z" instead of "w, x, y, or z". The NYT and AP stylebooks actually still recommend this madness to this day.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_co…
The drafters of the Amendment recognized different degrees of jurisdiction.
static.heritage.org/legal-and-judi…
Reflecting the usage of Calvin's (1608) case as concerning *exclusive* allgiance, in Amendment 14, the citizenship clause has in mind "complete" jurisdiction, meaning exclusive jurisdiction (see image 2):
On April 7 1870, a resolution of the Senate instructed the Committee on the Judiciary to clarify confusion on the issue:
The committee said it was clear, to it, that “the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no effect whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States,” but that “straggling Indians” were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewconten…
That being, Indians lacking foreign allegiances. Remember, it took a separate Naturalization Act specifically targeting Amerindians to assimilate them.
From there, the 1870 Naturalization Act restricted citizenship to Whites and Blacks only, with all other peoples excluded specifically on account of their race, and the 1924 Naturalization Act imposed nation of origin quotas to reflect that share of the country's nationalities according to their share of the population.
The legal rationale behind granting citizenship to former slaves was that the southern institution of slavery had shorn them of all foreign allegiances, which means that the federal government can discharge its responsibility to protect White interests while "naturalizing" the "American" Africans to be their fellow American "nationals" / countrymen (whereas by contrast, the institution of slavery promoted civil war by privileging the votes of southern Whites above northern Whites); by right of White Americans being subject to the federal government (in the same way that the federal government and his Britannic Majesty are regents, subject to God, who can seize all Human property whenever he feels like it), the federal government could therefore tax its subjects and seize their chattel. This was originally meant to be kind of a legal fiction before Lincoln could have the "American" Africans amicably sent back to Liberia, but Lincoln was shot before he could exact this.
In theory, "to ourselves and our posterity" was never overturned, only amended to include the "American" Africans as fellow progenitors of "our" interests and biological ingredients, with the theory being that the "American" Africans' exclusive allegiance were to the original electorate.
Clearly however, this theory of allegiance is obsolete. If, 159 years after the 14th Amendment, and 58 years after loving VS Virginia, an American African still has ≤50% White Admixture, without having children of ≥50%-White blood allegiance, they're clearly part of a kin network whose primary allegiance is not to the American nation, and which does not consider itself subjugated to American dominion.
Globalization, and with it digital communication and air travel, is a scathing indictment of birth location as prima-facie evidence of allegiance, considering that we're all free to live in our own little worlds now. Blood is the only sensible measure of allegiance these days. By merit of their biological ingredients, men vary in their whims & needs & instincts & preferences & interests. Hence, they are more gratified when afforded territory which they can reshape to promote those interests, in any arbitrarily-intangible manner. The mere presence of anybody anywhere is thus a seizure of territory. Mapped to the earth, genetic variation among peoples has major discontinuities commensurate with geographic barriers to migration. Hence, nations.
“Nation” and “natal” share a common etymology, with the Latin "natio" meaning "birth" or "origin"—Natio itself is connected to the proto-indo-european root "gene" which we now use in words like "gene", "generate", "genesis", and "genetics". See also the word "nascent" and the middle-English "nacioun" meaning "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language"
The "racist" European countries used to have jus soli too. They abandoned it because it was impractical for them, jus like it is impractical for us. In fact, the nations which abandoned it first were disproportionately the ones which economically developed the quickest. We're merely BEHIND the fold here; America is a settler nation (as recognized by the Puritans, the most powerful influence on our nation's founding culture, these people being religious extremists who were expelled from England at the point of the sword, who were all about the "shining city on the hill" & perfecting the human condition, and who spawned such mentalities as "manifest destiny" & "eugenics").
The Federal government has a duty to enact the 1798 Alien Enemies Act and expel that oxymoron known as "The Nation Of Immigrants" to reservation territories.
If not, that means that White Americans are the sovereign's only unprotected subjects, because we are the only bloodline whose allegiance is not premised on special protections. The way this manifests in concrete financial reality is that, on top of having their wages garnished to compete against them for housing, White children are made to sign under duress to indenture themselves to unconstitutional (these are Mediæval peerage institutions explicitly outlawed by Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) reputation-laundering cartels which they KNOW are malinvestment, because that's the price of "not being homeless for the immediate next 6 months" and because they don't have the time or the money to even figure out how to admit defeat and move to a lower cost of living area. It's time that either everybody else was subject to the same legal status (on pain of expulsion for renouncing their citizenship) or that White Americans were absolved of their allegiance. If not, then how about this? How about we abandon jus soli and jus sanguinis, make castration/hysterectomy the price of citizenship, and make this a REAL nation of immigrants which you're only allowed to vote in if you weren't born here? Are the Asians that much better then me at producing bread and circuses? Fine, new social contract: Don't produce enough bread and circuses this quarter? Your pool of foreign labor dries up, the "country" is nothing, there's no backup plan, and federal "territory" now belongs to Canada or Mexico or China.
This, of course, would overturn mountains of precedent to implement, and would probably require an Amendment. After all, it would flip citizenship from being premised on exclusive allegiance "to ourselves and our Posterity" towards allegiance to everybody who isn't them, thereby overriding the premise (other than cowardice) by which we recognize jus soli and jus sanguinis in conjunction, as well as for having "oaths of allegiance" in our naturalization ceremony; see also e.g. 8 USC §1401 which states the following:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
…
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions 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 prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;”
It’s interesting that provision “(d)” of 8 USC §1401 should mention the term “national” as a noun. This demands definition of what a “nation” is, and what a “national” of a nation is (which i've already defined).
To aid and abet evasion of law enforcement by "The Nation Of Immigrants" is to meet our formal legal definition of “insurrection” under 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which states: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” To conspire to forcefully oppose its removal is to meet the formal legal definition of “sedition” under 18 U.S. Code § 2384, which states: “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
Being convicted of either of these offenses qualifies you for having your citizenship revoked under 8 U.S. Code §1481 which states in provision (a)(6) that "A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by..."—"committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction" with "the intention of relinquishing United States NATIONALITY" AS DETERMINED BY "court martial."
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/…
The United States Supreme Court has greenlit Donald Trump's invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. We have the legal ability to revoke the citizenship of anybody who counts themselves among that oxymoron known as "The Nation Of Immigrants" and have them deported.
tawny@tawnniee
so it's treason then
English
