SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1764967123

Message started by Eegore on 12/05/25 at 12:38:43

Title: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/05/25 at 12:38:43

Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review. Official information could be posted on Monday and the assessment will begin in the spring.

Maybe the "under the jurisdiction" nonsense will actually get some backing from a real US Court for a change.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by thumperclone on 12/05/25 at 13:56:17

we are all birthright citizens children of immigrants at one time or another

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/05/25 at 14:25:53

we are all birthright citizens children of immigrants at one time or another

Doesn't matter.

This applies now and for future humans in the US. Using your logic there are no US Citizens, or a United States because there was a time when the US did not exist. We are also all lungfish because there was a time before humans.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/05/25 at 14:39:41

Why is it necessary to "review" something that is made clear in no uncertain terms in the original Constitution? It's just another MAGAT plot to strip citizenship from non-white people,

>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Serowbot on 12/05/25 at 15:05:26

The Constitution only applies to the 2nd Amendment
Didn't you know that? :-?

684343424A4355260 wrote:

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/05/25 at 16:13:51

Why is it necessary to "review" something that is made clear in no uncertain terms in the original Constitution? It's just another MAGAT plot to strip citizenship from non-white people,

I'm sure plenty of men said something like this before Aug 26, 1920 when they didn't want women to vote.

No part of the US Constitution should be exempt from potential change.

The Amendment process for the Constitution are there for this reason. Things are going to change over time and the US legal system needs to change with it. If the birthright citizenship process is being abused in a capacity that is detrimental to the overall good of the People, then it should be amended. If it is not detrimental then things should continue as they are now.

SCOTUS review is going to be part of that process, pass or fail.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/25 at 04:04:57

Of course you have no automatic right to full US Citizenship if your birth mother gave birth on US soil while she herself was not a US citizen.

Seems pretty simple.

The only reason you liberals are twisting yourselves into pretzels is because one: you see an opportunity for future voters and two:politics is a game and the blue jersey team is on one side and the red on the other.

“The United States and Canada are the only two developed/high-income countries with completely unrestricted birthright citizenship as of 2025. Most European, Asian, and Oceanian countries have abolished or heavily restricted it.”
Countries That Recently Restricted or Abolished Birthright Citizenship
• Ireland (abolished in 2004)
• New Zealand (2006)
• Australia (1986, with restrictions since)
• United Kingdom (1983)
• India (1987, tightened 2004)
• France (1993, now requires additional conditions)
• Dominican Republic (2010, retroactively for Haitian descendants)
Countries With Conditional/Restricted Jus Soli
Examples of common restrictions:
• At least one parent must be a citizen or legal permanent resident (e.g., most of Europe, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia).
• Child must apply or register later (e.g., Portugal, Spain, Germany for certain cases).

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/25 at 04:15:45

Global Overview of Unrestricted Jus Soli

Unrestricted (or unconditional) birthright citizenship—where nearly anyone born on a country’s soil automatically becomes a citizen, regardless of parents’ status (with standard exceptions for diplomats or invading forces)—is practiced in approximately 30–35 countries out of about 195 sovereign nations worldwide. [ch65532] [ch65532]

This makes it a minority policy globally, as the majority of countries (around 160) rely primarily on jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent/blood) or conditional versions of jus soli. [ch65532] [ch65532]
Regional Breakdown
• Western Hemisphere (Americas): This region overwhelmingly adopts unrestricted jus soli. Out of roughly 35 countries in the Americas, about 30 have it, including major ones like the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and most of Central and South America (e.g., Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, and Caribbean nations like Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago). [ch65532] [ch65532] [ch65532] This stems from historical influences, such as post-colonial constitutions modeled after the U.S. 14th Amendment or similar principles in Latin American independence movements.

• Europe: No country offers unrestricted jus soli. Most (e.g., Germany, France, UK, Italy) use jus sanguinis or require conditions like parental residency or later application by the child. [ch65532] [ch65532] Several, like Ireland (2004) and the UK (1983), abolished unrestricted versions in recent decades due to immigration concerns.

• Asia: Only Pakistan has (or had) unrestricted jus soli, but it passed restrictions in late 2024 requiring parental citizenship/residency or 10 years of child residency; implementation is ongoing but effectively ends the unrestricted policy in practice. [ch65532] Other Asian countries (e.g., China, India, Japan, South Korea) use jus sanguinis exclusively or with strict conditions.

• Africa: Only Chad and Lesotho are sometimes listed, but with nuances (e.g., Chad requires a choice at age 18). [ch65532]

• Oceania: Fiji and Tuvalu are occasionally cited, but no major countries like Australia or New Zealand (both restricted it in the 1980s–2000s). [ch65532]
In numerical terms: The Americas account for about 85–90% of countries with unrestricted jus soli, while Europe (0 out of ~50 countries) and Asia (effectively 0 out of ~50 as of late 2025) have none. [ch65532] [ch65532] [ch65532]

This distribution is why sources describe the policy as “predominantly” or “the norm” in the Western Hemisphere, while it’s rare or absent elsewhere—making regions like Europe and Asia statistical outliers in not adopting it. [ch65532]

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/25 at 04:23:34

0D2626272F2630430 wrote:

“Made clear in no uncertain terms in the original Constitution? “

What exactly did the original Constitution say about citizenship? Not any amendment, but in your phrase, the original Constitution?

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/06/25 at 07:30:41

If you're born here, you are a US citizen.
If you're not born here, but immigrate, and pass the citizenship exam, you're a US citizen.

Not much wiggle room there, is it?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/06/25 at 11:14:16

Of course you have no automatic right to full US Citizenship if your birth mother gave birth on US soil while she herself was not a US citizen.

SCOTUS disagrees, multiple times. So according to US law, there is automatic US citizenship for any human baby born on US soil with only a few exceptions like ships in port, or Officially recognized Diplomatic parents.

Trump had to initiate this process because of SCOTUS rulings.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/06/25 at 13:25:55

Make that make sense. If SCROTUS* disagrees with birthright citizenship, the fact that it is plainly in the Constitution means SCROTUS is crooked as hell, and breaking the law themselves by ignoring the Constitution. That's grounds for impeachment and dismissal of ALL the GOP appointed so-called "Justices."

[* SCROTUS-- Supreme Court (Republican) Of The United States]

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by WebsterMark on 12/07/25 at 05:49:19

1A3A38302D3A5F0 wrote:

I am of course aware of that. I was expressing not just the logical view, but the view of the majority of the world.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/07/25 at 07:20:06

14th Amendment

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by WebsterMark on 12/08/25 at 05:19:30

No $hit Sherlock, everyone knows what the 14th Amendment says but it was specifically written for the slaves after the Civil War and excluded Indians because they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. At the time, it was specifically said visitors who had children while here and when the father was not a citizen, that child is not a citizen.

If there’s anything more clear than changing this policy of automatic citizenship, I’m not sure what it could be.

Yea, I get it, you want future voters for your team but FFS, you’re like a disease that destroys it’s host.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by MnSpring on 12/08/25 at 05:47:54

112324353223340B27342D460 wrote:

"... was specifically written for the slaves after the Civil War ..."

So a Female, (Citizen of some other Nation), crosses a river, (a Boarder to the US), then gives birth in the US.

That baby is automatically US Citizen, and the mother, in most cases, can stay with that 'baby' as a caretaker for 18 years.

So it would be perfectly OK for
Eva Braun/Hitler, (if alive today)
birth a baby in the US,
and that child is now a Citizen of the US.

(according to,
a, 'Full -Blown', Socialist !)

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/08/25 at 10:29:52

That's how it's worked for a long time. That's what the first part of the 14th Amendment is about. And NO, the SC can't change that. Since it's an AMENDMENT, it's now part of the Constitution, just like the 2nd. All the SC can do is look at a subsequent law and decide if it follows the 14th or not. The SC CANNOT "decide" an Amendment is not Constitutional, since it IS the criteria they are compelled to use to evaluate other laws. (ANOTHER instance of a law that cannot be subjected to the whims of the Kangaroo Supreme Court, despite Eyore's LIES.)

Supreme Court (Rigged) Of The United States = SCROTUS

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/08/25 at 12:40:35

(ANOTHER instance of a law that cannot be subjected to the whims of the Kangaroo Supreme Court, despite Eyore's LIES.)

This coming from the guy that proclaims impeachment requires a separate "Federal Court" decision outside a Senate vote. At least I provide references.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/08/25 at 13:59:40

Hey, just a fairness heads-up, I've reported you to the pseudo Bar Association. You should at least apply the same criteria for "libruls" as you do for MAGATs, and you NEVER biatch about MAGATs' lies...

That isn't a "reference", BTW; it's the actual Constitutional Amendment. Even a pseudo lawyer should know that.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/08/25 at 14:03:22

Hey, just a fairness heads-up, I've reported you to the pseudo Bar Association. You should at least apply the same criteria for "libruls" as you do for MAGATs, and you NEVER biatch about MAGATs' lies...

And they complain I never address "libtard" lies.

If you lied less, I would address it less.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/08/25 at 14:26:14

If you restricted yourself to only criticizing LIES, I'd be ok with it. But, NO, you harp on what YOU think are lies I've told historically, instead of calling out MAGATs who are lying NOW. Look through your own posts. Ever since I admitted to having lied in the past, like any HONEST person does, you bring that up at least every 3rd or 4th post in a personal attack. So, my avatar lives in your head, and I'm thinking it trashes the place like Led Zeppelin trashed hotel rooms.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/08/25 at 14:37:57

If you restricted yourself to only criticizing LIES, I'd be ok with it. But, NO, you harp on what YOU think are lies I've told historically, instead of calling out MAGATs who are lying NOW.

What lies should I address now? Follow your own demands of others and provide references.

Ever since I admitted to having lied in the past, like any HONEST person does, you bring that up at least every 3rd or 4th post in a personal attack.

You didn't admit to lying in the past, you said you would lie to get your way. When you say things like this you should expect people to bring that up when you claim you are not lying.

Besides I already stated you generally do not bring up lies, you just over-react and state nonsensical garbage when people do not agree with you. Rancher is a "Corporation" for example - you lied about that in what appears to be knee-jerk response. Ample evidence (multiple court documents) has been provided proving your statement to be false, yet you continue, without any evidence (that you demand of others) to state your lie is factual.

I don't know what other response you expect when you make something up, then keep insisting it is true.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/08/25 at 14:48:25

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/08/25 at 15:03:01

Ranchers are always corporations. So are farmers. Unless you're talking about subsistence ranchers/farmers--- then they're called "homesteaders". Igrew up on a sharecropped cotton farm, owned by the bank--- even that was really a corporation. Are you talking from a pseudo lawyer POV, or are you speaking about reality?

Again, more nonsensical garbage. Follow your own standards you demand of others and provide reference. Simply provide a reference "valid" by your own standards that "Ranchers" are "always" "corporations". Your statement means every "rancher" is incorporated.

This is false. A human can own a ranch, be called a "rancher" and not be incorporated as such. Or maybe its a 6 Sigma thing again where we are supposed to use a completely unrelated algorithm to justify such a blatantly false claim.

This guy owned 9 acres, was never incorporated. You think he was, so you lied and said he was, and are now presumably trying to avoid admitting you assumed he was an incorporated business. Where's the honesty now?

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/08/25 at 15:16:10

9 acres is not a ranch, unless he's maybe raising goats. And, if he only has 9 acres, why is there a holding pond? 9 acres would not be enough cattle for that. We had some 20 acres of pasture for the milk/meat cows, and we never had more than 10. We had no holding pond at all. That few number of cows doesn't justify it. Again, if the farm is a viable business, it has to have a business license, or it can't sell anything. Only a moron would even try. So, you're saying the "rancher" is a moron? Hey, maybe it's just a pseudo ranch for laundering money!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by WebsterMark on 12/08/25 at 15:20:29

7358585951584E3D0 wrote:

They can change the practical application of it by clarifying what is the meaning of the phrase “under the jurisdiction thereof”. The original constitution, as you like to say, did not discuss anything along the lines of birthright citizenship, and the 14th amendment, when originally ratified at the time, did not either.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/08/25 at 15:41:51

9 acres is not a ranch, unless he's maybe raising goats. And, if he only has 9 acres, why is there a holding pond?

That was the original argument. His "stock pond" didn't actually meet any conditions the EPA initially fined him for.

Again, if the farm is a viable business, it has to have a business license, or it can't sell anything.

He had a business license, an LLC is not a "Corporation". My cousin has an LLC to sell custom earrings, she is not a "Corporation".

https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+an+LLC+a+Corporation%3F&sca_esv=ec9d3b8357a6f1a1&sxsrf=AE3TifNzLUDkKa2sEZuTd3qSXOBhL0vjLw%3A1765236641041&ei=oV83afqYAvbckPIP5rKJ-AM&ved=0ahUKEwi67bv3kq-RAxV2LkQIHWZZAj8Q4dUDCBM&uact=5&oq=Is+an+LLC+a+Corporation%3F&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

So, you're saying the "rancher" is a moron?

No. I am saying you lied about him being a "Corporation". When it is clear from the multiple court documents he is not in any way.

The difference here is when thumperclone lied and said he "destroyed wetlands" to make the stock pond - he just never responded to the empirical evidence showing that to be false and let it go.

You on the other hand just keep making up random sh!t to defend the random sh!t you manufactured in your head. Like now "Ranchers" are "always corporations" which is very, very easily proven to be false. One doesn't even need to be a lawyer to figure that out. You complain I engage in "personal attacks" maybe consider how many times you double down on the nonsense you state out of reaction with none of the evidence you demand of others.

Nobody cares about any of this - it's just how you react to things.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by MnSpring on 12/08/25 at 15:46:19

4C6767666E6771020 wrote:

"... grew up on a sharecropped cotton farm, owned by the bank--- ..."

Did the Bank Own the Farm, totally. Then pay your parents, (and other people), a wage ?

Or did the bank, have a loan on the land ?

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/09/25 at 06:22:13

1C3C3E362B3C590 wrote:

Which does NOT mean I'm wrong now, does it?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/09/25 at 06:28:35

7655684B4952555C3B0 wrote:

[quote author=4C6767666E6771020 link=1764967123/15#22 date=1765234105]"... grew up on a sharecropped cotton farm, owned by the bank--- ..."

Did the Bank Own the Farm, totally. Then pay your parents, (and other people), a wage ?

Or did the bank, have a loan on the land ?

[/quote]

Do you even know what "sharecropping" is? The bank OWNS the farm. In our case, it was a privately owned bank, so the banker owned it. The bank incorporates the farm, with the farmer as a "partner", which basically means the bank gets half the profits. Losses came out of the farmer's money. It is just another system rigged against the poor.

>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/09/25 at 06:31:05

Eyore, what, exactly, do the letters "LLC" stand for? Specifically, what does the "C" stand for?

Another LIE?

8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/09/25 at 07:31:16

This coming from the guy that proclaims impeachment requires a separate "Federal Court" decision outside a Senate vote. At least I provide references.

Which does NOT mean I'm wrong now, does it?

It very specifically does. You said the Senate does not decide and the decision goes to a Federal Court. That is wrong. You can try to manipulate your way out of this, but you made your stance clear.

Eyore, what, exactly, do the letters "LLC" stand for? Specifically, what does the "C" stand for?

Another LIE?

According the the IRS, and literally every LLC in the US:

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc

https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/llc-vs-inc-understanding-the-key-similarities-and-differences-between-an-llc-and-inc

The US courts, State of Wyoming, and the EPA acknowledge the Rancher was never a Corporation, not S-or C-Corp. You are the lone human insisting this to be the case, which makes sense because you lied about it and now are trying to find ways to make it true.

Maybe you can 6-Sigma this into being 100% correct.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/09/25 at 07:37:58

You're still resurrecting OLD conversations, I see. And YOU know d@mned well that the "C" stands for "Corporation". You're lying again... or still.

And, I never said impeachment relies on a Federal Court decision. You very well know that, liar. My intent was to say that if impeachment leads to a Senate trial, and that results in NOT removing a President, he is still open to federal court proceedings. He most certainly IS. You are DISinforming again.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/09/25 at 07:56:44

You're still resurrecting OLD conversations, I see. And YOU know d@mned well that the "C" stands for "Corporation". You're lying again... or still.

No it doesn't. How are you going to dodge the empirical evidence provided this time?

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc

Specifically, a domestic LLC with at least two members is classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes unless it files Form 8832 and affirmatively elects to be treated as a corporation.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+an+LLC+a+Corporation%3F&oq=Is+an+LLC+a+Corporation%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTY5MDZqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Let me guess, you will call all this "FAKE MAGA" websites so you can justify not looking at them, then you can continue to affirm "C" stands for Corporation. You just want your lie that he was a "Corporation" to be true so now are trying to find any way you can to make that true. Thankfully for the Rancher the US courts use actual documents and acknowledge he was never a Corporation, as agreed upon by all parties in the lawsuit. They must all be wrong.

And, I never said impeachment relies on a Federal Court decision. You very well know that, liar. My intent was to say that if impeachment leads to a Senate trial, and that results in NOT removing a President, he is still open to federal court proceedings. He most certainly IS.

Thats not what you said. I do agree that a POTUS that is not impeached can be Federally prosecuted.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/09/25 at 08:05:52

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/09/25 at 08:50:50

Oh, yes. You restate the obvious. In case you don't have much reading comprehension, that says, specifically, "for income tax purposes." What about in the event of a lawsuit? THEN, it's suddenly a corporation, to protect the personal finances of the owners.

Incorrect. Companies are not Corporations even in legal dispute, the protections are similar, but protections are not capable in and of themselves of altering an LLC to an Incorporated entity - according to the referenced Harvard Law School interpretation. The situation you specifically state where the Rancher is a "Corporation" is a lawsuit, and the Federal Government, State of Wyoming and the EPA all agree he was not a Corporation. They must all be wrong, are you a lawyer?

It was originally CALLED "Limited Liability Corporation", and the distinction is a moot point."

As you have said: Proof or its a lie. LLC started in Wyoming in 1977, specifically and only as "Company". This is what I am talking about, you just make sh!t up.

These morons at Harvard Law School have it all wrong:
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/08/29/a-new-understanding-of-the-history-of-limited-liability-an-invitation-for-theoretical-reframing/

Full paper:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3441083https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3441083

https://wyomingllcattorney.com/About/Invention-of-LLC-Wyoming-History
https://volpeconsulting-accounting.com/blog/history-of-the-llc/

Simple, provide reference that "LLC" specifically "originally" was CALLED "Limited Liability Corporation" and not the S or C-Corp that actual corporations have, that the Rancher did not have. You might have had to carry a PLLC, like most physicians, which would have "Corporation" in the framework. It's a PLLC for that reason.

The Rancher was not incorporated, you made that up.

The first "LLC" and following framework including the IRS national adoption Revenue Ruling 88-76 were not CALLED "Limited Liability Corporation", you made that up.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by WebsterMark on 12/09/25 at 10:12:31

WTF does this have to do with birthright citizenship?

The SCOTUS will overturn the case from the late 1800’s and common sense will reign.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Serowbot on 12/09/25 at 10:58:23

Being British but born on a US military base, I actually have both a US birth certificate and a British registration of birth (same thing), but neither of those are acceptable for anything in the US
Go figure
More is not better.. (my US birth certificate says place of birth is England)
SH!T!
I have an obscure military form that has been accepted by SSI and MVD, College, health insurance, etc..
If Trump gets around to it before dying or impeachment I expect to be sent away

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/09/25 at 14:25:19

The resident pseudo lawyer is starting to irritate even the MAGATs, I see. So much attention to moot point minutia! I actually agree with Web--- what DOES that have to do with birthright citizenship? Nothing. Eyore is just using that to distract and spew DISinformation. It's a common Republican ploy for when they're losing an argument. Like it or not, it is IN THE CONSTITUTION, and cannot be "overturned" by SCROTUS. If they could do that, they could overturn the 2nd Amendment.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/09/25 at 19:17:37

WTF does this have to do with birthright citizenship?

Needles claims I am lying about the information I provided in this thread. This obviously led to the list of lies Needles has presented on this forum. In that process I was sure he would fabricate more, in which he did:

"It was originally CALLED "Limited Liability Corporation" - not true. Especially in Wyoming as that has never been a legally accepted term according to Chief Deputy Attorney General Ryan Schelhaas.

What about in the event of a lawsuit? THEN, it's suddenly a corporation - not true. Harvard Law School examined this concept this in detail.

Ranchers are always corporations - not true. Doesn't even need an explanation to know this is false.

While this has nothing to do with birthright citizenship, the thread itself evolved to show while Needles accuses of others of lying, he quickly resorts to lying in order to defend his statements. See the above examples as evidence.

If you are going to jump in a thread accusing others of lying, at least try to not lie while doing it.

Needles also asked multiple questions unrelated to the topic, which leads one to believe he intends to, and is ok with, communicating off-topic. Given he is digging a deeper hole of verifiable duplicity, it makes sense he is now acting like he wasn't involved in the off-topic exchange.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/09/25 at 19:21:52

The SCOTUS will overturn the case from the late 1800’s and common sense will reign.

I don't think it's that simple. They can overturn the decision, but they need to actually amend the US Constitution on this topic don't they? If they overturned a decision on the 1st Amendment, that doesn't mean that Amendment is null and void.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/10/25 at 04:36:26

You ARE lying.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/10/25 at 08:04:12

Lies in this thread alone:

It was originally CALLED "Limited Liability Corporation" - not true. Especially in Wyoming as that has never been a legally accepted term according to Chief Deputy Attorney General Ryan Schelhaas.

What about in the event of a lawsuit? THEN, it's suddenly a corporation - not true. Harvard Law School examined this concept this in detail.

Ranchers are always corporations - not true. Doesn't even need an explanation to know this is false.

You ARE lying.

As usual, just provide reference, that you demand of others, of the lies stated.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by WebsterMark on 12/10/25 at 09:44:54

7D6B7C61796C617A0E0 wrote:

Were your parents both US citizens or was one British?
Regardless, you don’t seriously believe there is even the remotest possibility of that happening , do you?

And by the way, looks like Britain wised up.

British Nationality Act 1981: This Act, effective January 1, 1983, established modern British citizenship, meaning children born in the UK after this date to a parent who is a British citizen or "settled" (had permanent residency) in the UK would generally be British.

Parental Status: If one parent was a British citizen or had settled status (like under the EU Settlement Scheme) by the child's birth, the child would likely be British.

SOFA: The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and UK manages military personnel's presence, but the fundamental British nationality laws still apply for citizenship claims.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by WebsterMark on 12/10/25 at 09:46:21

624240485542270 wrote:

They don’t need to amend the constitution. All they’re going to do is clarify the phrase under the jurisdiction thereof.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by WebsterMark on 12/10/25 at 09:55:05

436361697463060 wrote:

Why you feel the need to “ store up treasures in heaven” by this back and forth is beyond me. It does provide some entertainment I suppose but it feels a little bit like racing a one legged man.

But, on that topic, a funny story. One time my son and I went to Denver to watch a baseball game, we went out the night before, and let’s face it, we were over served. The next morning, while we were still hurting, we wanted to see RedRocks, the outside concert site. It must be a very popular exercise place, because there were dozens and dozens of people working out, running up and down the stairs and on the rocks.

While we were standing there all fuzzy eyed and severe headaches, a woman on one leg hopped past us and hopped all the way down from the top to the bottom, and then turned around and hopped back. Talk about impressive. On my best day, in the best shape ever, high school football probably, I couldn’t have done that on two legs.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/10/25 at 14:17:00

What IS a corporation?
A corporation is a legal entity created by individuals or shareholders that operates as a single entity, allowing it to enter contracts, sue, and be sued. It provides limited liability protection to its owners and can exist indefinitely, governed by state law.

Legally, this pseudo person shields the owner(s) from personal liability in case of lawsuit, keeping the members' finances separate from the company; since the company is a pseudo person, it is responsible for its own decisions, transactions, and debts.

Functionally, so does an LLC. An LLC is much faster to be licensed, since it is formed under a set or rules rather than having its powers and rights spelled out, as in a full corporation.

An LLC, or Limited Liability Company, is a business structure that combines the liability protection of a corporation with the tax benefits of a partnership. It allows owners to protect their personal assets while enjoying flexible tax treatment options.

By filling out a Form 8832, an LLC is treated the SAME as a corporation by government, law enforcement, and the IRS, with ALL the protections afforded a corporation.

So, functionally, the same.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/10/25 at 17:07:48

By filling out a Form 8832, an LLC is treated the SAME as a corporation by government, law enforcement, and the IRS, with ALL the protections afforded a corporation.

So, functionally, the same.

When a Rancher has an LLC they are not a Corporation especially in the State of Wyoming which has never legally recognized Limited Liability Corporation as a legal term. No amount of describing the functions of similarity between the two make a definitive statement like "The Rancher is a Corporation" true. That statement is false - Needles lied about that assuming he had a large commercial ranch. This is shown by his recent statement acknowledging he had no idea how large his land was.

Also that statement doesn't apply to the Rancher in question because LLC, Sole proprietorship, Corporation etc. didn't apply in any way to the EPA case. The case material provided proves this.

Filing Form 8832 changes an LLC's classification only for federal income tax purposes. For all other legal and operational purposes, the entity remains a limited liability company governed by state law. This is why WY had statement in the case, because the Rancher was not under Federal jurisdiction for the charges in the case. This is why the EPA settled, using State regulations and to this day the Federal government agrees in regard to jurisdiction.

Needles lied. The Rancher was never a "Corporation". Claiming an LLC is functionally the same does not make the Rancher a Corporation, and it is a poor defense for the lie. Nobody is going to say, "Oh I thought Needles meant "functionally" a Corporation but really an LLC.

This intent of the statement that the rancher is an actual "Corporation" and not "functionally the same" is proven by another lie that LLC "ORIGINALLY" stood for "Corporation" - there is no evidence of this, something Needles demands of others. He made it up.

Simple, all Needles needs to do to prove he did not lie is show the Rancher is a Corporation, not an LLC - a Corporation. (this should be easy because he states "all ranchers are corporations") And also that LLC "ORIGINALLY" stood for "Corporation" using the the same verification standards he expects of others.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/11/25 at 05:15:53

From a stupid MAGAT POV, it is whatever y'all hallucinates it to be. From a larger perspective, "If it walks like a duck..."

It's the same disinformation Eyore, Sprung, etc. spew about Trump. Trump is a Nazi, plain and simple. MAGATs get all butt-hurt and say stupid sh1t like "Nazis are socialists--- it's in the name!" Names don't mean sh1t to MAGATs, so it's hypocritical to focus on such ridiculous sh1t, unless you're purposely being misleading. Same as this, a disinformation campaign to excuse the dictatorial acts of the MAGAT minions. The rancher was treated like a corporation, because, functionally, that is what a LLC is. Try pointing out the functional differences between corporations and companies. You're lying.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by MnSpring on 12/11/25 at 06:42:46

Needles wrote on Dec 8th, 2025, 4:48pm:
"... grew up on a sharecropped cotton farm, owned by the bank--- ..."

Again, no answer !!!!!

Did the Bank Own the Farm, totally. Then pay your parents, (and other people), a wage ?

Or did the bank, have a loan on the land ?

;D
;D
;D
;D
;D
;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/11/25 at 08:45:21

Same as this, a disinformation campaign to excuse the dictatorial acts of the MAGAT minions. The rancher was treated like a corporation, because, functionally, that is what a LLC is.

No he wasn't. The multitude of court documents provided prove otherwise. His LLC had nothing to do with the case - you made all that up. Another lie.

Besides, Filing Form 8832 changes an LLC's classification only for federal income tax purposes. For all other legal and operational purposes, the entity remains a limited liability company governed by state law according to the IRS, and the State of Wyoming. Even if his LLC was for his private land use, an LLC ONLY applies for tax reasons in regard to Federal jurisdiction specific to the EPA.

Also he never filed an 8832, so all of the defense using that as an argument doesn't even apply to the Rancher.

Try pointing out the functional differences between corporations and companies. You're lying.

I already did twice. The Rancher was not a "Corporation" and his LLC was deemed not pertinient to the EPA case. You keep making up more lies to try to defend your uneducated lie that he was a Corporation. You already admitted you didn't even know the land information showing you assumed he was a large commercial rancher, and not a man that the media called a "Rancher" who really only has a normal land plot.

Lets review:

Needles claims the "Rancher" was a "Corporation" - not true, proven by years of court documents.

Needles claims: All he had to be to be illegal was to be in the same watershed - not true, proven in the court documents, agreed upon by the EPA. He made that up.

Needles claims "Ranchers are always corporations" - not true, proven by simple common sense.

Needles claims "And YOU know d@mned well that the "C" stands for "Corporation" - not true. Proven by historical records, including thousands of clerk corrections correcting "Corporation" to "Company".

Needles claims "originally CALLED "Limited Liability Corporation" - not true. Proven by historical records and literally taught as such at Harvard Law School.

Needles claims What about in the event of a lawsuit? THEN, it's suddenly a corporation, to protect the personal finances of the owners." - not true. As a physician that held a license as a "Corporation" he should know where State law applies.

Needles claims: "By filling out a Form 8832, an LLC is treated the SAME as a corporation by government, law enforcement, and the IRS, with ALL the protections afforded a corporation." - not true. 8832 only applies to income taxes and specifically states it does not impact "all other legal and operational purposes"

https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-8832

His only defense, as usual, is to pull the name-calling "MAGAT!!!" card instead of offering the verifiable references he demands of others (where is his referenced proof that an 8832 applies the way he says?) - an action he will not accept from anyone else.

This further proves my assessment, that while Needles may not initially lie about many things, he will often lie in reaction to things he disapproves of, and then continue to make up more things to defend the initial lie.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/11/25 at 11:12:24

Fukov. Nobody believes a lying MAGAT anyway. You idiots don't even know what the political spectrum is because you've been brainwashed by morons. That makes the morons smarter than you, ICYMI. YOU are fascists. The Dems are centrists. I am something else.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/11/25 at 11:19:40

"Fukov. Nobody believes a lying MAGAT anyway. You idiots don't even know what the political spectrum is because you've been brainwashed by morons. That makes the morons smarter than you, ICYMI. YOU are fascists. The Dems are centrists. I am something else."

His only defense, as usual, is to pull the name-calling "MAGAT!!!" card instead of offering the verifiable references he demands of others.

Nothing about the EPA case had anything to do with Trump, nothing at all. Yet this is still a "MAGAT!!!" issue, instead of a factual case issue where evidence is presented. As another member stated, "Lie and Cry" is all we get from Needles.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by thumperclone on 12/11/25 at 11:25:55

not all magat issues have the prig FELONS stamp

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Eegore on 12/11/25 at 14:05:48

not all magat issues have the prig FELONS stamp

So events that happened years before his term are Trump issues? Another time and space does not apply method that is unique to this forum.

Sounds like people that blame the 08 economic crash on Obama.

The current EPA problems are Trump issues, I would be on board with that.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review
Post by Needles on 12/12/25 at 05:48:10

MAGATs weren't created. They were descended. They came from the Tea Baggers, who came from other radical righty groups, all the way back at least to McCarthy. MAGATs don't have an exclusive or in any way unique platform; it came from their bigot forbearers. So, yes, the issues predate Trump's first term. He just jumped on board and hijacked the GOP.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D