For those of you not paying attention, just posting a response like this can make you and your family a target.

This is not the US I knew.

>For those of you not paying attention, just posting a response like this can make you and your family a target.

Sounds like fake news. Link?

Not hard to find with a minimum of effort. Do a search for "ICE detains citizen" or "ICE family retaliation" and see the results roll in.

So you have no sources, got it.

Don't confuse my declining to enable your laziness with evidence you are correct.

Cool, you admit you don't have evidence. Thanks.

I want to be gentle because I know you upset easily, but I'm afraid you replied to the wrong comment. I didn't say I didn't have evidence, so either that comment was meant for someone else. After all, a literate person could not come to the conclusion you did, and I would never call someone illiterate when they're acting in good faith.

It wasn't an argument, just a response to someone saying something "sounds like" something.

>It wasn't an argument

Clearly.

>just a response to someone saying something "sounds like" something.

It was a response asking for sources, sources you still don't have. You're projecting about being triggered and still don't have sources to bring. Sad.

Sounds like you and they are equally competent at finding sources. It's not hard if you try.

I don't need to enable anyone's laziness.

>Sounds like you and they are equally competent at finding sources.

Sounds like you're failing at basic reading comprehension, which isn't surprising. I am not the one who made the claim, I do not have to supply sources.

>It's not hard if you try.

Trying doesn't make a difference: the sources don't exist.

>I don't need to enable anyone's laziness.

You have too much laziness of your own, I get it. You're also insanely triggered by my basic asks (since they are heretical apparently) which similarly doesn't surprise me. Any reply from you is an admission that you're triggered and don't have any sources.

That's a lot of effort you spent trying to move goalposts to try to project your insecurities. :-)

Can I try?

Any reply from you is an admission that you're triggered and don't have any intelligence. Also failing to reply is an admission of the same.

>That's a lot of effort you spent trying to move goalposts to try to project your insecurities. :-)

Goalposts haven't moved, you've just missed.

>Can I try?

No you may not, so the rest of your post is disregarded. Bet you're seething over opening yourself up to that.

Any reply from you is an admission that you're triggered and don't have any intelligence. Also failing to reply is an admission of the same.

I won.

It's pretty sad that you decided to come back to this a week later, and it's also telling that the majority of your comment is just things I wrote.

Guess we're done now that you've decided you win though. "I'm bleeding, making me the victor!"

>It's pretty sad that you decided to come back to this a week later

Not at all, I have a real life and don't log in every day and furiously click refresh and go through all the comment threads unlike you because you're so triggered.

>and it's also telling that the majority of your comment is just things I wrote.

Modern day Sherlock you are.

>Guess we're done now that you've decided you win though. "I'm bleeding, making me the victor!"

Glad you admit defeat.

No, some of us just have apps that let us know when someone replies.

Whether you were logged in or not, the decision to reply to this thread after a week was the sad bit. But I'm here for you to let off whatever steam you need.

I can admit defeat more if that will help you? Or should I try to give you an opportunity to say "triggering intensifies"? Or something else? Just let me know what will let you feel better.

>No, some of us just have apps that let us know when someone replies.

Sad and cringe.

>Whether you were logged in or not, the decision to reply to this thread after a week was the sad bit.

Translation: "You're not as terminally online as I am and I think that's sad."

>I can admit defeat more if that will help you? Or should I try to give you an opportunity to say "triggering intensifies"? Or something else?

No need to admit more, it's done. You replyguying is more than enough admission.

>Just let me know what will let you feel better.

You coping and seething is enough. Sad.

I'm glad you're getting so much out of this. Would you like me to use a "can I" again as a rhetorical device so you can reply "No you may not" again? I promise I'll be devastated.

US resumes visas for foreign students but demands access to social media accounts

https://ground.news/article/us-visa-restrictions-on-ecowas-s...

Note: 565 linked sources in that

You can easily tell when someone isn't asking something in Good Faith just by the first couple of search engine hits. Dead giveaway.

This is not an example of the scenario esseph described. Foreign students are by definition not US citizens and thus don't have any inherent right to be in the country.

Now Google for keywords Trump + naturalization, filtering for results in the last 2 weeks. Or what he said about "deporting" citizens by birth for a longer period.

Aside: limiting the argument to things that have already happened is uninteresting to me; you skate where the puck is going. One can easily do this by applying the administrations internal logic, i.e. what they said/did in the past, and what the ultimate goal/result was, and mapping that to what they are doing now to extrapolate future actions.

>Now Google for keywords Trump + denaturalization, filtering for results in the last 2 weeks

Lots of links to fake news sites and Russian propaganda outlets. Not sources.

The June 11 Justice Dept Memo on wedge applications for "5. Prioritizing Denaturalization"

https://www.justice.gov/civil/media/1404046/dl

with some discussion at: DOJ Opens Door To Stripping Citizenship Over Politics - https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/doj-opens-door-to-strippi...

The justice.gov site literally states:

  The Department of Justice may institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either “illegally procured” naturalization or procured naturalization by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).

They're just going to enforce laws that have been on the books for decades, that's all they're stating. TPM is a far-left propaganda outlet, not surprising to find some histrionic takes on made up scenarios there to rile up the base.

Her legal status is that she's a US citizen, she has the same "protection from any ICE rookie" as anyone else who is a US citizen naturalized or natural-born.

Right — in the absence of due process, none.

Right — in the absence of due process, none, the same as it applies to anyone regardless of status.

Agreed!

The president of the United States is literally fighting in court to get the authority to treat natural born newborns as aliens even though the plain letter of the United States Constitution says these babies are citizens.

In an environment like that, legal status doesn't mean shit.

>even though the plain letter of the United States Constitution says these babies are citizens

Their argument is that the "plain letter of the United States Constitution" doesn't say that explicitly: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_th...

Plenty of examples where birthright citizenship didn't apply in the past (and currently don't apply, such as American Samoa

Yes, we've had decades of assholes trying to worm exceptions to the 14th Amendment. But read the plain letter of it.

The plain letter of it states:

  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.

The argument is that certain overseas territories, foreign dignitaries, and illegal immigrants are "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The first two are not offered birthright citizenship, the latter is. If consistency is to be considered, illegal aliens should similarly not be offered birthright citizenship.

Well, it does say that explicitly. Them arguing the sky is green doesn't make the sky actually green. If they win a court case by arguing the sky is green, that says something about the court, not about the reality.

>Well, it does say that explicitly.

No, it says this explicitly:

  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.

>Them arguing the sky is green doesn't make the sky actually green.

They're arguing that the sky is blue, which the sky actually is.

>If they win a court case by arguing the sky is green, that says something about the court, not about the reality.

If they win a court case by arguing the sky is blue, and half of the political establishment rejects that, that says something about that half of the political establishment, not about the reality.

She has the same abstract rights.

What people care about is reality. Currently the reality is you can be subject to arbitrary detention and deportation with no due process, regardless of you rights.