₦airaland Forum

Legitiscool:
➜ appeal supreme court verdict? Supreme court have been bleeping him back to back from removal of his name to pay his rape victim

Kobojunkie:
1. Nonsense! He used the system as it was meant to be used. Now that he knows there are no laws to enable what he hopes to achieve, the next step is to see if an amendment can be gotten through Congress on the issue. This is how the system has always worked for at least the last 200 years.

2. End tourist births? Easier said than done. The executive order signed on his first time was the first attempt made at ending the tourist birth situation.

3. He shouldn't!

Kobojunkie:
Wrong! The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. The job of Congress, however, is to make laws and change/amend existing ones. The next stop is Congress.

friday2011:
➜And you think the Congress will support him, they are not "rubber stamp" like what we have in Nigeria,
➜ dont be surprised that even his fellow republicans will not support him on this.

Kobojunkie:
Troubling? That is the common sense next step to this.

morpheus24:
➜Look ...I am a progressive globalist so look for a tribal nationalist to support your sentiments.

Kobojunkie:
No need to shift the goal post. Your original claim was that the Supreme Court was the final stop, a statement that is not true. America is not and will never be Nigeria, where nothing literally works at all.

Now, whether or not Congress will support him is a totally different issue entirely. And that can be easily changed by the American people if they are willing.

shortgun:
This is what a true democracy looks like.
The supreme Court of Nigeria will never give any judgement against a seating president because they are all cowards

Kobojunkie:
A progressive globalist? You mean you are on the side of the illegal immigrants massacring their way through Nigeria, killing and raping in the name of Islam? Let me guess, are you also an Islamist?

Kobojunkie:
So, if I am against the government allowing illegal immigrants into the country and securing the borders, am I a tribalist national? That does not even make a lick of sense.

Yemmysworld91:
You are the ignorant person here.
How much of Montesquie division of powers do you know?
A power drunk executive took a decision and the judiciary quashed it and you are here typing gibberish.
I know you have running battles with Obidients on this platform, I'm not thier fan either. But that's a country with strong institutions not what we have down here

morpheus24:
1.Being on the side of illegality and being on the side of the freedom to move from one place to another are two completely different things.
2. Why would you conclude from my early premise that I am islamist?
3. Most nationalists usually masquerade themselves as patriots fighting "illegal" immigration when in reality they really just want to see people who are identical to them in belief and looks hanging around them all they.
4. I understand that primal sentiment though. Its a hard wired survival instinct.

Kobojunkie:
1. But you said people should be able to freely access any space out there without restriction, something that is illegal in almost every state out there, including the one these invaders came from.

Kobojunkie:
If I, for example, exercised this right of freedom of movement and moved myself into your house, and helped myself to your property, would you consider my actions illegal? If yes, why? If no, why?

Kobojunkie:
2. I didn't conclude! I instead asked because it could be that you are OK with terrorists being able to freely enter even Nigerian space and massacre the people as they so please.

Kobojunkie:
3. So, a person who submits to the laws and regulations of any particular space is to you, someone who just wants to see people who are identical to them in belief and looks hanging around them all they. That is what you believe? If a person invades your private space without your permission and helps himself to your property, as a non-nationalist, you would be welcoming in this treatment because to you, doing otherwise would amount to you being nationalistic about your space and property, right?

Kobojunkie:
4. Primal sentiment? On the other thread, you claimed that humans had not always been nationalistic from the beginning, but here you admit to the tradition being primal. How come?

morpheus24:
➜I didn't say that.
➜Those actions would be illegal based on whatever "laws" you set up for entry into your house.
➜ Your laws however do not trump the freedom I have to move into your house.
➜The fundamental right to move from one area to another is not equal to allowing a thief to enter into your house to massacre you.
➜A conundrum created by the artificial creation of citizenship rights which do not supersede the fundamental right to freedom of movement.
➜The primal instinct of survival within systems that create scarcity and distribution of limited resources drives the so called feeling of nationalism.

Kobojunkie:
Not necessarily! The next step is to get an amendment through Congress.

Cmeo:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics/live-news/supreme-court-cases-news?post-id=cmr0r4mr3000b3b6rn82lg1rn

YesDaddyTill203:
America is made up of citizens with common sense, ethical, and moral, instead of your country full of crooks but expecting their govt to be perfect.
Your country and government are a representation of the people in the country.
You cannot have a country full of unethical, immoral people but expect your govt and country to look saintly.

ednut1:
every country in north and South America are a country of immigrants. Do they all have birth right citizenship?

ednut1:
every country in north and South America are a country of immigrants. Do they all have birth right citizenship?

FreeStuffsNG:
You are ignorant se.
When you drag yourselves so low to believing their fake sophistry, do so with the humility to learn from people who can free you from the inferiority complex.

As I type here, I repeat, if US has strong institutions, a convicted person with multiple felonies will not even be their President. That will never happen in Nigeria because institutions are rooted in strong family and communal level.
Institutions are structures that hold you accountable. US does not have strong institutions and they are just realizing it and tells you how shallow they are.

US as a country is younger than most traditional institutions in most parts of Nigeria. Those structures you are ignorant of, are still relevant and powerful in Nigeria till date.

Where insititutions work, that case will never reach the SC. It is like going all the way to SC to strip your own tax-paying citizens of theit citizenship.

Trump is using their tax to fund an immoral charade to strip a set of tax-paying US citizens of their citizenship.

Only ignorant people with low self esteem will believe that US has strong institutions.

Deepthoughts:
O Let's be sincere, would other countries accept what they demand of the US?

Maeve7:
✓ And if birthright citizenship is not a thing, Trump has no business being in the US. His grandparents came from Germany. Their son, Trump’s father, became a citizen by birthright and not by descent. His mother was from Scotland. So without birthright citizenship neither Trump nor his kids are American.

Forumobserver12:
✓ That's not entirely correct, we still have some morally and ethically decent Nigerians... Our electoral system enthrone morally bankrupt individuals as a result of state capture..

One day Nigeria will breakaway from the current system and mind you, a morally decent leader can inspire the citizens to always do the right thing..
✓ When a leader leads by example, the citizens will follow naturally...

Mirasteel:
You meant radical Christians and zionist Jews?

Kobojunkie:
1. You claimed you were a Progressive globalist but also not a nationalist. Did you not say these things?

Kobojunkie:
2. So, you are not for freedom to move, after all?

Kobojunkie:
3. How? If my laws restrict your ability to freely move into my house, doesn't that then mean the freedom you claim to have is only an imagined one?

Kobojunkie:
4. When a person illegally enters a nation, he is no different from a thief illegally entering a home. Why? Because in both cases, the laws and borders of the space are violated by the intruder. So, where does this imagined freedom to break into a home or nation, which you keep insisting on, come from?

Kobojunkie:
5. Again, citizenship has never been an artificial construct. Humans(and animals) have almost always been territorial. And members of each territory have always had ways of identifying each other and separating themselves from outsiders. That has been part of human tradition from the beginning. It used to be about bloodlines and, at some point, language and dialect. Citizenship is merely a modern approach to pretty much the same idea.

Kobojunkie:
So, when you say citizenship created some sort of conundrum, you are literally making no sense at all, particularly as you keep insisting on humans having some sort of right which you have yet to reveal what it is backed by.

Kobojunkie:
6. Systems/territories create scarcity? How do they do that when it is instead that resources themselves are scarce, to begin with?

Kobojunkie:
Are you somehow insinuating that once this freedom of movement is exercised by all, there would no longer exist a scarcity of resources?

Kobojunkie:
If your parents are Americans and you are born, in Nigeria for example, you are an American because your parents are themselves Americans. You are not necessarily a Nigerian even though you were born on Nigerian soil. 🥱

Trump's parents were naturalized Americans before they had him making him American no matter were on earth he may have been born. Let's at least get this much straight at this point in the debate. 🥱

What is currently being contested is the fact that an illegal alien, or a temporary visitor to the United States could simply claim citizenship by plopping down a baby on American soil. That is what is contested and to be removed in other that all immigrants to the United States are forced to go through the same process to become naturalized. 🥱

morpheus24:
....➜No. I can force my way into your house, kill you and take the house. The ability for you to restrict entrance into the house is not contingent upon the "imaginary" law you enact. It is contingent upon we both agreeing that the law is enforceable by you and I am subject to it.
➜ It still does not trump the fundamental and nature given right for me to move from one place to another.
....

morpheus24:
➜ In most of modern history birthrights and citizenship rights have been based on Jus sanguinus " a blood right" and Jus Soli, " born of the soil. Most countries have removed Jus soli except for the United Sates who enshrined in its constitution the right to "jus soli".
People often want to retain advantages over other people so they feel special or better than them which is why after attaining advantage, they want to shut doors behind them. It will start with "illegal" immigrants but it will not end there which is why we must be careful with people who aspouse such rhetoric.

Kobojunkie:
1. You literally explained that to enter, you would need to force your way in, implying that there is a law enforced --- a door, gate, window -- not necessarily with your consent(since a thief/terrorist/criminal would not care for such things), restricting your so-called "freedom of movement" right. You are literally arguing around your own self, and you don't see how nonsensical you sound with this?

Kobojunkie:
2. You literally explained that you, not nature or some unseen force, are the Force behind your claim to freedom of movement. It is all made up by you, and your intention is to impose it on others by forcing your way into their territory and property as you feel entitled to. What in the world are you still droning on about then?

Kobojunkie:
It will not end with the closing up of loopholes allowing criminal/illegal elements to cut to the front of the line before others? And you base this on what?

morpheus24:
➜The restriction is a human construct. The innate desire to conquer your space and subplant myself in that space is an ahbberation of nature. Tde freedom to move from one place to another is a natural state of being. If you are still confused, I am sorry I can't help you because your arguement is based within a construct you have accepted as natural.
➜ Did you design your body to function the way it does. If not then what did?

morpheus24:
➜Ask the illegals who arrived here on Ellis island from Europe years ago who's children took advantage of the constitution way after the 14 amendment was enacted to make blacks full citizens.

First, the people who arrived at Ellis Island were not illegal immigrants. They were prospective immigrants arriving at an official port of entry to be inspected, screened, and documented according to the immigration laws of the time.

Immigrants arriving at Ellis Island were not given citizenship. Ellis Island was strictly an inspection and processing station. Passing inspection only granted them legal permission to enter the country as lawful permanent residents; becoming a U.S. citizen was a completely separate, multi-year legal process