Barely

And like you said you have until 2044

But for constitutional changes, you need a super majority

67% and in 2044 no one will be a majority

What spic or nigger is going to go with you revoking their citizenship?

And that’s two decades away

Depends, there might be a civil war

The US might break up

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2

Not many ways that citizenship can be revoked

Yeah but if trump played his hands right he would put section 8 housing in Hispanic areas

Thus making them fight each other

Trump isn't going to do anything, he's a moron

And he would support California’s independence

First you NEED to stack the supreme court with conservatives

As many as possible

Hell even get government espionage to get people in the state to support it

Yeah put section 8 housing in California

Support independence

Let them leave if it works

They commit Brazil and niggerdom

Then we deport all of the illegals, from DACA, birthright citizenship is revoked

Visa overstays or border crossers

You can’t revoke birthright citizenship

If they’re born on us soil they’re a citizen

Yes we can

That’s based off of a fucked up interpretation of the 14th amendment

The courts could easily fix that

k python -- to clarify what weez just said .... *as things stand right now*, you can't.

also, at this point, given the longevity of the precedence involved, you'd basically need a new amendment to change that (as a practical matter).

Yeah that’s true

I mean it’s correct the establishment is not working for us anyway

I think it’s going to fall apart

(i can't find it right now, but ....) i was watching a talk given by anthony scalia wherein he talked about various considerations when overturning precedence; and apparently it is considered "good law" to balance how __disruptive__ overturning something will be.
such as, if a particular <thing> has been in place for <some indeterminately "long time"> such that society has built itself around *that* particular interpretation, and changing that would "unduly disrupt" society, then the "right" decision is to leave it in place.
(don't know that i agree with that; but it is what it is)
iow, u'd need an actual amendment to change it

That's a pretty terrible way of doing things

Intentionally slowing progress down

No no silly, just changing the direction of progress.

"progress"

a)that seems to assume that rejecting precedence only goes in 1 direction
lol

b) the point is that you can't just go around ripping out long-standing ways of being *in 1 fell swoop*

i completely agree with the sentiment; i just don't think that i'd call it "good law"