Supreme Court Confirms Immigrants Do Not Have Constitutional Rights

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
February 28, 2018

Bad news, Pedro: you have to stay in jail. 

Yes, the Jews have been arguing for decades that the Constitution applies to everyone in the world. Of course at the same time, they are trying to abolish the Constitution.

That is the thing to understand about these Jews: they will make any argument that benefits their agenda to destroy the white race. They do not have some specific principle or ideology they are arguing for, they just simply want to promote the interests of their own race and to hurt our race.

That mode of thinking is alien to whites, to the point where we can’t even recognize it when it is right in front of us. Instead, we try to place Jews in categories based 0n the specific positions that we see them arguing for. But everything about Jews becomes clear very quickly when you find the courage to say: “they appear to be arguing for themselves and against us.”

Fox News:

A sharply divided Supreme Court has concluded that certain immigrants or asylum seekers do not have an automatic right to periodic custody or bail hearings.

The 5-3 decision comes as the Trump administration looks to shore up rules governing those seeking permanent entry into the country.

At issue is whether aliens requesting admission to the U.S. who are subject to mandatory federal detention must be afforded court status hearings, with the possibility of release into the country, if the detention lasts more than six months. That could include lawful permanent residents charged with a crime; those detained at the border seeking entry who might lack valid documentation; or those claiming fear of persecution if they return to their home country.

The key plaintiff was Alejandro Rodriguez, held for more than three years without any bond hearing. The Mexican national was convicted of misdemeanor drug possession and joyriding, but fought deportation. He eventually was allowed to stay in the U.S. after his release from custody.

With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, he sued, claiming his constitutional rights were violated.

In the majority ruling, Justice Samuel Alito said the government’s authority was clear: “Detention during those proceedings gives immigration officials time to determine an alien’s status without running the risk of the alien’s either absconding or engaging in criminal activity before a final decision can be made.”

Alito also accused the three dissenting justices of ignoring the relevant law. “How does the dissent attempt to evade the clear meaning of ‘detain’? It resorts to the legal equivalent of a sleight-of-hand trick.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, supported the judgment.

But Justice Stephen Breyer said the fact these are immigrants in custody does not diminish their right to a hearing.

“The bail questions before us are technical but at heart they are simple,” Breyer said, in an unusual oral dissent read from the bench. “We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, in particular its insistence that all men and women have ‘certain unalienable rights,’ and that among them is the right to liberty.

Breyer was backed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

They are all three Jews. And again, that is the literal Jewish argument: “the Constitution applies to everyone in the world, because of a sentence in the Declaration of Independence regarding the philosophical grounding of the revolutionary war.”

The actual reality is that none of what is happening right now would be approved of by our Founding Fathers. No one wanted to say it when the kikes were arguing for gay marriage, but Thomas Jefferson supported the death penalty for faggots. Now we light up the White House with a faggot flag.

And I mean, obviously the Founding Fathers all owned slaves.

The Jews will explain all of this away with arguments about how they were “men of their time” and they only believed and did the things they believed and did because it was normal at the time. Well if someone time changes the nature of reality, obviously that would then mean that nothing they did or said mattered at all, and it should just all be thrown out. All of history itself should just be considered irrelevant.

But: why is it that the passing of time changes the fundamental nature of human society? What is the basis of this theory?

The rightist arguments can all be reduced to: no, the nature of human beings has not changed, and thus the same principles apply now as applied then.

Our morality and our ways of interacting with each other have not really changed at all throughout recorded human history, before the last century (the century of the Jew).

The few moral differences between pagan Europe and Christian Europe stick out, but they are not very numerous and they have simple explanations. For example, polygamy was accepted in some pagan societies, but this was because of men having a higher chance of dying in war, so there being more women than men, and not being able to waste womb-space by letting a woman go without a husband.

You could point to a few other things, but overall, European moral and social standards have remained static.

What has changed is while under the impression that Jews were white people, we allowed them to influence our society.

Join the discussion at TGKBBS