SaveMeeJeebus

@bigchaunc64 @FilmCritHULK Twitter is a fun game where you have to guess the news based on your feed’s info-sparse commentary

@GravityDarkAge @tommysantos14 They’re not “permanently subject to their country’s jurisdiction”. That’s absurd. Jurisdiction is explicitly tied to geography.

@tommysantos14 1. 14th applies to baby, not parents. Clear in text. 2. Foreigners are temporarily under US territorial jurisdiction, BUT permanently subject to their country's jurisdiction. 3. Universal understanding: Baby has parents' citizenship as birthright, and is under that jurisdiction.

Without fail, whenever the topic of birthright citizenship comes up and we begin debating the 14th Amendment all over again, the level of sheer stupidity and hallucination in my replies makes me weep for the future of this country. Stupidity, because we have this massive thing called "The Internet" where anyone with basic typing, research, and comprehension skills can confirm if the things they believe are true or not, and there is a large part of this country that refuses to use it. Hallucination, because the number of those same people who have become perfectly comfortable inventing something in their heads and spewing it as fact - with complete confidence - is way too high for us to survive as the world's largest superpower. The definitions MAGA concocts for the word "jurisdiction" alone are something else. I'm just going to start replying with this image from now on. MAGA, how do you all function at work?!?

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 It’s not a circle answer. It’s just the answer. You refuse to accept it for some reason.

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 lol wtf circle answer is that BS?

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 Because they are not the children of representatives of the government of a foreign nation.

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 What's that sentence above that say??? and explain how illegals have OWE ALLEGIANCE to the US in any way....

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 He was EXPLICITLY talking about children of foreign ministers. That is the context of the quote snippet you pulled as seen here.

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 nope....it doesn't say that it says "persons"

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 Yeah, the children of ambassadors, foreign ministers, and other diplomats.

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 “persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens.”

@furiouswhopper @kevinbaum013 You’re saying anybody who breaks the law and tries to get away with it isn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Come on man.

@kevinbaum013 It's bizarre to claim that people who have blatantly refused to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US are somehow subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Congrats you figured out that kids diplomats didn't get birthright citizenship, which has been the law for well over a 120 years. Do you want a cookie?

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 Trumbull was obviously talking about the children of ambassadors, foreign ministers, and other diplomats.

It was defined on the senate floor by the man who wrote it.... Senator Lyman Trumbull (key sponsor, author of the 1866 Act): “Subject to the jurisdiction” means “not owing allegiance to anybody else” and “not subject to some foreign Power” — “birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” He explicitly rejected citizenship for “persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens.” now let's look at the historical context... The original Constitution (pre-14th Amendment) contains no explicit birthright citizenship rule. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress power over naturalization, and the Founders deliberately broke from English common laws' doctrine of perpetual allegiance based solely on birthplace (jus soli, as in Calvin's Case and Blackstone). Instead, they adopted a consent-based model of citizenship grounded in natural rights, social compact theory, and mutual allegiance. In his 1774 essay “A Summary View of the Rights of British America,” Thomas Jefferson wrote that “our ancestors, before their emigration to America, were the free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as to them shall seem most likely to promote public happiness.” In his 1791 Lectures on Law, James Wilson stipulates at least three distinct conditions under which individuals may renounce their former allegiance and depart from their native country. This ideal was carried forward in many States constitutions breaking from British Tradition and NOT allowing birthright citizenship... Citizenship had to earned and an immigrant had to be accepted by the people and be a contributing member of society prior to getting citizenship for them or any of their children regardless of where they were born.

@GravityDarkAge @tommysantos14 “Universal understanding: Baby has parents' citizenship as birthright, and is under that jurisdiction.” This is NOT a “universal understanding” in any sense. It is completely up to the rules of the foreign country:

@BlemDeux @ClarsenDean @artfanszone I agree, the nausea this video provokes (from the unrealistic, exaggerated, out-of-sync way the background shifts with respect to the motion of the camera), is real.

@ClarsenDean @artfanszone but what you feel watching it, is real, and will never be AI slop. So does it matter?

@shoeboxlarry @anahithevixen @Noredlac_prime @DualityofMane @plaything______ man just shut up

@anahithevixen @Noredlac_prime @DualityofMane @plaything______ How the fuck do you know, you can read their mind? Also what is the financial part of LA exactly? Please explain yourself

i love when LA feels more like tijuana than nyc

@SlidinDelta @SenEricSchmitt It's clearly being used to introduce a clause giving further information about a person or people previously mentioned, the aforementioned "foreigners, aliens"

@SaveMeeJeebus @SenEricSchmitt No. It’s a series starting with the relative pronoun who.

The Citizenship Clause was written to overrule Dred Scott. It wasn't written to create an incentive to prop up our tourism industry, incentivize illegal crossings, or invite invasion by rivals. If a judge can't distinguish the two, they've lost the plot.x.com/mrddmia/status…

@lbyron @neoavatara It's abundantly clear from the senatorial debate over the amendment that they were talking about newborns of ambassadors and foreign ministers when talking about people not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

@neoavatara In both cases the original intent is clear by the writings of the authors of the amendment. In both cases, the right is promoting the original intent. You are not, apparently.

The constitutional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the right wing's equivalent of the Left's use of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." to try to twist the original meaning of the Constitution.

@SlidinDelta @SenEricSchmitt “foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” The “foreigners, aliens” are the newborns “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”

@SenEricSchmitt And here in the Congressional Record stands presented the applicability of the 14th Amendment:

@briannalyman2 lol that’s one of the strongest arguments? Erler is an idiot who doesn’t know how people talk

One of the strongest arguments against birthright citizenship: Sen. Howard said during opening remarks of the citizenship clause debate: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States...This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” As Edward Erler anticipated, the left has argued that Howard meant to only include “families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” when he used the wording “who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” But “if so,” Erler argues, “this would be an extraordinarily loose way of speaking: ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens and their designation as such would be superfluous.” Erler argues the commas following “foreigners” and “aliens” “suggest a discrete listing of separate classes of persons excluded from jurisdiction.”

@sentinel_actual @togton1 @ScottGreenfield “foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers” The babies who belong to the “families of ambassadors and foreign ministers” are the “foreigners, aliens”

@togton1 @ScottGreenfield Yes. The oxford comma shows 3 categories: Foreigners. Aliens. Families of Ambassadors and foreign ministers. The senator did not state the same thing 3 different times. He had 3 separate categories.

You're never going to believe why the US can arrest, prosecute, convict and imprison aliens, and even deport them. It's because they are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Who knew?

@DJCrabhat @JayLPhil @davepl1968 @mehdirhasan I immediately blocked him after posting it lol, life’s too short to argue with idiots

@JayLPhil @SaveMeeJeebus @davepl1968 @mehdirhasan Hope you get up to something fun this evening, not just keep posting your GED level race science all night.

This is the proud language of a white supremacist. There’s no other way to describe it and no defense of it. Pure racism.

@JayLPhil @DJCrabhat @davepl1968 @mehdirhasan Read a fucking book en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Ger…

@DJCrabhat @davepl1968 @mehdirhasan Then one would have to wonder, why there's societies have never evolved at the same rate and base that white Europeans or Asians have? If we all have the same cognitive abilities, then why don't we have the same level of infrastructure?

@noobpsyborg42 @paulg I see a lot of them that sound like sycophantic fortune cookies

@paulg And AI writing has no soul most of the time. It does not have opinions

Sadly, one way I now recognize fake AI-generated replies is that AIs write punchier sentences than most ordinary humans.

@MeatFriday @dieworkwear Most people who had this growing up ended up eating in the kitchen all the time anyway while the dining room only got used on like 3-4 holidays

@dieworkwear A large functional non-open kitchen accompanied by a separate large traditional dining room is the best.

hate is a strong term bc i dont care how other people live, but when i browse zillow, im saddened to see how open concept kitchens have become the default. especially when combined with too many overhead can lights and barn doors.

@gunboneyard @hexadecimallol @StatisticUrban He’s talking about professional class jobs. For example compensation in tech jobs can definitely be half (or worse) of what you would make in NYC.

You seem to be drastically overestimating how much NYers earn (and Americans in general): NYC median wage: $49k~$51k USD / $81k median household income London median wage: $62k USD UK median networth: $176,370 US median networth: $124,041 osc.ny.gov/files/reports/… ubs.com/us/en/wealth-m… commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief… data.census.gov/profile/New_Yo… Can also make an argument NYC has shit African food. NYC's weather is also notoriously bad too.

London is a better city than NYC. I've said what I said, I can do no other.