Cindy Simpson

31.4K posts

Cindy Simpson banner
Cindy Simpson

Cindy Simpson

@Simpsonreport

Thankful. Conservative, Christian, CPA, Entrepreneur, Mainstream Media Skeptic. Essays at American Thinker, Am Greatness, Am Spectator, RedState. #BeABarnabas

Louisville, KY انضم Eylül 2011
3.8K يتبع3.6K المتابعون
Matt Van Swol
Matt Van Swol@mattvanswol·
@BillMelugin_ @GeneHamilton I had no idea this happened until this very moment. That is fucking insane, if true. So they did this legally? For two years??? ON TOP of illegal aliens crossing the border illegally? No way, is the true?
English
141
89
1.2K
15.7K
Cindy Simpson أُعيد تغريده
Bill Melugin
Bill Melugin@BillMelugin_·
The CBP One app was originally created to streamline trucking cargo for vehicles crossing the border. The Biden admin altered it to allow 50,000-60,000 otherwise inadmissible aliens from around the globe to enter the U.S. every single month for two years straight.
Snickel ⚡️@Crypto_Fritzz

@BillMelugin_ @monnakll CBP One App was rolled out in Oct of 2020. So Trump created the app.

English
81
1.3K
5.2K
177K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
@BrandonStraka It didn’t apply to illegals, nor those like al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese children born to US surrogates—earning “citizenship” w/ parents here temporarily as students, workers, visitors, or sent fertilized eggs from China. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
0
0
28
Brandon Straka #WalkAway
Brandon Straka #WalkAway@BrandonStraka·
President Trump discusses upcoming Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship, arguing the policy was intended for post–Civil War conditions, not modern cases. “And I’m going to go…”
English
1
8
56
2.6K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
Hope so. Another way to look at the issue vs analyzing the 14th, historical context, framers’ intent, case law, etc or its evolution driven by popular perception—is to take note of some of its absurd results, like “citizens” al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese children born to US surrogates—but also the resulting tens of millions of dual citizens residing here, especially a risk in a time of war. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
0
0
24
Cindy Simpson أُعيد تغريده
Mike Lee
Mike Lee@BasedMikeLee·
Biden badly misused immigration parole, using it unlawfully to bring millions of migrants into the U.S. A federal judge has now told Trump he can’t reverse Biden’s unlawful use of this narrow authority. It’s all so upside down.
The Daily Signal@DailySignal

A federal judge with a record of ruling against President Trump blocked his admin from terminating the parole of immigrants who entered the United States using the Biden administration’s app, writes @FredLucasWH dailysignal.com/2026/03/31/oba…

English
504
1.3K
5.3K
243.1K
Cindy Simpson أُعيد تغريده
Western Lensman
Western Lensman@WesternLensman·
Biden decrees legal status to hundreds of thousands of immigrants via an app but Trump can’t un-decree it, says a judge. But Trump is supposed to be the "King."
Western Lensman tweet media
English
47
325
1.2K
10.8K
Rapid Response 47
Rapid Response 47@RapidResponse47·
Associate White House Counsel @GraziellaPastor on the issue of birthright citizenship: "President Trump is absolutely right. The citizenship clause was passed in order to give citizenship to the children of freed slaves, not illegal immigrants."
English
34
277
1.3K
67.1K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
Another way to look at the issue vs analyzing the 14th, historical context, framers’ intent, case law, etc or its evolution driven by popular perception—is to take note of some of its absurd results, like “citizens” al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese children born to US surrogates—but also the resulting tens of millions of dual citizens residing here, especially a risk in a time of war: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
1
0
3
136
Laura Ingraham
Laura Ingraham@IngrahamAngle·
“The Supreme Court has never resolved this issue.” @GraziellaPastor pushes back on the left’s claim that birthright citizenship is settled law. The key question: What does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” really mean—and who it applies to.
English
66
110
596
44.3K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
Another way to look at the issue vs analyzing the 14th, historical context, framers’ intent, case law, etc,—while also noting, as has @DrJohnEastman, that it evolved as “popular perception”—not a constitutional mandate, court decision, or EO—is to take note of some of its absurd results: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
0
2
43
Hans Mahncke
Hans Mahncke@HansMahncke·
For those who can’t access the paywalled article, everything hinges on what “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States actually means. That much has always been understood, so the professor walks through historical context showing it traditionally meant not owing allegiance to any foreign power. That’s why children of diplomats and foreign fighters are excluded from birthright citizenship. The question, however, is whether that category might be broader. The main point that is made here, is that this issue has rarely been scrutinized and that decades of practice have simply accepted that anyone born in the U.S. automatically gets a passport. But a closer look reveals that conventional wisdom may be wrong. For example, tribal Native Americans were originally excluded from the 14th Amendment because they owed allegiance to their own tribes, and only gained citizenship later through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. I’d add that that logic can be extended to Chinese citizens using the anchor baby system. China forbids dual nationality, and all its citizens are legally obligated to act on behalf of the state, including as agents of Beijing, meaning they remain under the jurisdiction of a separate sovereign. So regardless of all the people insisting there is an automatic entitlement to citizenship without actually making an argument (a bit like those who claim the Second Amendment only applies to militias without actually reading the text), I don’t think this is going to be a slam dunk for birthright citizenship. It is more likely to be a close run outcome.
Eric W.@EWess92

Professor @RandyEBarnett , one of the most influential Originalists of all time, has written an article in the @WSJ explaining that President Trump is right on Birthright Citizenship. He is one of the leading libertarian law professors. Originalists agree on this issue.

English
18
37
149
8K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
@vdare @DrJohnEastman Hamdi was a great example of the absurdity of the present practice. So are al-Awlaki, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese children born to US surrogates. The resulting millions of dual citizens the practice produces further compromises our nat’l security: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
0
0
25
VDARE
VDARE@vdare·
"The idea was once relegated to obscure articles in right-wing journals." POLITICO says @DrJohnEastman got interested in Birthright Citizenship because of the HAMDI case--which VDARE covered intensively e.g. here in 2002 vdare.com/articles/rescu…
Blake Neff@BlakeSNeff

This Politico article from @joshgerstein is a perfect example of ideological propaganda masquering as reporting. The entire point is to never engage with the historical, constitutional, or practical merits of the birthright citizenship debate. It can't, because the position "every anchor baby born to a tourist or illegal immigrant is a citizen for life" is ridiculous. So instead, Gerstein just uses scare words and smears a lawyer who helped popularize the Trump Administration's position, even though he doesn't currently work for the Admin and didn't write any of its briefs for the case. The view is "fringe" and "radical" and used to be "obscure" and violates centuries of precedent (we all know how much the left cares about centuries of precedent!). Of course, given it's embraced by the president of the United States and most of the Republican Party, the view opposing unlimited birthright citizenship is definitionally not "fringe." And as Gerstein knows (but avoids admitting), the Wong Kim Ark case only concerned the citizenship of a man born to two lawful permanent residents of the United States -- the reasoning there clearly does not extend to illegal residents, travelers, and the like, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on this. Gerstein has to use these sorts of deflections, because the position of birthright citizenship maximalists is obviously insane. It is ridiculous that the Biden Administration can mint millions of citizens by intentionally flooding the country with illegal foreigners. It is ridiculous that Chinese citizens can land in Saipan for a few days, get a C-section, and have a child eligible for a lifetime of benefits funded by U.S. taxpayers. It is manifestly insane that CCP-aligned Chinese oligarchs can purchase dozens of surrogate children and whisk them back to China upon birth, safe in the knowledge that they have irrevocable U.S. citizenship. All of this is why a sane reading of the 14th Amendment must be restored immediately -- and it's why Politico has to resort to shoddy articles like this one.

English
1
4
11
1.2K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
@RapidResponse47 @POTUS It also didn’t have to do with people like al-Awlaki, Hamdi, and El Chapo’s twin daughters—earning “citizenship” when Yemeni visiting students, Saudi visiting workers, or the wife of a Mexican drug lord had children born here then moved back home. See: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
0
0
78
Rapid Response 47
Rapid Response 47@RapidResponse47·
.@POTUS on birthright citizenship: "It had to do with the babies of slaves... it didn't have to do with the protection of multi-millionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get American citizenship."
English
95
613
2.7K
54.5K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
@EricLDaugh @willcain It’s not only illegals and Chinese using US birth surrogates that risks our nat’l security—but also other “birthright citizens” (and dual citizens) the present practice also produces—like al-Awlaki, Hamdi, and El Chapo’s twin daughters. See: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
11
25
519
Eric Daugherty
Eric Daugherty@EricLDaugh·
🚨 HOLY CRAP. As the Supreme Court considers abolishing birthright citizenship for migrants, it's been exposed that a Chinese billionaire has over 100 AMERICAN citizen children through surrogacy x.com/i/status/20390… WILL CAIN: "The idea — build a future family and business succession plan. Some clients, by the way, request up to 100 babies via multiple surrogates." "It can cost as much as $200K per child…Also, surrogacy is illegal in China. Nearly 41% of international surrogate parents in the U.S. are Chinese.” SCOTUS needs to end this SCAM!
English
181
5.9K
14.1K
325.7K
Election Wizard
Election Wizard@ElectionWiz·
BREAKING: President Trump tells Fox News' Peter Doocy he's going to the Supreme Court on Wednesday for expected birthright citizenship arguments. *If he attends, he will be the first sitting President to do so.
English
12
98
1.2K
22.2K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
@zerohedge Some examples of absurd grants of birthright citizenship—al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese born to US surrogates—proving it has “evolved” far beyond the intention of 14th Amendment, risking our nat’l economy and security: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
1
2
3
249
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
.@IngrahamAngle Some examples of absurd grants of birthright citizenship—al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese born to US surrogates—proving it has “evolved” far beyond the intention of 14th Amendment, risking our nat’l economy, security: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
0
0
40
Cindy Simpson أُعيد تغريده
Eric Daugherty
Eric Daugherty@EricLDaugh·
🚨 JUST IN: The No Kings protestors are being called out as massive hypocrites after waving COMMUNIST FLAGS in NYC They don't like kings — but they like straight-up DICTATORS. The dumbest political movement of our lifetime.
English
2.8K
23.7K
102.2K
1M
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
Yes, and then legacy media broadcasts its applause. Because anything that hinders practically anything Trump or his administration does—no matter the consequences to national security, the economy, etc—is always met with what is considered “moral”—because Trump.
Clarence Sparrow@AnonAtLaw

@glukianoff The easiest gig in the world is getting some federal judge to enjoin an action taken by the Trump Administration. It doesn’t even matter what the action is.

English
0
0
0
36
Cindy Simpson أُعيد تغريده
Cleta Mitchell
Cleta Mitchell@CletaMitchell·
Amen. @LeaderJohnThune - and @LindseyGrahamSC Here are some options to pass the SAVE America Act through the Senate via reconciliation: 1. Get in writing an opinion from the parliamentarian that the SAVE America Act can be put into reconciliation and does not violate the Byrd Rule. OR 2 Fire the parliamentarian OR 3. Repeal the Byrd Rule altogether OR Do all of the above. But stop making up nonsense saying the bill can be put into reconciliation because that’s not true. Just stay the course, stay on the bill and stay focused on PASSAGE. @BasedMikeLee @chiproytx @EIwatchdogs @EricLDaugh @DataRepublican @LindseyGrahamSC
DataRepublican (small r)@DataRepublican

Hello Senator Thune, Let's expose what you're really doing with "reconciliation." You announced it yesterday, eleven months after the House passed the SAVE America Act. You're not trying to pass this bill. You're trying to kill it in a way you can blame on process. Here's how we know: Reconciliation requires the Senate parliamentarian to rule that provisions are "budgetary." Citizenship verification is not budgetary. Photo ID mandates are not budgetary. The parliamentarian will gut the bill. Then you'll shrug and say "we tried." We see through you. Meanwhile, you WON'T use the tools that actually work: Rule XIX limits each senator to two speeches per legislative day. Keep the Senate in continuous session, file cloture daily, and the filibuster exhausts in ~12-20 days. You dismissed it as "complicated." Because if you tried and succeeded, you'd have to actually pass the bill. Harry Reid nuked the filibuster in 2013 when he wanted results. Mitch McConnell changed Senate rules THREE times and canceled the August recess. Chuck Schumer used reconciliation within months on a 50-50 Senate. You have 53 seats. You've changed nothing, canceled nothing, and waited eleven months. Now let's talk donors: • Goldman Sachs: $150K to you - top H-1B user • Google: $75K - lobbies against E-Verify • Meta: $72.5K - Zuckerberg's FWD[.]us pushes mass immigration • Wells Fargo: $90K - banks undocumented immigrants Same corporations sponsor Punchbowl News, where you sit for "Fly Out Days" which nobody watches except Congress staffers and K Street lobbyists who pays premium bucks for legislative intelligence. Their reporter then telegraphs to the audience the SAVE Act "will ultimately fail." Corporate money flows to you AND to the outlet that frames your inaction as inevitable. We see the loop. You called grassroots anger a "paid influencer ecosystem." YOU are the paid influencer. You take the wrong side of a 80% issue because you are indistinguishable from a K Street mouthpiece, and an ineffective one to boot who won't bend the rules to get anything passed. What we want: 1. Force a real talking filibuster. 2. Stop hiding behind process. 3. Pass the SAVE America Act. YOU will become the reason that we will have our butts kicked in midterms. Not Candace Owens, not Nick Fuentes, not anyone else. You and you alone, and all because you want to make the 200 or so viewers of Punchbowl Fly Out Days happy. You're living in a K Street information bubble, addicted to the comforts and praises of lobbyists masquerading as journalists. You mistake the steak and martini dinners you get invited to as your own constituents. You are not "moderate." The SAVE America Act has 98% support among Republicans. Name one other thing that has 98% support. You are an extreme minority who prides himself on being a calm leader, when in reality you are well in the running for the most ineffective Majority leader of all time. Prove me wrong. Do the bare modicum of effort. Not symbolic. Actual effort. Cancel the recess. Get SAVE America Act passed.

English
89
1K
2K
30.2K