ZeldaJ

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy The word "and" is not needed. The conjunction used is the word "but," specifically indicating a contrast from the preceding listed series. English 101.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy There is no “and” in there, no matter how much you want there to be

"When you went for your America visa, did you tell the visa officer that you were pregnant" 🤰 ? "Babies born in the UK don't automatically qualify for British passport, but babies born in USA do automatically qualify for American Passport" "The pregnant woman did not make it to USA. When she failed to turn up at the America Embassy, the visa was cancelled" I don't know when this happened but this is wid. [📹 Border Force Caught in Action]

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy Yes, Tribes were and are foreign sovereigns. The US has treaties with them. That's why the Snyder Act exists. There is no such Congressional Act making the citizens of any other foreign sovereign 14th Amendment birthright citizens.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy Tribes weren’t “foreign” sovereigns, and that was the point. And you’re going to be disappointed in the result if you think it depends on how native Americans were treated by 14A

@LaddSoftball @MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 Regarding Howard's sentences before the red circle:

Senators Howard opinion only. Read “his belief” only the sentences before your red circle. In his opinion he also believe the it is already the law, totally foolish & misguided; he never states were it was already law; again his own individual opinion The only place fully stated is in Preamble.

Evidence against the current interpretation of birthright citizenship (being challenged by the Trump admin before SCOTUS): If anyone who is born on US soil is automatically a citizen, then why did Congress need to enact a statute granting citizenship to Native Americans?

@LaddSoftball @MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 No. Not "his opinion only." Howard is the AUTHOR of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and he told Congress exactly what it means when he introduced it for ratification to Congress in 1866. Source: Library of Congress archives. I've already posted it.

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy You lack reading comprehension skills. The word "but" is a conjuction, just as "and" is. English 101.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy It’s one category. There’s no “and,” and if there were, it would be ungrammatical. This is from a speech. Read it out loud. It will help you hear the meaning. And, again, this isn’t what 14A says.

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy Elk v Wilkins has to do with a person who though born in the US is the citizen of a foreign sovereign. SCOTUS ruled that such persons cannot be citizens of the United States without being naturalized, or made so by an act of Congress. That's why the Snyder Act (1924) exists.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy It says foreigners/aliens who belong to children of ambassadors. Ambassadors aren’t subject to our jurisdiction, so that makes sense. Immigrants are. And of course their kids are. Elk v Wilkins has to do with tribe members, not children of immigrants. Another swing and a miss.

@MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 Finish the quote. The word BUT is a conjuction. In this context it means 1, 2, 3 do not apply BUT 4 does. English 101.

@SDS142J @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 What a list would look like: "foreigners, aliens, and those who belong to the families of ambassadors..." What Howard actually said: "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors..."

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy Incorrect. You cannot read plain English. It does NOT say "only the children of ambassadors are excluded from 14th Amendment citizenship" or anything like that. Proof: the Elk v. Wilkins decision.

@SDS142J @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy you have posted a quote that refers only to children of ambassadors; later in the debate, he mentions children of tribe members. This is really a very simple quote. But in any event, it isn’t the text of 14A. And that’s what the originalists will focus on. Sorry, chief.

@MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 I did. It's all in the archived quote. "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of" refers to the Civil Rights Act of 1866: "all persons born in the United States AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER are citizens of the United States."

@SDS142J @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 Now finish the sentence…..🤦‍♂️🤡

@AttorneyCPA @Gianl1974 Indeed, WKA did in fact rule that parents must be permanently domiciled in the US. Illegal aliens aren't, nor are foreigners who are in the US on temporary or tourism visas. Their children are NOT 14th Amendment citizens. The legal holding, plain as day:

You need to read Wong Kim Ark again and better understand it. The SC NEVER ruled that “parents ‘have to be’ {must} permanently domiciled c in the US in order for their newly born child to acquire 14th Amendment citizenship.” In Wong Kim Ark, both sides simply stipulated to the fact that the parents were permanently domiciled in the US. SCOTUS never opined that absent this the new born would not be a US citizen.

IDIOT

@MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 English isn't your forte. I posted the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause's author on EXACTLY WHO it means per fhe archived Congressional record: "This of course will not include persons born in the US who are foreigners or aliens..."

@SDS142J @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 English isn’t your forte, is it? It’s one class of people he is referring to. Not a redundant list of the same people. 🤦‍♂️😂🤡

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy 2) Regarding the Congressional archive of what Senator Howard (the author) said the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause means...

@justjustalan2 @GabeB5517 @kwakulotteryy 1) I can read. You, apparently, cannot. I've posted the Congressional archive of exactly what Senator Howard (the author) said the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause means when he introduced it to Congress in 1866. And...

@Joshuad4045 @Brad31828 @MikeMorris3711 @kwakulotteryy Here's how Senator Howard (the author) introduced the 14th Amendment to Congress in 1866. The children of foreigners and aliens are excluded from 14th Amendment citizenship. Source: Library of Congress archives.

@Brad31828 @MikeMorris3711 @kwakulotteryy It’s funny because the exact opposite is true. Jacob Howard himself would disagree

@OpticalBuddy @rage_by72458 Incorrect. Wong Kim Ark ruled that one's foreign parents must be permanently domiciled in the US to acquire 14th Amendment citizenship. That excludes the children of illegal aliens and foreigners temporarily in the US. The legally binding precedent:

@rage_by72458 The 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil. SCOTUS (Wong Kim Ark) ruled "jurisdiction" means obeying U.S. law, not political allegiance. An Executive Order cannot alter this 128-year-old constitutional precedent.

Congress explicitly codified the birthright principle into federal statutory law (the Immigration and Nationality Act), SO a president completely lacks the constitutional authority to unilaterally alter citizenship rules through an executive order.

@MiddleFringe @GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 False. Those born foreigners or aliens via foreign parents are excluded from 14th Amendment US citizenship. From the 14th Amendment's introduction to Congress in 1866 (source: Library of Congress archives):

@GaryDeen @LetsbeFrankokay @LaddSoftball @RonDeSantis @CindyThink4 It didn’t make a difference, the constitution usurps all law. In debate to ratify the 14th amendment both the opponents and proponents of the 14A all agreed it would give citizenship to foreigners. The quote you cite he is referencing one group excluded group- ambassadors.

@SalemTheCat1 @Ch_az_1 @Gianl1974 Wrong. SCOTUS ruled in Wong Kim Ark that one's foreign parents have to be permanently domiciled in the US to acquire 14th Amendment citizenship. That eliminates the children of illegal aliens, foreigners in the US on temporary visas, and foreign tourism visitors. Legal precedent:

@Ch_az_1 @Gianl1974 Oh we understand, and he's wrong.The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the term "person" in 14th amendment due process clause applies to ALL individuals, regardless of their citizenship status or immigration status.

@AttorneyCPA @Gianl1974 SCOTUS ruled in Wong Kim Ark that one's foreign parents have to be permanently domiciled in the US to acquire 14th Amendment citizenship. That eliminates the children of illegal aliens, foreigners in the US on temporary visas, and foreign tourism visitors. Legal precedent:

Let’s see what the Supreme Court has to say about all of this. Its decision on birthright citizenship is expected soon. Keep in mind the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution provides: ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

@JobstPam @Gianl1974 @Alva5915George No. SCOTUS ruled in Wong Kim Ark that one's foreign parents have to be permanently domiciled in the US to acquire 14th Amendment citizenship. That eliminates the children of illegal aliens, foreigners in the US on temporary visas, and foreign tourism visitors. Legal precedent:

@Gianl1974 @Alva5915George Isn’t anyone born on US soil a citizen whether or not their parents are? The stupidity from these people is making me question what I know.