Tweet Disematkan
"The Left’s Moral Narcissism," featuring my piece at American Greatness and @rogerlsimon's fascinating book, #IKnowBest. Thank you, #RushLimbaugh, @BoSnerdley rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/05/… via @rushlimbaugh
English
Cindy Simpson
31.4K posts
Cindy Simpson
@Simpsonreport
Thankful. Conservative, Christian, CPA, Entrepreneur, Mainstream Media Skeptic. Essays at American Thinker, Am Greatness, Am Spectator, RedState. #BeABarnabas
Louisville, KY Bergabung Eylül 2011
3.8K Mengikuti3.6K Pengikut
@bonchieredstate The language may seem vague, but the absurdity of some results of the practice’s application—an evolution in both public perception and bureaucratic rules, not a constitutional mandate or sweeping decision—are clearly not in our nation’s security interest: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
To me, the birthright citizenship case is one that's so painfully obvious when you apply both a historical lens and common sense. Anchor babies were not the intent.
But also, the language is just vague enough that without a new amendment, we'll never get it overturned.
English
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport
Agree—but the important point about the law is that the way birthright citizenship it is practiced today was due to an evolution in public perception and bureaucratic guidance, starting in the 1950s. As noted by @DrJohnEastman, there’s been no constitutional or ruling mandate. 1/
QME
As many are beginning to understand after listening to oral arguments today, the Supreme Court does not exclusively weigh the law, the facts, the text, and the history to come to its conclusions. Sometimes it does that. But in the most political and contentious cases, that is most definitely not what happens.
We do not actually have a supreme court, we have a lifelong legislature of lawyers who prefer the robe to the campaign trial.
One-third of the court makes decisions based entirely on what is best for the Democrat party and never wavers from that mission. Only two of the nine justices seem to have any consistent interest in determining a given law’s text and original meaning.
Of the remaining four, the chief justice thinks he’s a thermometer whose job is take to the temperature of the country and then make decisions based on whether they’ll make people like him. The former professor seems to think she’s still writing academic papers. The former Western judge is occasionally reliable when he’s not claiming boys can become girls or fan-girling over Indian treaties. The final justice seems to be saddled with the horrifying task of corralling the two rudderless and emotional basket cases into something resembling coherence.
And if that weren’t horrifying enough, let me comfort you with the observation that this collection of Democrat party operatives, weepy thermometers, wannabe legislators, and only sometimes actual lawyers is actually the least dysfunctional of the three federal branches of government.
Happy Wednesday!
English
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport
Agree—but the important point about the law is that the way birthright citizenship it is practiced today was due to an evolution in public perception and bureaucratic guidance, starting in the 1950s. As noted by @DrJohnEastman, there’s been no constitutional or ruling mandate. 1/
QME
That question alone indicates how preposterous her appointment was.
Greg Price@greg_price11
Jackson: "How does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents determining a newborn child is a citizen of the United States?... Are we bringing in pregnant women for depositions?"
English
That Chinese citizens can send their fertilized eggs to the US and have them implanted in a US surrogate is perhaps dwarfed numerically by children born here to illegals or temporary legal visitors, still perfectly illustrates the insanity of birthright citizenship.
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport
@willchamberlain @JimHansonDC Yes. Liberals love to focus on the odd exceptions to laws as being inhumane, but for the birthright citizenship argument, it is the absurd results that highlight the insanity of the present evolved practice. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
@willchamberlain @JimHansonDC Yes. Liberals love to focus on the odd exceptions to laws as being inhumane, but for the birthright citizenship argument, it is the absurd results that highlight the insanity of the present evolved practice. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
@JimHansonDC Exactly right. If people think that giving citizenship to the children of illegal aliens and birth tourists is a good idea, then Congress can pass a law to that effect.
English
You misunderstand the stakes. If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, Congress CANNOT prohibit birth tourism, because the children produced by birth tourism would be constitutionally entitled to citizenship.
That's how insane the left's interpretation is.
Robert W Malone, MD@RWMaloneMD
9% of of all the babies born in the USA getting citizenship, based on either birth tourism - mostly from the CCP - or whose mother smuggled herself into this country illegally, is not ok and no way to secure a healthy future for Americans. If the Supreme Court doesn't restrict birthright citizenship, then Congress must -BEFORE the midterms. This is what the citizens of the United States want and require.
English
The ACLU’s birthright citizenship argument relies on British Common law—i.e., born in the country means born a subject—is what Americans fought against in the Revolution. They considered themselves citizens, not subjects, with the inalienable right to change home and allegiance.
English
@BreitbartNews @peterschweizer The reason you’d bring it up is because birth tourism reveals the absurdity of the present practice. I point out other examples of this incorrectly evolved practice, here: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
Before Mao's revolution and the development of industrial-scale air travel, birth tourism wasn't a national security issue. Why would you bring it up in this hearing?
Breitbart News@BreitbartNews
U.S. Solicitor General brings up damning facts from @peterschweizer's "Invisible Coup" as SCOTUS considers birthright citizenship — e.g. hundreds of companies facilitate birth tourism to U.S. territories Chief Justice Roberts DOESN'T CARE!
English
2/ My piece, looking at the issue of birthright citizenship from another angle—its absurd results: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
Agree—but the important point about the law is that the way birthright citizenship it is practiced today was due to an evolution in public perception and bureaucratic guidance, starting in the 1950s. As noted by @DrJohnEastman, there’s been no constitutional or ruling mandate. 1/
Shipwreckedcrew@shipwreckedcrew
The birthright citizenship case this morning is really more about politics than it is the law. If the Administration loses nothing of substance will change. But the debate has been joined, and taken to the very highest level of discourse. Two years ago no one would have even imagined this issue would be before the Supreme Court. But Pres. Trump FORCED it there. As is true in many areas of his second term, he has swung for the fences on this topic. It is worth the effort but it falls in the category of "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Even an adverse decision won't end the debate. It will simply redirect the debate to a different forum where the political branches will need to confront it. The Democrats and open border advocates among the socialists and communists never imagined that the building of their constituencies would come under attack in this fashion. But the debate has exposed that this is about so much more that migrant illegals coming to the US and starting families, with their children being citizens. This is about a vulnerability to our country, our governance, and our culture to the deliberate and purposeful colonization via mass third-world migration with malicious political, cultural, and religious goals.
English
Agree. So far I don’t feel this is going well. We can probably count on Thomas and Alito, regardless of Sauer’s performance. All the rest appear skeptical. #BirthrightCitizenship
Will Chamberlain@willchamberlain
Overall I'd say that Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts all seem pretty skeptical of Sauer's interpretation. We'll see how aggressively they question the defenders of birthright citizenship
English
Also the details behind WKA—that there was a governing treaty that both noted the transfer of allegiance but prevented the formal acquisition of US citizenship. The status of WKAs parents did not result in him having dual allegiance. He had both permanent domicile and singular allegiance.
English
@willchamberlain I agree. This is not going well. Sauer seems unprepared with key rebuttals for the questions thrown at him.
English
@bhweingarten So far I’m not at all happy with how this is going.
English
Gorsuch: How do we define domicile -- 1868 or today standards?
Sauer: Don't see any distinction between 1868 or today. Lawful presence with intent to remain permanently.
English
Oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara -- the critical birthright citizenship case -- commence.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer begins by explaining what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.
And he lays out the perverse incentives and outcomes the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has created.
English
Contrary to certain media, ending birthright citizenship is not a dubious theory Claremont cooked up: Eastman, Erler, and Anton just stated the obvious. There’s been almost total agreement among serious scholars. To not end it would destroy trust in the integrity of our system.
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
@KevinRobertsTX My piece here explores the absurd results and national security threats the presently evolved practice creates, including tens of millions of dual citizens, an important consideration in a time of international conflict. amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in one of the most important cases in our country’s history.
Will we restore the integrity and proper limits of birthright citizenship, or will we continue to let it be exploited by those subject to other jurisdictions—devaluing American citizenship and giving away our birthright?
This @Heritage video offers a clear explanation of why universal birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. It’s time for the Supreme Court to end this malpractice.
English
Another way of looking at the issue—instead of complicated legal analysis—the absurd results the presently evolved practice has created. “Citizenship” not only for illegals’ children, but of foreigners here legally but temporarily: like al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, or Chinese who shipped reproductive material to implant into US surrogates. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
Apropos of nothing, but the notion that The Founders developed three co-equal branches of government is a fallacy.
While the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on yet another fundamental issue today — birthright citizenship — worth remembering that the judiciary was supposed to be the weakest of the three branches.
Instead, the executive and judiciary have effectively subsumed the power of the legislature.
That said, the birthright citizenship order is manifestly lawful and restores the original understanding of the 14th Amendment.
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” MEANS “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
English
Yes. And in WKA, Ark’s parents could not become citizens because of the treaty with China, but at the time, both China and US accepted that these Chinese had transferred their allegiance. This was not only acknowledged in the treaty, but I also located the SoS discussion in Vol 57 of The Nation. More on the subject in my piece, here: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
Birthright Citizenship:
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) affirmed birthright citizenship for children of legal resident aliens.
In contrast, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) excluded tribal Indians from birthright citizenship. Tribal members “owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes” and therefore were not considered subject to the full jurisdiction of the U.S.
Central requirement for birthright citizenship:
Complete political jurisdiction + direct allegiance~not merely the ability to enforce ordinary criminal or civil statutes.
English
@RWMaloneMD @kbean511 Another way of looking at this issue instead of the legal arguments—the “citizens” the “evolved” practice it creates, as well as tens of millions of dual citizens, which in a time of war creates a national security threat. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
9% of of all the babies born in the USA getting citizenship, based on either birth tourism - mostly from the CCP - or whose mother smuggled herself into this country illegally, is not ok and no way to secure a healthy future for Americans.
If the Supreme Court doesn't restrict birthright citizenship, then Congress must -BEFORE the midterms. This is what the citizens of the United States want and require.
English