Eostamar

@jlippincott_ I’d say that about free healthcare or the enlarged welfare programs that together is the single largest cost for the budget.

Fixing this pothole is more important than bombing Iran.

@TheLaurenChen What do you expect of her? She’s feels threatened by the extreme left.

"How would ending birthright citizenship work? What about this extremely niche and rare possibility?" Look. Most countries do not have birthright citizenship. I know this is a hard ask for a woman, but please do not make this more complicated than it needs to be.

@NoLeftyEsty @mitchellvii @lbiBB42xo I don’t like it. I think even at the time it was worded poorly. The author would be considered an open borders maniac nowadays. But it was written in a different time, different culture, different views of what’s even possible in the worst term case.

@eostamar @mitchellvii @lbiBB42xo Exactly

It's hard to imagine that the Supreme Court would end Trump's tariffs AND institutionalize birthright citizenship forever! I mean, my God, whose side are they on?

@Johnsmithhuhy @mgholcombe1976 @mitchellvii @RosieBud521 The questions and lead up in the pole were pointing to the outcome.

@mgholcombe1976 @mitchellvii @RosieBud521 69% OF VOTERS now say children of illegal immigrants should be granted automatic citizenship—a massive shift from the 45% who felt that way twenty years ago, according to a new Fox News Poll

@mgholcombe1976 @mitchellvii @RosieBud521 Yup this issue and abortion will shred their credibility and trust.

If the supreme court rules to allow birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrant criminals and allows other countries like China to send women to our country to give birth to obtain citizenship,then certainly a judicial crisis will be created. The supreme court will lose credibility with an overwhelming majority of Americans. I wouldn’t be surprised if a major rebellion occurs. It could be very ugly. How many states would participate in the removal of these judges who are betraying our country?

@NoLeftyEsty @4xdbfp787t @mitchellvii @lbiBB42xo Reservations are national sovereign not wholly American. Similar to the territories. He could stipulate that immigrants on territories are not granted immediate citizenship unless citizens or those territories or an American parent. But hey. That would piss of the base.

@4xdbfp787t @mitchellvii @lbiBB42xo Good question they should have been given a U.S. citizenship when born.

@NoLeftyEsty @mitchellvii @lbiBB42xo With how it is written it can mean that yes. The vague notion of under its jurisdiction heavily implies it since the Supreme Court first ruled it. Funny how the writer was dead at the time. Still if we want to alter it it will need an act of Congress (amendment or law)

ITS HARD TO IMAGINE ANY CITIZEN NOT AWARE OF THEIR CONSTITUTION. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Section 1) establishes birthright citizenship, stating that "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". This "Citizenship Clause" guarantees automatic citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parents' citizenship or immigration status. [1, 2, 3, 4]

@Shakermaker003 @A177AR @D_Myti_Quinn @TRHLofficial Hat are those way more important issues?

@A177AR @D_Myti_Quinn @TRHLofficial Because it’s not actually a thing that moves the needle. Way more important issues to tackle. This is just, “I don’t like people who aren’t white”

SCOTUS may rule that birthright citizenship is constitutional, using precedent and a loose interpretation of an earlier ruling, so we may need to approach the issue of one million Chinese communists voting in our elections in the future differently. As it holds, they can’t even be denaturalized. There would definitively and permanently be no solution and creating citizens of those who dilute our values is republic ending. What we can do now, is aggressively and publicly enforce FARA, the Espionage Act, and related statutes against anyone (citizen or not) acting under CCP direction. Prosecute espionage, influence ops, and undisclosed CCP ties. That’s really it though. If it’s ruled constitutional for anyone infiltrate and dismantle our republic, all we can do is try to disincentivize it. How utterly demoralizing.

@Squiffy1025 @TRHLofficial It was, sadly it will take an act of Congress to change it. Which won’t happen.

@EiratheIntern In a way yes. However her implication that it implies the thief is Japanese is completely false. Under the jurisdiction. Yes, owes allegiance to. NO.

She's literally right in this argument. I am subject to the local jurisdiction of wherever I travel, regardless of citizenship. And that confers certain obligations ergo allegiance as understood by the administration's argument. Domicile status doesn't affect any of that!

@JustinWStapley What does it mean to be under the jurisdiction of?

If illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" under what authority can the federal government deport them? This is the problem with living constitutionalism and consequentialism, it seeks to craft constitutional law that is a tangle of knots, twists, and turns to wrest the foundational document of our republic toward whatever fancy the zeitgeist arrives at. The originalist path not only makes more sense but actually accomplishes the whole point of having a written constitution...the consistent application of the rule of law according to text, history, and tradition.

@Tyarchak @thetimothygavin @clarksonlawson_ You are correct! They can; 1) pass a law stating that aliens and non resident immigrants, visa holders, er el. Are not under the jurisdiction. 2) pass a law ordering the judicial branch the no see cases about the topic. They can do both!

@eostamar @thetimothygavin @clarksonlawson_ Congress can't pass a law that interprets the constitution. Geez, does any one know how are government works?

The job of SCOTUS is not to subjectively determine whether a law is stupid. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and rule on whether a law violates it. If MAGA wants to end birthright citizenship, they should pursue a constitutional amendment. If you don’t like the separation of powers our Constitution outlines, then leave the country. Your ignorance is anti-American and incompatible with the principles this country was founded on.

@kelvin45622 @ForwardCarolina @SonofKiese No. No it is not a “living document” and only people that think democracy is the “best system” or people that love dictatorships can think that. Or maybe you are ignorant of the meaning of the constitution.

@eostamar @ForwardCarolina @SonofKiese It is a living document, its why congress put in it avenues to change it and add to it via 2/3rd vote of congress and states.cingeess should use that to curtail some the powers of the executive branch war powers act dont need the states vote tho.

Here's the thing: if you oppose birthright citizenship, that's an opinion you're allowed to hold. It's a free country. It means you support changing the United States Constitution, which very clearly and explicitly says anyone born on American soil is a citizen. But pretending that the U.S. Constitution doesn't say that, just because you don't like it, is a silly child's game. Birthright citizenship is a foundational principle of what America is all about, and no President, no matter how ignorant or delusional, is able to change that with the stroke of a pen. That's just not how America works. 🇺🇸

@Scullyy02 I can see legal permanent resident.

Howard described the jurisdiction requirement as full and complete jurisdiction, meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else”. Senator Trumbull, who helped manage the amendment, said the same thing. Jurisdiction means owing no allegiance elsewhere. If you’re a foreigner, you owe allegiance to your country of citizenship. They rejected absolute birthright citizenship for the children of aliens. That record is in the congressional globe and it’s not hidden or ambiguous. The people who ratified it understood exactly what they were voting for. You don’t get to change the meaning after the fact without going back through congress and the states. This dude is absolutely right, the court chose textualism over the recorded intent of the framers and ratifiers. That decision has been treated as gospel ever since even though it directly contradicted what Howard, Trumbull and the rest said when the amendment was fresh ink. I’m really not sure why people care so much if birthright citizenship is limited to citizens or hell, even legal residents but if you are not a permanent resident within this country there is absolutely no reason for your child to have citizenship as you can’t legally be here to take care of them. x.com/mark_mceathron…

@Scullyy02 This needs to be law. Needed to back then too.

@peterrocks19 @clarksonlawson_ Yup. But what isnimportant is how it is written. In a way where a law from Congress can clarify. 1) end birth right citizenship 2) the judiciary should not accept cases that alter or change the interpretation provided by Congress.

@clarksonlawson_ Disagreement over the function is not anti-American. And you would have a better case in your comments if the actual person who wrote the amendment didn't give clarification. Which he did....

@thetimothygavin @clarksonlawson_ I’d prefer Congress pass a law that sets theinttepretation. That way it is not easily waved away.

@clarksonlawson_ The Constitution is fine. The interpretation of the 14th is wrong. Not the amendment itself, the interpretation. That's why we have a supreme court in the first place.

@clarksonlawson_ Wrong it takes a law by Congress. Not a full amendment since the question is on an interpretation of part of the amendment. But Congress benefits from this, the left from the destruction of American Culture and the right from a constant political point.

@RetroFlashbang @BrianAtlas Yup. My friend had his wife walk out leaving him with the two kids and a new car payment. The state does nothing. He has to work way too long to raise them. Her family does nothing, yet wants to see their grandchildren and nephews. Good thing he remarried after a judge signed off

@BrianAtlas My ex is in child support arrears to me for over $5k and the state literally does nothing to try and locate her. Any location info I’m able to dig up I send to them and they do nothing with it. If the genders were reversed I’d have been in jail years ago.

The state won’t force a woman to use her body to sustain a pregnancy, but it will force a man to use his body to generate income for 18 years or go to jail.

@NewswirePatriot Yes. And tried for assisted murder.

🚨 BREAKING: Governor DeSantis is calling for the IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT of Judge Tiffany Baker. Judge Baker released a child rapist who was a KNOWN danger to society. While out on bail, the rapist tortured and killed a 5 year old little girl. Should she be impeached?