ajaMD

@KathleenKleinb1 @mrddmia 😉

@AlanAnnenberg @mrddmia Is it really even the moon? It’s so big and brighter than normal tonight, that it looks like a fake moon hologram with sun-like qualities.

Likely Supreme Court holding: We fought a Civil War so we can mail U.S. election ballots and Social Security checks to 1.5 million Chinese nationals with birthright citizenship living in Beijing. If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution. We’re just following the law here.

@adamtaggart There was no illegal immigration when the 14 A was passed.

To those reacting to my question about changing the 14th Amendment....yes, of course I know the Consitution can be amended But here's what I was reacting to: 1. The defense itself said that the exclusions for birthright citizenship can NEVER be changed, even if Congress votes unanimously to do so -- that permanent mandate seems like it blocks the ability to amend?? Seems really strange to me. 2. To my knowledge, there is no movement afoot to amend the 14th Amendment, even though no one seems to be able to articulate what benefit the country gets from granting birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants

@jackunheard C'mon Jack. It's just a rounding error when 30 million people are here illegally.

🚨BREAKING: It has just been revealed that 320,000 children, nearly 9% of all U.S. births, were born to unauthorized or temporary migrant mothers. Holy smokes...

@KathleenKleinb1 @mrddmia Same day they spring on us we are going to the moon. They must think we are stupid...

@mrddmia Isn’t it offensive to the U.S. Constitution that Birthright Citizenship oral arguments were heard on April Fool’s Day? Who scheduled it that way? Was it a Deep State sadistic joke against U. S. Citizens?

@MarkFlegm @IngrahamAngle @JonathanTurley Congress has quicked this can for 25+years. Never will create a statute. Both parties favor birth tourism. One for census/political growth and the other for commerce .

@IngrahamAngle @JonathanTurley Stop using EO's to make LAW. Change the Constitution of you want to limit citizenship. I would reject this on the basis it's beyond the scope of what EO's can control.

“Total difference between lawful presence and birth tourism — and the Court knows it.” @JonathanTurley flags a “gulp moment” for the administration: even John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch were exploring ways to rule against the government. This case isn’t going the way many expected.

@chammond510 @bhweingarten @willchamberlain Congress pushing a constitutional amendment? Is this April Fool’s Day?

@bhweingarten @willchamberlain You guys spent a lot of time bemoaning an “activist court.” Now you want to upset settled jurisprudence because of external events ie Biden’s policies. Why aren’t you pushing for a constitutional amendment or act of Congress? You just want an easy fix?

My snap judgment having just finished listening to oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara: The Supreme Court will not stand in the way of our country, its institutions, and Constitution ultimately being wholly overrun.

Congress is feckless. Both parties love kicking this can down the road whether for political or economic reasons. Been debated for a quarter century. 8 billion people waiting to come in this country and fertilize the population with new ,little Americans. Got to break the law to become legal…

You guys understand we’re going to lose the birthright citizenship case, right? Before you completely freak out, the traditional understanding of the 14th Amendment, which we are seeking to change, is not an insane reading of it. Nor are our arguments insane like the left has been same. That’s baloney to just shut us up. Neither side is frivolous. It’s a tough call legally and objectively speaking. But when we lose it, and I think we will, don’t freak out that this is some sort of conspiracy. It’s a hard legal decision. Sadly, we have three judges who aren’t even going to try to examine the question and will always vote for what leftists want. But the rest of the court has to make a tough legal call. I think our reading is the correct one. For various reasons, I think they’re going to rule against us. Don’t freak out when they do. It’s not an utterly irrational ruling like so many of the district court opinions we’ve seen.

@thedude11253 @MostlyPeaceful No relevance whatsoever to birthright issue. She’s a dolt.

@MostlyPeaceful But she didn't say stealing a wallet makes her a Japanese citizen. The proper analog for your quote should be: "Your honor, my client is subject to American laws because he committed his crimes in America." Which is true. Stop spreading disinformation for clicks

“Your honor, my client is American because he committed his crimes in America”

@theblaze But it's not the same Constitution. It's become a living Constitution by Roberts and the Left...

US Solicitor General John Sauer: “8 Billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a US citizen.” Chief Justice John Roberts: “It’s a new world, but it’s the same Constitution.”

@LegallyDashing @theblaze Who gives a f*ck about style points. Roberts just grandstanding ..

@theblaze Sauer walked into that one. He made a policy assertion and Justice Roberts stomped on it with the law. Get it together, Sauer.

@MitraHispana @PAsince1683 @RealTheoWold x.com/agavoter1/stat…

@PAsince1683 @AlanAnnenberg @RealTheoWold No, that wasn’t what turned the case. Their decision didn’t depend on the status of the parents.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear one of the most consequential cases of the last 50 years: Whether the 14th amendment grants birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. When I worked in the first Trump admin, I drafted the original executive order ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens that ultimately went unsigned until the beginning of last year-- and now finds itself at the center of this case. To put it simply: President Trump has every single legal and historical precedent in his favor. When the 14th amendment's birthright citizenship clause was written, illegal immigration was a foreign concept. The 14th Amendment was specifically intended to clarify citizenship for the children of freed slaves. It did not guarantee that a 9-months pregnant Guatemalan could illegally cross the Rio Grande, give birth, and have their child considered an American citizen. The Left always cites the Wong Ark Kim case from 1898 to claim this as settled law, but that case did not apply to illegal aliens. The plaintiff was the son of one of the thousands of Chinese laborers who were brought legally to America during the 19th century to work on the transcontinental railroads. The Supreme Court has never adjudicated the question of whether children born within our borders to somebody who broke our nation's immigration laws are legal citizens. The answer is “no,” and the Court should absolutely uphold the President's executive order. We don't give citizenship to the children of foreign diplomats born in America. In the same way, we should not give citizenship to children of illegal aliens. No European country, not even the Vatican, grants birthright citizenship to children born to unlawful residents. Democrats are naturally freaking out about this case. Why? Because it's a terrifying prospect for the future of their party. They've seen the data showing how much population loss blue states have seen over the last few years. It's possible that California could lose up to six electoral votes in the next census. The only way they can maintain their power is by continually replacing the population with the children of illegals. It's one of the major pillars of Democrat power and it may just be coming to an end.

@MitraHispana @MikeBauhof @RealTheoWold lol…

@AlanAnnenberg @MikeBauhof @RealTheoWold Fruit of the poisonous tree is for the police violating the 4th amendment

@MikeBauhof @MitraHispana @RealTheoWold Fruit of the poisonous tree.. Everything flows from an illegal event..Breaking immigration laws. Laws are laws…

@AlanAnnenberg @MitraHispana @RealTheoWold We aren't talking about them, the amendment applies to the children born here, Einstein.

@MitraHispana @RealTheoWold He helped write the 14 A, Sparky…..

@AlanAnnenberg @RealTheoWold Legislative history (quotes from senators) is never binding. It’s persuasive authority only. Courts look to the text first.

@MitraHispana @RealTheoWold You are clearly obfuscating here. You didn’t read the origins of the 14 A I sent you from Senator Howard. An originalist, you aren’t but there is plenty of history here for you to shit the bed…..

@AlanAnnenberg @RealTheoWold Loyalty has nothing to do with jurisdiction. It doesn’t turn on subjective feelings of owing a duty to a country. It’s about whether American laws can be applied against you. That’s been the law since Wong Kim Ark in 1898

@timoftams @MitraHispana @RealTheoWold Actually the sentence before the red highlighted area says what the law declared. He is just restating it in the amendment

@AlanAnnenberg @MitraHispana @RealTheoWold This is not deleted history. Notice there is no 'or' in Howard's statement. As he confirmed further in the debate, "foreigners, aliens, who belong to" is an inclusive statement. Aliens not part of diplomats are part of "every other class of persons".

@lamps_apple @RealTheoWold x.com/1776general_/s…

Grok agrees. "The Citizenship Order is lawful. American citizenship is a priceless inheritance, not an accidental windfall for those whose parents happen to be on U.S. soil at the moment of delivery. The Constitution never said otherwise." grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5…

@SpringCountyGOP @RealTheoWold @MZHemingway They were naturalized citizens after living here for 10 years

@RealTheoWold @MZHemingway In Wong Kim Ark: The decision did not hinge on the parents being legal immigrants The Court grounded its reasoning in English common law (jus soli)—citizenship by birthplace It emphasized being born under U.S. jurisdiction, not parental status

@KryTierEon @RealTheoWold x.com/1776general_/s…

@RealTheoWold You are literally full of shit because the Founders specifically stated the amendment wasn't for only freed slaves or their children They specifically stated it was for everyone who came to the United States, like Chinese people Remember, former Thai Monarch was US citizen

@MelanyOrel67318 @RealTheoWold @greg_price11 x.com/1776general_/s…

The interpretation of the 14th Amendment involves complex legal precedents like Wong Kim Ark. Suggesting a political conspiracy to replace voters is a leap that avoids the actual constitutional questions. Serious policy debate requires examining law, not assigning motives to citizens.