Chat-T

@realBrandonGill Well, since there were no immigration laws like you imagine either he probably didn't even think about it.

Something tells me that when Senator Jacob Howard wrote 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th amendment, his intention wasn't that pregnant Guatemalans could cross into Texas, give birth, and have a child with the same rights as you and I.

@theactualrob @tommysantos14 You do know that the court hears cases for a variety of reasons, right? Like perhaps because a President can't override the Constitution with an EO?

@Chatt_TT @tommysantos14 Clearly not if the court is willing to hear it.

Here they go again. Folks, the 14th Amendment covers birthright citizenship. “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.” That’s it. There isn’t any more. There’s no grey area. There’s no confusion. Whatever bullshit explanation a MAGA gives you that doesn’t end up proving that the above statement is actually fake, is just made up nonsense. If you are born in America, you are an American citizen. Period.

@j3rich0123 @exposedasfullof @crazyliberals22 @Nguyen_anime3 Oh a maga namecaller! Thanks for sharing!

@exposedasfullof @Chatt_TT @crazyliberals22 @Nguyen_anime3 Congratulations, you've been exposed as an intellectually dishonest troll who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Tell me, what's it like being this level of stupid? I'd really like to know

Ok twit… so do tell us why the need for the save act?

@BrandonStraka Did they eat cats and dogs too?

JD VANCE: "ICE arrested an illegal immigrant from Mauritania who's voted in 7 federal elections since 2008!" "Even if you take the Democrats at their word, even if illegal aliens voting is very rare, then why don't we ban it anyway?"

@WadeMiller So the easy answer is that the US government should better control the tourism visas and the shoreline, not allow executive orders to amend the Constitution. But sure, make wild claims and assume the worst case scenario.

If 20 million pregnant Chinese women are dropped off on our shores by the Chinese military, are those babies citizens? Any Justice who says yes is retarded.

@tommysantos14 @theactualrob And occupying military soldiers, but yes. Subject to the jurisdiction has been clearly defined already.

@theactualrob @Chatt_TT Anyone born here… except foreign diplomats and their family’s.

@theactualrob @tommysantos14 That's clearly defined case law. This "whole thing" is not about that 🤣

@Chatt_TT @tommysantos14 That’s the phrase the whole thing is about. Who is subject to the jurisdiction.

@ReichlinMelnick Or, it accidentally means Sauer intends to issue massive land grants back to Indian nations and restore their sovereign citizenship. Otherwise, where would these children be "domiciled" and subject to the jurisdiction of anyway? 🤣 He prepped poorly.

Today Native Americans do NOT obtain birthright citizenship through the 14th Amendment. They only get citizenship through a 1924 law. Gorsuch got the SG to admit that if the Trump admin's argument is right, Native Americans probably would have birthright citizenship under 14A.

@theactualrob @tommysantos14 ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Where? Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

@gushisgosh @lamp_otto @jkimballcook Huh? That was literally the question. Under Sauer's test are they citizens? He said he had to think about it. You clearly didn't "watch" it at all. Done.

@Chatt_TT @lamp_otto @jkimballcook Under the 14th nowdays, which why there was an act for that.

"the 14th amendment doesn't cover children of illegal aliens because there was no such thing as illegal aliens when it was ratified" is the same argument as "the 2nd amendment doesn't cover automatic weapons because they didn't exist then"

@gushisgosh @lamp_otto @jkimballcook x.com/i/status/20393…

@gushisgosh @lamp_otto @jkimballcook And then Sauer had no response to the question of whether or not Native Americans would be citizens under HIS OWN argument. That wasn't Jackson. Try to keep up or stop talking.

@ChristianHeiens Considering there was no such thing as "illegal" at the time, that's exactly what it meant.

How fucking retarded do you have to be to believe that the original intent of the 14th amendment’s authors was for citizenship to be automatically granted to the children of tourists, illegals, and even enemy combatants who are being held on American soil? The man who wrote the amendment quite literally went on the Senate floor and publicly declared that it wouldn’t apply to foreigners or aliens.

@theactualrob @tommysantos14 No, because it literally says so right there in the 14th amendment.

@tommysantos14 Are the children of diplomats citizens?

@AcrossAisle @tommysantos14 They took it up because the President doesn't get to override the Constitution by executive order, not for any other reason.

@tommysantos14 I don’t believe it’s as black and white, obviously the Supreme Court didn’t either… hence them taking it up…. Not that I know the ‘correct’ interpretation, but it obviously has more to it or the SC wouldn’t be hearing it.

@gushisgosh @lamp_otto @jkimballcook foxnews.com/politics/sauer… if his wasn't part of his argument, why did he say it aloud?

@gushisgosh @lamp_otto @jkimballcook That was one of his points. Not all of them. You do know that arguments lasted longer than one minute, right? Including the part where he was unsure what to do with Native Americans under his current plan?

@gushisgosh @lamp_otto @jkimballcook Uh no, that's not what strawman means. He argued this live in court today. That one reason for the case is because 5 Chinese businesses have started birthright tourism, the government should revisit the 14th. Your personal incredulity fallacy doesn't make it untrue.

@Chatt_TT @lamp_otto @jkimballcook It means the same thing. Do you know what a strawman is? x.com/i/status/20393…