Cynthia

2013. CBS News reports on Chinese parents traveling to the US to have anchor babies: “They traveled from China to Los Angeles so their baby could be born in America and claim U.S. citizenship." "They are among thousands of Chinese who become so-called birth tourists staying in maternity hotels near Los Angeles." “Paid $27,000 to a Chinese agency with a website that advertises the advantages of giving birth in America. The agency helps arrange U.S. tourist visas, lodging and medical care." “Allowed the parents to get around China's one-child policy. That restriction does not apply to Chinese who give birth overseas. " "This hilltop home was converted into a maternity hotel that housed as many as 30 pregnant Chinese women at a time." No sane country would allow this.

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.

The HOUSE JUST CRUSHED IT. Automatic DEPORTATION for illegals caught on WELFARE FRAUD…PASSED 231-186🔥 186 Democrat Frauds voted to keep YOUR money funding the invasion. Parasites OUT. America First is WINNING. The Democrats CANNOT WIN without paying off Illegal Invaders.

People in the U.S. don't have children because they're already supporting other people's children with free healthcare, free K-12 public schools, free college scholarships, subsidized housing, welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and more. Every "childfree" 30something has 5 or 6 young Somali, Central American, or Afghan dependents they'll never meet

1993. Dianne Feinstein: Should people be able to come to this country, get on Medicaid, give birth to a baby, and then go back to their home country? The answer is no.

@LibTearCreator1 @crunchytradcon 🙏🏼

Please pray for me! 🙏 I am in absolute agony right now! I will hopefully be out of pain Friday when they give me an epidural for the surgery! It just never goes away and if it wasn’t for @crunchytradcon idk what I’d do!

Dear @SpeakerJohnson Do not wait for SCOTUS. Ask @timburchett to write a bill ending birthright citizenship. Get it passed through the house. After Thune is removed from his leadership chair in 2 weeks, get @BasedMikeLee to get it passed through the senate. We’re tired of sacrificing our American dream for every other nation’s carpetbaggers.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” If the founders supported birthright citizenship they would have written it as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States.” It’s really that simple.

@TheFungi669 How stupid are you? Donald Trump is and has always been a US citizen.

Trump: “Birthright citizenship is a scam and should not be allowed.” Grok: “Tiffany Trump is the only one of Trump’s kids who is not a beneficiary of birthright citizenship. All the other kids were born before his wives became U.S. citizens.”

This is exactly how bad arguments get dressed up to sound intellectual… “Subject to the laws” does NOT equal allegiance. That’s where this entire thing collapses. If you step into a country… you are bound by its laws. That’s jurisdiction. It’s not loyalty. It’s not consent. It’s not allegiance. A criminal is “subject to the law” the moment he commits a crime… That doesn’t make him part of the nation. It makes him accountable to it. That wallet analogy proves the opposite of what it’s trying to argue. If someone steals a wallet in Japan… they’re under Japanese law because Japan has authority over its territory. That’s enforcement… not belonging. The 14th Amendment says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”… and historically that meant full political jurisdiction… not just physical presence. There’s a reason diplomats’ children aren’t citizens. There’s a reason invading armies’ children weren’t granted citizenship. Because jurisdiction in the constitutional sense was never about “you’re standing here.” It was about complete legal and political attachment to the nation. What’s happening now is a reinterpretation… not a continuation. Temporary presence… illegal entry… tourism… none of that establishes allegiance. It establishes exposure to law… nothing more. And if you blur that line… you don’t just redefine citizenship… You erase it. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

Everyone involved in the asylum system knows and understands the claims are all fake: the aliens who make them, the free NGO lawyers who file them, the judges who hear them, the federal officers who process them. Everyone. Everyone knows the real reason these migrants come. Even a small amount of US welfare is 10x what they would earn in their home countries. If they have a “birthright” child it’s enough welfare to support their entire family back home for a lifetime. Entire foreign economies are sustained by US welfare remittances. It’s industrial-scale remittance farming.

$1.1 million stolen from American taxpayers meant for feeding children. One year in prison. You or I would get a decade behind bars for stealing a fraction of that. My End Welfare for Non-Citizens Act stops this from happening. Call your senator and tell them to support my bill → (202) 224-3121

@JesusOseteDOJ Liberal logic 🤦🏻‍♀️

Theft is allegiance?

@ChristinaPushaw That’s not a funny April Fool’s Day joke. Thank you for the clarification.

🐢Jonathan the Tortoise, the oldest known land animal at 193, has been confirmed ALIVE! Apparently the account claiming to be his vet was fake, and it was an April Fools troll.

Classic “asylum seeker” here. In such danger and peril that she’s going to wait until Trump leaves office to try to get into the US. 95%+ of the migrants we interviewed at the border from 2021-2024 openly admitted on camera they wanted work/a better life. That’s not asylum.

Leave it to Justice Jackson to defend the suicide pact of birthright citizenship for illegals by not understanding the difference between territorial jurisdiction (obeying local laws), and political allegiance. If territorial jurisdiction means allegiance, every tourist is a US citizen, which is insane. The whole thing is so low IQ and embarrassing for the Court.

@PlanetOfMemes Not buy, you must steal it. 🤦🏻‍♀️

If I'm American and buy some maple syrup in Canada, I am now Canadian. How is this dumb person on the Supreme Court?

I’m listening to Sotomayor scramble vocabulary and rewrite history in order to create an objection to ending birthright citizenship. Brown appears to have little understanding of the jurisprudence on this issue. She even goes back to English common law and claims that “English common law states that if someone is born in the country, they are subject to the king.” That’s incorrect. In fact, she is ignoring the actual wording. Why? Because the actual verbiage is that “natural-born persons are subject to the king.” “Natural-born” is not merely a historical concept—it reflects a principle that still applies: that one’s allegiance is not owed to any other sovereign. Under that interpretation, if a person’s parents owe allegiance to another country, the child is not “natural-born.”' The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means not only birth on U.S. soil and allegiance to the country, but also that the parents are here legally. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, his parents were lawfully present and domiciled (permanently settled) in the United States, not in China. The defendant of birth right citizenship was discredited by Thomas within 1 minute of her arguments. If someone is here illegally, they are occupying the country and are foreign nationals. Both catagories are excluded from natural born citizenship.

𝐒𝐀𝐔𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐎 𝐆𝐎𝐑𝐒𝐔𝐂𝐇: 𝐈𝐅 𝐓𝐄𝐌𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐀𝐑𝐘 𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐒’ 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐃𝐑𝐄𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐍’𝐓 𝐆𝐄𝐓 𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐙𝐄𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐏, 𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐋 𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐀𝐍 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐖𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐄 Justice Gorsuch gave Solicitor General Sauer the opening to drive home the strongest version of the administration’s argument — and Sauer delivered. The exchange centered on a principle of legal interpretation: when lawmakers enact a general rule in response to specific problems, does that rule apply only to the original situations, or does it extend to future ones that fit the same logic? Sauer’s answer was unambiguous. The recognized exceptions to birthright citizenship — children of foreign ambassadors, children born during hostile occupation — are specific applications of a 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞: allegiance determines jurisdiction. That principle doesn’t freeze in time. “𝘐𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 1881 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 1922 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘥.” Then he made the a fortiori case — the argument that if the weaker claim fails, the stronger one must fail too. If children of 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 aren’t automatically citizens, then children of people who 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐰 have an even weaker claim. By the 1880s, immigration restrictions existed. Someone who entered illegally cannot establish domicile — a principle that traces back to the 𝐂𝐨𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧. What Sauer is constructing isn’t a narrow workaround. It’s a constitutional framework rooted in text, history, and legal tradition spanning centuries. 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐞. 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐲. 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡.

I don’t know what the Supreme Court will decide on the question of birthright citizenship. But I know this, if the courts continue to enforce practices that increase chaos, destruction, and division within the United States, like allowing 1.5 million Chinese nationals to vote because they happened to be born in an American hospital, people will very soon stop respecting the courts. And then things will really get dangerous.