Nate

@mitchellvii I think you're pretty stupid

I compare Trump hitting IRAN now to Roosevelt attacking Japan BEFORE Pearl Harbor, or England hitting Hitler BEFORE he invaded Poland, or tightening up airline security BEFORE 9/11. We in the West always seem to wait until AFTER the disaster to take action. Trump is different.

@myonlinetrust @EiratheIntern So your original sentence should be read as "Don't change the owing obedience or allegiance to the power or dominion of another"? What does that even mean?

@NateHasAHandle @EiratheIntern

There's another condition in the 14th amendment aside from jurisdiction.

@hobbie82 @KeithGross @JustinWStapley Yeah and the children of illegal immigrants born here are also US citizens

@NateHasAHandle @KeithGross @JustinWStapley just like illegal immigrants are still citizens of their sovereign home countries even if born outside of their country.

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.

@myonlinetrust @EiratheIntern How's he changing the subject?

@EiratheIntern Don’t change the subject.

@5737626839918b @jcwhitelpc @ProjectLiberal If that's what the 14th Amendment is for then why doesn't it say that?

@jcwhitelpc @ProjectLiberal The 14th amendment was for freed slaves and their children not just anyone in the world. And since leftist don’t care about the constitution why should anyone else?

@BK_McCallum @thehiccupotamus @KeithGross @JustinWStapley What?

@NateHasAHandle @thehiccupotamus @KeithGross @JustinWStapley Dad, do you have that package package?

@MattPethybridge @DeeJzNuts @JustinWStapley Yup "the power or right to make judgments about the law, to arrest and punish criminals, etc."

@DeeJzNuts @JustinWStapley The text of the citizenship clause is perfectly clear to anybody who knows the definition of "jurisdiction."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." When it comes to abandoning the plain speech of the Constitution and trying to turn it into a "living document," we've reached the point where, yes, both sides do it. And we should reject both sides when they try to do it.

@furiouswhopper @DeeJzNuts @JustinWStapley Where does it say no alien citizens?

@DeeJzNuts @JustinWStapley Both amendments are exceedingly clear... all guns, no alien citizens. I'm not sure why people have such difficulty understanding fairly simple sentences.

@BK_McCallum @thehiccupotamus @KeithGross @JustinWStapley How is allegiance inherited?

@thehiccupotamus @NateHasAHandle @KeithGross @JustinWStapley Great point. Allegiance is inherited though.

@JohnnyMosby1776 @KeithGross @JustinWStapley Oh leftists will riot if it goes against them? Kinda like how MAGA rioted on January 6th, 2021?

@NateHasAHandle @KeithGross @JustinWStapley I will wait. And as I said, I will accept it whatever it is. Leftists will riot if it goes against them. If it goes against Trump, then even more reason and motivation to shut the border down hard, and deport illegal aliens.

@JohnnyMosby1776 @KeithGross @JustinWStapley Okay genius whats your take then?

@NateHasAHandle @KeithGross @JustinWStapley “look to be”

@JohnnyMosby1776 @KeithGross @JustinWStapley I mean did you watch it because Gorsuch and Barrett both currently look to be voting No

@NateHasAHandle @KeithGross @JustinWStapley “Didn’t seem”. LOL

@JohnnyMosby1776 @KeithGross @JustinWStapley No its the fact that half the Justices that Trump appointed didn't seem to be in favor of Sauer's arguments

@NateHasAHandle @KeithGross @JustinWStapley BTW, you aren’t using that complete moron, KBJ as your evidence, are you?

@JohnnyMosby1776 @KeithGross @JustinWStapley "Like illegals will be" um did you listen to the hearings yesterday? There is no chance the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump's EO

@NateHasAHandle @KeithGross @JustinWStapley But according to you of the child was born here they would be. The 14th doesn’t specifically mention diplomats, so it was interpreted, like illegal aliens will be.

@LucianVonMartz @hobbie82 @KeithGross @JustinWStapley But their children who are born on American soil are born under the jurisdiction of US law so they are considered US citizens. Thats how the 14th Amendment works

@NateHasAHandle @hobbie82 @KeithGross @JustinWStapley Members of a "foreign nation at the time". Correct. Just like ALL foreigners and unauthorized/undocumented illegal alien invaders.

@hobbie82 @KeithGross @JustinWStapley They were still considered members of sovereign tribal nations even if they were born off of tribal land, the Supreme Court decided that in 1884

@NateHasAHandle @KeithGross @JustinWStapley what if they did not live on tribal land? they were still not granted citizenship.

@JohnnyMosby1776 @KeithGross @JustinWStapley Birthright citizenship applies to when you are born, so no if a foreign diplomat was kicked out but their child stayed behind they wouldn't suddenly become a citizen because when they were born they fell under the foreign diplomat restriction in the 14th amendment

@NateHasAHandle @KeithGross @JustinWStapley BTW, we can kick out (deport) foreign diplomats. I guess that means their children are citizens as well using your logic.

@hobbie82 @KeithGross @JustinWStapley Its because Native Americans who lived in their tribal nations were considered members of a separate nation at the time. The government considered their nations as domestic dependent nations, so they were seen as outside of US jurisdiction at the time.

@NateHasAHandle @KeithGross @JustinWStapley why would they have had to create a law specifically for native americans to become citizens of the law applied to all.

@KeithGross @JustinWStapley Thats just not true, jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance and everything to do with if the US laws apply to you or not. Thats why the Amendment excludes the children of foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity, aka they aren't under our jurisdiction

The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to an allegiance to a government, not what modern lay language means when people use the te “jurisdiction” for criminal prosecutions. For example: an invading army could certainly have its members arrested and prosecuted under our jurisdiction, but they have not subjected themselves to our jurisdiction for citizenship purposes.

@GrumpyDude1968 @ConservativaPol @Thomas_Banacek @ChiefJosheola Thats what the Constitution says so yes. If you don't have diplomatic immunity then you are under the US' jurisdiction and fall under the 14th Amendment

@NateHasAHandle @ConservativaPol @Thomas_Banacek @ChiefJosheola A secretary in the UK Embassy does not have diplomatic immunity. If she commits a crime in the US, she can be arrested. By your logic, if she has a child in the US, that child enjoys birthright citizenship. Is this what you are claiming?

Republicans: “The Constitution says ‘Shall not be infringed’ so all gun laws are illegal! The Founders didn’t make mistakes!” Also Republicans: “Well, actually, when the Founders wrote ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens’ they didn’t mean it.”