PNHubble3

@MarkWarner Mark uses the "appeal to emotion" fallacy of logic. Subsidizing failing hospitals is not a power enumerated our federal government. It is reserved to the States and to the people.

NEW: 10 hospitals across Virginia are at risk of closure thanks to Trump’s tax bill.   While billionaires got tax breaks, thousands of Virginians could soon have a much harder time accessing critical care.

HUGE: The Chinese-Americans accused of attempting to explode an IED at MacDill Air Force Base Visitor’s center in Tampa were anchor babies for illegal parents, colleague @MaryMargOlohan reports. DHS nabbed the duo’s parents, Qiu Qin Zou and Jia Zhang Zheng, on March 18 for illegal entry. The parents applied for asylum in 1993, but were denied by an immigration judge, who issued them a deportation order in 1998. The Board of Immigration Appeals repeatedly denied their attempts to have their case reopened. Despite the repeated denials for status, they remained in the US. dailywire.com/news/exclusive…

@MarkWarner You think things are going to get better for you and your co-conspirators? 😆 More likely "out of the frying pan, into the fire" . A new AG means a new look at your acts of sedition.

Pam Bondi severely obstructed and carelessly mishandled the Epstein Files – denying victims justice and accountability. She focused on weaponizing the DOJ for political retribution instead of working to keep Americans safe. It was long past time for her to go.

D.O.G.E. confirms that USAID gave Chelsea Clinton $82,000,000 through the "Clinton Global Initiative" 3 million of that was spent on her wedding and 11 million on a mansion. Thoughts......??👀

@MarkWarner Easy answer. Relief from 47 years of terrorism and an impending nuclear capability. This will prove to be a much more efficient and effective use of force than 20+ years of GWOT.

Trump’s speech last night was cold comfort for the thousands of families who have sent their kids off to war. Will we have boots on the ground in Iran? What are we really fighting for?

I’m not a blackpiller but the web of corruption that extends between the Democratic Party, the public sector, NGOs, and various connected cronies is worse than anyone can imagine. We’re probably talking about hundreds of billions $ stolen nationally each year.

Officially credentialed Pentagon press corps as of today, alongside my interpreter @DataInterpretr. First Deaf journalist to hold the badge. Thank you @JoelValdezDOW for moving mountains to make this unique arrangement possible. Naturally, the legacy media is invited to congratulate the Department of War on their commitment to press corps inclusiveness. This wouldn't have been possible without you. Every $3 subscription and every engagement opened this door. Now I'm going to use it. Military institutional capture research starts today.

Really leading me there with "...where he defines exactly who he was talking about." 😆 No, I don't think it is clear that the former two attributes are dependencies of the latter two. If that was his intent, why didn't he simply omit "aliens" and "foreigners", because "...who belong to the families of..." was sufficient? Alternatively, if "aliens" and "foreigners" had a purpose, why not simply say "AND who" if diplomatic/ministerial offspring are the limited scope?

So you think a general category in the first clause doesn’t have a more restrictive meaning in the 2nd where he defines exactly who he was talking about? The allegiance was talking about foreign diplomats, soldiers, and Indian tribes that belonged to sovereign nations. But why say it will include every other class of person?

Our Constitution is clear—no matter who your parents are or where they are from, if you are born here, you are an American. Citing white supremacists in an effort to overturn birthright citizenship tells you everything you need to know. I hope SCOTUS will reject this bid.

You are assuming an "...and who..." where there is only a "..., who..." in the text. The ratifying debate indicates to me that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in 14A represents an allegiance or obligation to the United States (or its territories) that a tourist or illegal immigrant cannot possess. They remain citizens of their home nation as does their offspring.

@JackHates1Amend @JukejumperGRod @PNHubble3 @SenTimKaine Try reading it again.

@MarkWarner The President is "interfering" in elections the same way a police officer interferes with a bank robbery. You Democrats may have rigged your last election.

We cannot take our eyes off this. Trump is initiating a clear strategy to begin interfering in our elections. It is essential we use every tool at our disposal to push back against it.

Trump’s efforts to undermine birthright citizenship are just his next attempt to unleash chaos for millions… the same way he’s wreaked havoc on health care, started a deadly and cost-spiking war, and slapped tariffs on all. On all these fronts, we will continue to fight him.

@MarkWarner True, millions of [CENTRAL and SOUTH] Americans might be denied. We know that hurts your chances for a fourth term, of the only two you promised. Have you considered being more appealing to actual U.S. citizens?

Trump is actively trying to interfere in our elections.

@MarkWarner This hits just as sincerely as if all-time greatest stock prognosticator @SpeakerPelosi had posted it. 😬

A small handful are raking in enormous paydays from insider information. Americans deserve answers.

@elonmusk Gives 'taxation is theft' a whole new meaning.

@mremisso @motocalamari @SenTimKaine x.com/i/status/19386…

Matt's list of persons ineligible for native born citizenship: 1) Persons born in the United States who are foreigners. 2) Persons born in the United States who are aliens. 3) Persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors accredited to the Government of the United States. 4) Persons born in the United States who belong to the families of foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States. /Fin/

To settle the debate over birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment once & for all, I'm hereby posting the vast majority of the Senate's ratifying debate from May 30, 1866. (Thanks for ChatGPT for spending the last few hours helping me transcribe dozens of screenshots from the original congressional record.) The transcript runs around 22 pages & it's possible there are some typos, but I'll summarize it briefly: The amendment's author, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said his purpose in crafting the birthright citizenship clause was to create a standard policy across the United States, premised largely on some states' resistance to enabling newly freed blacks to become fully active members of the body politic. Noting the provision's specific application to freed blacks, Delaware's Sen. Willard Saulsbury said: "I do not presume that any one will pretend to disguise the fact that the object of this first section is simply to declare that negroes shall be citizens of the United States. There can be no other object in it, I presume, than a further extension of the legislative kindness and beneficence of Congress toward that class of people." Sen. Howard emphasized from the beginning that birthright citizenship would not apply to anyone born in the United States whose parents were not entirely under American jurisdiction: "[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." Note here that he's listing various classes of people the provision would not apply to — foreigners, aliens, children of ambassadors or foreign ministers; the word "or" clearly indicates he's listing various groups, not grouping them all into the ambassador category, as some have falsely claimed online. Maryland Sen. Reverdy Johnson likewise emphasized the provision would not apply to children whose parents were still subject to another country. "Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States ... If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States" After this assurance, the debate moved to Gypsies and Chinese people in California, and concern they may game the system to overtake the domestic population. These groups were singled out as examples of peoples not automatically entitled to citizenship merely for being born within the territorial United States, and modern progressives are officially trigger warned upon reading this section. The debate then moved to Indians, and once again there you'll see agreement that Indians that owed allegiance to a tribe would not be American citizens simply by virtue of being born in U.S. soil. However, the senators did say "civilized" Indians — i.e., those trying to become Americans — could. Sen. Howard: "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations." Illinois' Senator Lyman Trumbull concurred: "I have already replied to the suggestion as to the Indians being subject to our jurisdiction. They are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States; and the Senator from Maryland, if he will look into our statutes, will search in vain for any means of trying these wild Indians. A person can only be tried for a criminal offense in pursuance of laws, and he must be tried in a district which must have been fixed by law before the crime was committed. We have had in this country, and have today, a large region of country within the territorial limits of the United States, unorganized, over which we do not pretend to exercise any civil or criminal jurisdiction, where wild tribes of Indians roam at pleasure, subject to their own laws and regulations, and we do not pretend to interfere with them. They would not be embraced by this provision. For these reasons I think this language is better than the language employed by the civil rights bill [which had recently been passed]." Sen. Howard repeatedly emphasized the importance of birthright citizenship only applying when BOTH parents were fully under American jurisdiction, not owing loyalty to any other country/tribe/etc.: "If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States. "I am, however, by no means prepared to say, as I think I have intimated before, that being born within the United States, independent of any new constitutional provision on the subject, creates the relation of citizen to the United States." Oregon's Senator George Henry Williams echoed this key point that the provision applies to children whose parents are under the jurisdiction of the United States and the United States only: "In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Read through the whole debate. You won't find anyone arguing that this birthright citizenship provision would apply to anyone born within the territorial United States automatically. Before I paste the text, here's a link to the original source: babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.…

This isn't complicated. Alliances don't exist by some religious rite. We do not need a defensive alliance with France or Spain. They offer nothing of value to us in that respect. The value is in base usage and the ability for the US to project power around the world in exchange for defending Europe. If NATO devolves into the Euro members not even letting the US use their bases or airspace, then it offers little to no value for America. You may believe we owe it to Europe to spend trillions of dollars protecting them no matter what. But we don't. And if they want to play this game, then they will suffer the consequences. No amount of yelling "retarded" is going to change 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.” Most of the 14th amendment debate fixates on “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” on the assumption that it must be doing meaningful work, and that is true. But the more you read the sentence, the more it becomes obvious that the real key word is “reside.” The way it’s placed almost makes it look like an afterthought, which is probably why it hasn’t received much attention. But when examined closely, any honest reader would firmly conclude that birthright citizenship is meant for residents, not illegal aliens or tourists.

Virginians are truly having our David-versus-Goliath moment. Tens of MILLIONS are pouring in from outside of the state for the 'vote yes' movement because what @vademocrats and @GovernorVA are trying to do has nothing to do with making our lives better in Virginia. It's about power. For Democrats. And while they pay for endless commercials featuring liars like Obama who claim this is about 'leveling the playing field,' sadly, grassroots is pretty much all we've got ... So we have to make our work MATTER. We have to SHOW UP. Tell everyone you know, even if they disagree with you, to vote no - explain to them WHY they should vote no. Answer questions. Show them the map Democrats are hiding from them. We will not surrender Virginia to the Democratic Party. We will not go down without a fight. VOTE NO, VIRGINIA.