PiningForAFjord
6K posts
PiningForAFjord
@PiningForAFjord
Heritage American, Millennial, Agnostic
Katılım Kasım 2022
421 Takip Edilen288 Takipçiler
The Republican party was going to lock in the majority of the Indian American vote within 10 years if they had just kept their mouths shut on our religion & specifically singling out H1B "immigration" repeatedly.
Now they fucked up. The richest demographic's donor money... gone.
English
@EthanLevins2 I cannot even imagine eating up Islamic regime propaganda this willingly.
English
Iran has dedicated a missile to the suffering of Jesus Christ, Son of the Holy Mary.
“In hope for the day he returns”.
These guys are suppose to be my enemy?
English
@Legal_Fil The law has been twisted for centuries. Every damn court case is up to a judge's discretion and great legal travesties are constantly taking place. Excuse us if we don't think we need to throw the nation away because you think not following your specific interpretation of...
English
A significant proportion of the people who poo-poo the rule of law are under the delusion that they would fare well in its absence.
Tim Pool@Timcast
the debate on birthright citizen is fucking hilarious Justice's be like "yes this will destroy the fabric of our nation but it was written down so whatever"
English
PiningForAFjord retweetledi
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.
Bill Melugin@BillMelugin_
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.
English
@captive_dreamer I agree. "The constitution says we have to sacrifice babies to Moloch, so we have no choice!" isn't a valid argument, even if it said those exact words. Yes I want to protect the good enshrined in the constitution, but things aren't good *because* the constitution says them.
English
@TBestig @TAttucks @NeverDeleteX @Seanfucious 2. It is. The grammar doesn't make sense either way. For it to make sense your way it would require an 'or' between foreigners and aliens.
3. Yes. The purpose of the amendment was for freed slaves to have citizenship, not immigrants. It doesn't take away rights, it gives them.
English
@PiningForAFjord @TAttucks @NeverDeleteX @Seanfucious 1: Because some foreign ambassadors marry American citizens, in which case their children would be citizens.
2: It is not a list of three items. The grammar would make no sense if it was.
3: If it WAS a list, “foreigners” would mean LEGAL immigrants don’t get birthright either.
English
@TBestig @TAttucks @NeverDeleteX @Seanfucious 1. That's circular logic. There was no guarantee that a single US citizen parent was enough for a child to gain birthright citizenship. You're assuming that the children of 1 US citizen wouldn't be considered foreigners, which isn't a blanket true statement.
English
@collblick @Seanfucious The consistution also says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nuclear arms are arms. Where's my nuke?
English
@Seanfucious Yeah, there isn't a logical need for birthright citizenship for people who didn't grow up here, but it would require an amendment. And, none of these people are actually concerned with that small number instead of kids of illegal aliens who actually do live here.
English
@TBestig @TAttucks @NeverDeleteX @Seanfucious Logically, you think the author of that would feel the need to specify "foreigners and aliens" when referring to the "families of embassadors and foreign ministers"? That's clearly a list of 3 items, all of which are to not be included.
English
@TAttucks @NeverDeleteX @Seanfucious WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS.
Read the rest of the fucking sentence my guy
English
@GiovanniMi53549 @Kingkaihav98951 @Seanfucious 2 wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner. What a great system!
English
@Kingkaihav98951 @Seanfucious If enough people wanted it it could be passed. If not enough people want it that means it shouldn’t pass independently of your feelings about it
English
@TPostMillennial If the constitution allows birth tourism then it also allows private citizens to own nuclear weapons. No ifs ands or buts. Nuclear weapons are arms.
English
John Sauer: “We’re in a new world now as Justice Alito pointed out where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a US citizen.”
John Roberts: “It’s a new world, but it’s the same Constitution.”
English
@BadSaturday1 @RealTheoWold Do you understand how difficult it is to amend the constitution? It's not going to happen. ESPECIALLY not if all of the children of illegals currently in this country become citizens and start voting. No candidate that isn't explicitly pro-illegal immigrant will ever win again.
English
@RealTheoWold The constitution says what it says. The way to fix it is via amendment. I want a fix, but the law is the law right now.
English
You've often heard Justices be split into two separate categories of jurisprudence: The "living Constitution" and "dead Constitution."
Well, John Roberts falls into a new category: The "Suicide Pact Constitution."
No, the original words of the Constitution do not mean America must tolerate foreigners being able to fly here and make their kids citizens.
TheBlaze@theblaze
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.”
English
@jiujitsusaveme @skscartoon Yes, we don't spend it because of NATO. But NATO doesn't spend nearly as much on their own defense because they have an ally like us. Focusing on "NATO budget" is a misdirection. All military spending by a country in NATO strengths the defense of all allies in NATO.
English
I believe that for NATO it is beneficial to have the United States as an ally, especially because we already spend that amount on our own defense we don’t spend it because of NATO. However, the reason the president wants to leave is not legitimate. He wants to leave because he started a war against Iran; he attacked without planning for the consequences, demanded that NATO which is a defense system support him in this foolish war, after he had already cut ties with all allies. And when they refused, because it was obvious they would, he is now, out of ego, trying to pull the country out. He is not doing this because leaving NATO would improve the life of the American citizen. No, it won’t change anything for us.
English
A US exit from NATO is a win-win—America saves resources, Europe boosts defense spending and inevitably moves right politically
Skscartoon@skscartoon
The Strait of Hormuz matters a lot more to Europe than it does to the US
English
@jiujitsusaveme @skscartoon Do you think that if the US stopped spending any money on our own military and solely contributed to the NATO budget we would be just as good of defense allies? You don't think being in NATO with a country that has a military as powerful as the US helps them?
English
@skscartoon The United States is responsible for fifteen percent of NATO’s budget.
English
@DarkReaperSoul @Awk20000 Incorrect. His father's father immigrated here legally and was a US citizen when Trump's father was born. Trump's proposal doesn't even require citizenship, just one parent with lawful permanent residence.
English
@Awk20000 Make to retro active Trump will lose his citizenship because his father only recieved it because of Birthright.
English
@Awk20000 "We should replace the judges" I'm not liberal but why doesn't he think about the ramifications of that sentence. If there is a ruling that you don't like you should replace the judges? You know that means right? When your side is not in control the other side can do it to you.
English
@RepShriThanedar The 14th amendment doesn't say the word immigrant. "the jurisdiction thereof" excludes people who come from outside the US. It's entire purpose was to give citizenship to the descendants of slaves that were here and had nowhere else to go. Immigrants can go home.
English
As an immigrant myself, today's arguments on birthright citizenship are deeply personal to me. The 14th Amendment is clear: the children of immigrants are guaranteed US citizenship. Despite President Trump's wishes, he cannot rewrite the Constitution.
English
PiningForAFjord retweetledi
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.
Cheese For Everyone!@CheeseForEvery1
And the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the internet and the Second Amendment doesn’t cover the AR-15. After all, the Framers never conceived of these things.
English
@billybinion "The constitution says we can't stop our country from being destroyed, therefore we can't" is essentially your argument here.
English
Perhaps my favorite Supreme Court exchange in recent memory:
Solicitor general: “It’s a new world."
John Roberts: "It's a new world. It's the same Constitution."
Into my veins 😌
English