Cindy Simpson

31.4K posts

Cindy Simpson banner
Cindy Simpson

Cindy Simpson

@Simpsonreport

Thankful. Conservative, Christian, CPA, Entrepreneur, Mainstream Media Skeptic. Essays at American Thinker, Am Greatness, Am Spectator, RedState. #BeABarnabas

Louisville, KY Katılım Eylül 2011
3.8K Takip Edilen3.6K Takipçiler
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
The ACLU’s birthright citizenship argument relies on British Common law—i.e., born in the country means born a subject—is what Americans fought against in the Revolution. They considered themselves citizens, not subjects, with the inalienable right to change home and allegiance.
English
0
0
1
1
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
Agree—but the important point about the law is that the way birthright citizenship it is practiced today was due to an evolution in public perception and bureaucratic guidance, starting in the 1950s. As noted by @DrJohnEastman, there’s been no constitutional or ruling mandate. 1/
Shipwreckedcrew@shipwreckedcrew

The birthright citizenship case this morning is really more about politics than it is the law. If the Administration loses nothing of substance will change. But the debate has been joined, and taken to the very highest level of discourse. Two years ago no one would have even imagined this issue would be before the Supreme Court. But Pres. Trump FORCED it there. As is true in many areas of his second term, he has swung for the fences on this topic. It is worth the effort but it falls in the category of "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Even an adverse decision won't end the debate. It will simply redirect the debate to a different forum where the political branches will need to confront it. The Democrats and open border advocates among the socialists and communists never imagined that the building of their constituencies would come under attack in this fashion. But the debate has exposed that this is about so much more that migrant illegals coming to the US and starting families, with their children being citizens. This is about a vulnerability to our country, our governance, and our culture to the deliberate and purposeful colonization via mass third-world migration with malicious political, cultural, and religious goals.

English
1
0
0
39
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
Also the details behind WKA—that there was a governing treaty that both noted the transfer of allegiance but prevented the formal acquisition of US citizenship. The status of WKAs parents did not result in him having dual allegiance. He had both permanent domicile and singular allegiance.
English
1
0
0
39
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
@willchamberlain I agree. This is not going well. Sauer seems unprepared with key rebuttals for the questions thrown at him.
English
1
0
1
294
Will Chamberlain
Will Chamberlain@willchamberlain·
ORAL ARGUMENTS IN TRUMP V. BARBARA begin!
English
7
20
225
16.7K
Benjamin Weingarten
Benjamin Weingarten@bhweingarten·
Gorsuch: How do we define domicile -- 1868 or today standards? Sauer: Don't see any distinction between 1868 or today. Lawful presence with intent to remain permanently.
English
2
0
32
1.2K
Benjamin Weingarten
Benjamin Weingarten@bhweingarten·
Oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara -- the critical birthright citizenship case -- commence. Solicitor General D. John Sauer begins by explaining what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. And he lays out the perverse incentives and outcomes the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has created.
Benjamin Weingarten tweet media
English
4
26
154
9.4K
Andrew Beck
Andrew Beck@AndrewBeckUSA·
Contrary to certain media, ending birthright citizenship is not a dubious theory Claremont cooked up: Eastman, Erler, and Anton just stated the obvious. There’s been almost total agreement among serious scholars. To not end it would destroy trust in the integrity of our system.
Eric W.@EWess92

Professor @RandyEBarnett , one of the most influential Originalists of all time, has written an article in the @WSJ explaining that President Trump is right on Birthright Citizenship. He is one of the leading libertarian law professors. Originalists agree on this issue.

English
1
5
20
1K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
@KevinRobertsTX My piece here explores the absurd results and national security threats the presently evolved practice creates, including tens of millions of dual citizens, an important consideration in a time of international conflict. amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
1
1
42
Kevin Roberts
Kevin Roberts@KevinRobertsTX·
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in one of the most important cases in our country’s history.   Will we restore the integrity and proper limits of birthright citizenship, or will we continue to let it be exploited by those subject to other jurisdictions—devaluing American citizenship and giving away our birthright?   This @Heritage video offers a clear explanation of why universal birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. It’s time for the Supreme Court to end this malpractice.
English
6
31
86
3.7K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
Another way of looking at the issue—instead of complicated legal analysis—the absurd results the presently evolved practice has created. “Citizenship” not only for illegals’ children, but of foreigners here legally but temporarily: like al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, or Chinese who shipped reproductive material to implant into US surrogates. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
0
0
164
Benjamin Weingarten
Benjamin Weingarten@bhweingarten·
Apropos of nothing, but the notion that The Founders developed three co-equal branches of government is a fallacy. While the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on yet another fundamental issue today — birthright citizenship — worth remembering that the judiciary was supposed to be the weakest of the three branches. Instead, the executive and judiciary have effectively subsumed the power of the legislature. That said, the birthright citizenship order is manifestly lawful and restores the original understanding of the 14th Amendment. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” MEANS “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Benjamin Weingarten tweet media
English
5
10
69
2.8K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
Yes. And in WKA, Ark’s parents could not become citizens because of the treaty with China, but at the time, both China and US accepted that these Chinese had transferred their allegiance. This was not only acknowledged in the treaty, but I also located the SoS discussion in Vol 57 of The Nation. More on the subject in my piece, here: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
0
0
10
Lawyerforlaws
Lawyerforlaws@lawyer4laws·
Birthright Citizenship: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) affirmed birthright citizenship for children of legal resident aliens. In contrast, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) excluded tribal Indians from birthright citizenship. Tribal members “owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes” and therefore were not considered subject to the full jurisdiction of the U.S. Central requirement for birthright citizenship: Complete political jurisdiction + direct allegiance~not merely the ability to enforce ordinary criminal or civil statutes.
English
1
3
4
116
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
@RWMaloneMD @kbean511 Another way of looking at this issue instead of the legal arguments—the “citizens” the “evolved” practice it creates, as well as tens of millions of dual citizens, which in a time of war creates a national security threat. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
0
4
289
Robert W Malone, MD
Robert W Malone, MD@RWMaloneMD·
9% of of all the babies born in the USA getting citizenship, based on either birth tourism - mostly from the CCP - or whose mother smuggled herself into this country illegally, is not ok and no way to secure a healthy future for Americans. If the Supreme Court doesn't restrict birthright citizenship, then Congress must -BEFORE the midterms. This is what the citizens of the United States want and require.
Robert W Malone, MD tweet media
English
76
909
2.5K
127.4K
Matt Van Swol
Matt Van Swol@mattvanswol·
@BillMelugin_ @GeneHamilton I had no idea this happened until this very moment. That is fucking insane, if true. So they did this legally? For two years??? ON TOP of illegal aliens crossing the border illegally? No way, is the true?
English
202
160
2.4K
76.9K
Cindy Simpson retweetledi
Bill Melugin
Bill Melugin@BillMelugin_·
The CBP One app was originally created to streamline trucking cargo for vehicles crossing the border. The Biden admin altered it to allow 50,000-60,000 otherwise inadmissible aliens from around the globe to enter the U.S. every single month for two years straight.
Snickel ⚡️@Crypto_Fritzz

@BillMelugin_ @monnakll CBP One App was rolled out in Oct of 2020. So Trump created the app.

English
240
2.8K
12.1K
7.8M
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
@BrandonStraka It didn’t apply to illegals, nor those like al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese children born to US surrogates—earning “citizenship” w/ parents here temporarily as students, workers, visitors, or sent fertilized eggs from China. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
0
0
33
Brandon Straka #WalkAway
Brandon Straka #WalkAway@BrandonStraka·
President Trump discusses upcoming Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship, arguing the policy was intended for post–Civil War conditions, not modern cases. “And I’m going to go…”
English
1
8
61
2.8K
Cindy Simpson
Cindy Simpson@Simpsonreport·
Hope so. Another way to look at the issue vs analyzing the 14th, historical context, framers’ intent, case law, etc or its evolution driven by popular perception—is to take note of some of its absurd results, like “citizens” al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese children born to US surrogates—but also the resulting tens of millions of dual citizens residing here, especially a risk in a time of war. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
0
0
0
25
Cindy Simpson retweetledi
Mike Lee
Mike Lee@BasedMikeLee·
Biden badly misused immigration parole, using it unlawfully to bring millions of migrants into the U.S. A federal judge has now told Trump he can’t reverse Biden’s unlawful use of this narrow authority. It’s all so upside down.
The Daily Signal@DailySignal

A federal judge with a record of ruling against President Trump blocked his admin from terminating the parole of immigrants who entered the United States using the Biden administration’s app, writes @FredLucasWH dailysignal.com/2026/03/31/oba…

English
1.2K
2.6K
14.7K
12.8M