Dr. Nuke

1.8K posts

Dr. Nuke

Dr. Nuke

@VonFustercluck

Katılım Haziran 2025
92 Takip Edilen21 Takipçiler
Dr. Nuke
Dr. Nuke@VonFustercluck·
@RepDuke3D @mburm201 @greggnunziata Well, they can be expelled from the country. That was what was done to foreign diplomats who committed crimes. The point is that they can't be prosecuted for those crimes (while undocumented aliens can be).
English
0
0
0
1
Gregg Nunziata
Gregg Nunziata@greggnunziata·
"The framers of the 14th amendment could never have anticipated birth tourism and mass illegal immigration" is the Right's version of "the framers of the 2nd Amendment could never have anticipated assault rifles and high capacity magazines."
Camden, NJ 🇺🇸 English
314
374
2.5K
146.3K
Dr. Nuke
Dr. Nuke@VonFustercluck·
@PubWanghaf Odd that they never thought to give Congress the power to regulate immigration in the Constitution.
English
0
0
0
10
Pub
Pub@PubWanghaf·
My take on birthright citizenship: The founders would have hung the perpetrators from the nearest lamp post for treason
Jonah Goldberg@JonahDispatch

My warm take on birthright citizenship: Wholly defensible to be against it as policy and wholly reasonable to want to reform it in some way. Also intellectually defensible to say that the 14th amendment is being misinterpreted. Doesn't mean I agree, but I don't think it's crazy either. But even if you win that argument, you still need to deal with century+ of precedent and statutory language that codifies it and has created massive reliance interests. I consider it an open question whether Congress can repeal or modify birthright citizenship. I think it is absolutely nuts and dangerous to think a president can repeal it through executive order, and defending the E.O. because you agree with the underlying policy is itself indefensible. That's it. That's my take.

English
52
294
3.5K
42.5K
Jennifer Strieby 🇺🇸
Jennifer Strieby 🇺🇸@JenniferStrby·
I don’t agree with the special laws/rules for foreign diplomats. However, the discussion is about birthright citizenship. An illegal having a child on US soil should not automatically be a US citizen. If the parent is not a legal citizen, the children should be considered a citizen of the country of origin of the parents.
English
1
0
0
6
Greg Price
Greg Price@greg_price11·
It just feels so painfully obvious that the 14th amendment does not mean that a 9-months pregnant woman from Mexico can cross the Rio Grande illegally, give birth, and be allowed to stay because her child is now a natural born citizen.
English
719
1.9K
19.5K
903K
Wingnut
Wingnut@LoveBlacks88·
@Muffinforall1 @BigRockInsights I'm an anti-communist, so anything I oppose is inherently communist. If you don't already know the definition, it's because you're a communist playing semantics. It's okay to kill communists btw
English
3
0
4
54
Dr. Nuke
Dr. Nuke@VonFustercluck·
@BigRockInsights We've always known that's what you wanted. Now you're saying the quiet part out loud.
English
0
0
0
15
Dr. Nuke
Dr. Nuke@VonFustercluck·
@Atomixion2 @JonesMarkLB @gynepareidolia @marcorandazza "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors...." If it said, "foreigners, aliens, and those who belong to the families of ambassadors," then it would be treated separately. Without "and those," it's clearly only one category.
English
1
0
1
23
Dr. Nuke
Dr. Nuke@VonFustercluck·
@ilan_wurman The use of the term "allegiance" only muddies the waters, because the 14th Amendment doesn't use the term. "Jurisdiction" has a clear meaning, and it doesn't involve allegiance.
English
0
0
0
35
Ilan Wurman
Ilan Wurman@ilan_wurman·
People are making fun of Justice Jackson for this. But — and given how supportive I’ve been of the Trump Administration on this issue, I think I’m qualified to say this — Jackson was quite sharp at the argument and does in fact understand the issue. The problem is that in the 19th century allegiance had a dual meaning. It meant loyalty and faith, but it also meant being within the sovereign’s power. So in her hypothetical the individual would in fact owe allegiance in the sense of an obligation not to violate the law. That the violation occurred is irrelevant. Allegiance was owed which is why the sovereign can punish the visitor. If that’s the sense in which the drafters were using allegiance, and if that is all that is required for jurisdiction, then the government has a harder argument. But either way, the drafters told us they meant a complete jurisdiction. So even if the visitor to Japan has some kind of allegiance, it wouldn’t necessarily be a complete one in the sense of the amendment.
Election Wizard@ElectionWiz

KBJ: "If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws…in a sense, it's allegiance."

English
134
38
961
586.6K
Conor Friedersdorf
Conor Friedersdorf@conor64·
LOL to turning Republican because of Bill Clinton's sexual ethics and also staying loyal to Trump.
James Woods@RealJamesWoods

Let’s get my position on the Republican Party crystal clear. I’ve been a registered Republican since Bill Clinton turned the Oval Office into his own personal brothel. Now that Senate Majority John Thune refuses to protect election integrity, I am disgusted with my party. I will NEVER vote for a Democrat in my life, but the RINO elements destroying the Republican party are a disgrace. I am a devout follower of President Trump, and as a registered Independent will continue to vote with Republicans when they stand behind this great President and act like Republicans again. Democrats, the ragtag band of con artists and grifters that they are, manage to work together in lockstep, but getting Republicans to accomplish anything is like herding cats. It’s absolutely infuriating.

English
16
59
759
37.6K
Dr. Nuke
Dr. Nuke@VonFustercluck·
@ChrisMartzWX Any idea what she said between "laws" and "in a sense"? Those missing words would likely be helpful in understanding the argument.
English
0
0
0
2
Dr. Nuke
Dr. Nuke@VonFustercluck·
@cheryllet @molmccann I strongly suspect that a Convention of States wouldn't go the way you want it to.
English
0
0
0
5
Cheryl Timmons
Cheryl Timmons@cheryllet·
@molmccann NO! It is time for the PEOPLE to act. A convention of States under Article 5. Term limits. end foreign aid. codify in the Constitution what a citizen is.
English
2
0
0
35
Molly McCann Sanders
Molly McCann Sanders@molmccann·
The solution to the Birthright Citizenship debacle, if the Court rules the wrong way, is for Congress to radically do its job. Congress could cut off the welfare that incentivizes migrants to seek our shores, and Congress could restrict immigration and entry.
English
167
82
580
8.6K
Libs of TikTok
Libs of TikTok@libsoftiktok·
Ketanji Brown Jackson's argument justifying birthright citizenship: "If I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me... I'm still locally owing allegiance in that sense." Umm... WHAT?!
English
7.7K
5.9K
38.8K
1.8M
Dr. Nuke
Dr. Nuke@VonFustercluck·
@libsoftiktok What's so hard about that? If you're in Japan you're under Japanese jurisdiction, even if your allegiance is to the United States. Jurisdiction clearly has nothing to do with allegiance.
English
0
0
0
6
Dr. Nuke
Dr. Nuke@VonFustercluck·
@tedcruz It's jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with allegiance--and the 14th Amendment mentions jurisdiction, not allegiance.
English
0
0
0
2
Dr. Nuke
Dr. Nuke@VonFustercluck·
@Kiradavis "Madam, you are impeached on the ground that I do not like your decisions. Also, you are black."
English
0
0
0
2
Ryan S. Walters
Ryan S. Walters@ryanswalters73·
It’s so simple, only a complete moron, or TDS leftist, could possibly misunderstand it. A simple understanding of language, punctuation, and sentence structure helps too. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced the 14th amendment and said this: "This amendment which I have offered, is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every 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 persons."
Ryan S. Walters tweet media
English
204
1K
2.3K
52.2K

Keşfet

@RepDuke3D @mburm201 @greggnunziata @JonesMarkLB @Atomixion2 @gynepareidolia @marcorandazza @PubWanghaf