bthescriv

@Will_Tanner_1 Is that a fact. ourworldindata.org/data-insights/…

Once again, Europe's history shows that if you simply hang the tiny percentage of the population that commits essentially all of the crime, rather than giving it EBT Danegeld indefinitely, the criminality problem goes away Europe hanged 1% of each generation for centuries. Practically every crime beyond the most petty minor offenses were capital crimes, and the proper sentencing was rigorously enforced Horse thieves, robbers, murderers, etc. faced not "probation" given them by a pro-crime judge, but the gallows. And they faced it for centuries, from roughly the High Middle Ages to the Georgian period The result was that crime went away. They plucked the crime genes out of the population by ruthlessly punishing criminals, and the result was that their civilization could focus on doing great and noble things instead of endlessly subsidizing a criminal underclass It is this lesson that must be in mind as we deal with crime and criminality. The number of lawbreakers is relatively small, though much dead wood has been allowed to build up. It's time to start handling that with the seriousness it deserves

@JoshMBlackman You don't need to imagine a hypothetically sincere anti-zionist religious teaching that spares all other religions/religious homelands but is not anti-semitic. The Satmar meet all your criteria.

What Happens If A Religion Precludes A Person From Supporting Zionism? reason.com/volokh/2026/02…

@Cernovich Lol, no. cato.org/blog/cato-stud…

For a family of 4, Obamacare costs the price of a mortgage. Illegal immigrants free healthcare via a) Medi-Cal and other state plans. b) Using the ER as a doctor's visit knowing they'll never pay. Healthcare costs would go down by half overnight with mass deportations.

@gradyjoseph @USA_Polling Minnesota honors detainer requests. minnpost.com/public-safety/…

@USA_Polling “At large” means that they arrested someone in the community. Red states honor detainer requests, so they just pick them up from local jails. Sanctuary laws forbid this except for special circumstances, so arrests are mostly at large

Notice something in common where most people are getting arrested by ICE

@DouthatNYT That's an awful lot of words to use when you could just say it's a reactionary movement and be done with it. And honestly, except that it would not only be briefer but also actually insightful, you'd still be saying the exact same thing.

Trumpism is founded on a rejection of the Great Awokening's attempt to establish a new post-Protestant moral consensus; it has no consistent moral vision of its own but pinballs btw contradictory nostalgias (bourgeois '50s, libertine '80s, etc.): x.com/IVMiles/status…

@awstar11 Aileen Cannon's name also comes up over + over in the news. Would you say the same thing about that?

When one judge's name keep coming up over and over in the news, It destroys the appearance of judicial impartiality.

@marcorandazza @donkilmer It's not simple. It's just straightforward. However, naturally, if you can't even correctly identify to whom a phrase applies when reading a straightforward sentence, straightforward things will tend to appear more complex to you than they really are.

@donkilmer Yeah, the only position I really don’t like on this issue is people who think it’s simple.

Here’s a theory: amend the selective service act so that it applies to men and women equally If the mother is not subject to the selective service act because she’s not a citizen, she’s not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” debate this!

@donkilmer @marcorandazza As to public schools: sesp.northwestern.edu/news-events/se… They're a net gain there too.

Something that gets lost in this debate about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the concept of jurisdiction itself. A core principle of the Revolution, the Founding, the Constitution and Amendments, is that a government’s jurisdiction (power over people and things) is not unlimited, i.e., it is limited. E.g., the government has no jurisdiction over the words you speak, the books you print, the god you worship, the arms you keep for self-defense, the sanctity of your home, the property you lawfully acquire. Jurisdiction is not omnipotence. That idea died in Europe. Trust me, we want a government that addresses its jurisdiction (where appropriate) with the precision of a surgeon and within the limits of what we are willing to let government to have power over. The government’s power (jurisdiction) to grant citizenship (i.e., representational rights) is critically important, especially when so much of government’s power depends on “democracy” (nose counting) for legitimacy. But that nose counting doesn’t just count at the ballot box (even assuming there is no voter fraud.) It counts at the welfare office, the public school budget, property taxes, the hospital emergency rooms funded with Medicare, the allocation of public safety dollars to combat crime or fight disease. I don’t know how SCOTUS is going to come out on the birth-right citizenship case. But I know how I want the issue resolved, even if we have to amend the Constitution once more.

@donkilmer @marcorandazza And if there were any evidence that children born to immigrants are likelier to be tax-evading, welfare-dependent, criminal vectors of disease than the children of natural-born citizens, that would make sense. But there isn't even evidence that immigrants are. So it doesn't.

@marcorandazza @Greenpeace bloomberg.com/news/articles/… aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/14… reuters.com/sustainability… greenpeace.org/eastasia/blog/… Etc.

Ever notice that @Greenpeace never criticizes China?

@mstephenslaw @marcorandazza His parents were domiciled here when he was born. But that doesn't mean SCOTUS didn't examine the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Which they did.

@bthescriv @marcorandazza I thought his parents were permanent residents… You know Here legally…

The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint, yet every day some whiny fucktard represented by a shitbag lawyer tries to get one. So don't tell me "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which has never been examined by SCOTUS is something beyond question.

@malkarnivore @marcorandazza They examined the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction." People here unlawfully get deported precisely because they are subject to the country's jurisdiction, actually. But the other criterion is being born here. So moot point.

@bthescriv @marcorandazza They did not examine it in Wong Kim Ark It was not a question, because neither the prosecution, nor the defense questioned that his parents were in the country lawfully, and thus "Subject to the jurisdiction." An illegal alien in the country unlawfully is not, hence deportation

@MateusLaw @marcorandazza See also reason.com/volokh/2025/02…

@MateusLaw @marcorandazza Wong Kim Ark itself articulates exactly the same standard in common law and the framers themselves clearly acknowledged it in debate. It's also been exhaustively documented elsewhere. See, e.g., publications.lawschool.cornell.edu/lawreview/wp-c…

@MateusLaw @marcorandazza 3) Who said they couldn't?

@MateusLaw @marcorandazza 1) It states that they know of no authority that imposes other restrictions, citing to Lynch v. Clarke, which establishes birthright citizenship for even the children of transient aliems. So it actually kinda did. 2) You'd still need an authority for disregarding them. And...

@marcorandazza Sure! Here's my opening statement: That phrase applies to the child not the mother, you bozo.