Mark Iverson

To prevent shadow banning me, I have to post a pic of my letter to state AGs… the web address is at the top of the pic…

@molmccann “… to establish uniform rules of naturalization.”

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.

@TexasTamieK Agreed that people have the wrong perspective. The proper perspective is that We the People can shove the constitution in the face of government and say, “The constitution is a limit on your authority.” 😉

The Constitution does NOT give you rights. You already have them. The Constitution simply tells the government that it cannot take those rights away. I wish more people understood this.

Well, half right. State citizenship acknowledges your full unalienable rights. US citizenship requires the Incorporation Doctrine to recognize SOME of the first 8 amendments. US citizenship is INFERIOR to the original state citizenship. I have read most of the relevant court cases and written over ten articles on various aspects of citizenship and rights. link is on my profile.

FACT:  One can be a State citizen without being a U.S. citizen McDonel v The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883), and the Supreme Ct. of Indiana   "... although he was not a citizen of the United States (District of Columbia), he was a citizen and voter of the State, under section 2 of article 2 of our State Constitution.  One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States."   Crosse v Board of Supervisors,  221 A.2d. 431 (1966), and Maryland Court of Appeals   "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, it has NOT been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States (District of Columbia) in order to be a Citizen of his state.” [citing U.S. v Cruikshank, Slaughter House Cases and Short v State 80 Md 392, 401-402 (1895), 31 A. 322]   Van Valkenburg v Brown, 43 Cal 43 (1872)   "No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to THEIR jurisdiction... or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under THEIR laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution."  [ referring to the 14th Amendment ]

Likely Supreme Court holding: We fought a Civil War so we can mail U.S. election ballots and Social Security checks to 1.5 million Chinese nationals with birthright citizenship living in Beijing. If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution. We’re just following the law here.

FACT:  One can be a State citizen without being a U.S. citizen McDonel v The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883), and the Supreme Ct. of Indiana   "... although he was not a citizen of the United States (District of Columbia), he was a citizen and voter of the State, under section 2 of article 2 of our State Constitution.  One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States."   Crosse v Board of Supervisors,  221 A.2d. 431 (1966), and Maryland Court of Appeals   "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, it has NOT been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States (District of Columbia) in order to be a Citizen of his state.” [citing U.S. v Cruikshank, Slaughter House Cases and Short v State 80 Md 392, 401-402 (1895), 31 A. 322]   Van Valkenburg v Brown, 43 Cal 43 (1872)   "No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to THEIR jurisdiction... or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under THEIR laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution."  [ referring to the 14th Amendment ]

The 14th Amendment does not empower illegal aliens to give birth in the U.S. to ensure their children automatically become citizens. President Trump is protecting the value and integrity of American citizenship. We cannot allow illegal aliens to exploit the system.

@1_Stupid_Fuck Oops, correction… Wong Kim Ark was 1898, so not quite the next century!

@1_Stupid_Fuck WKA is in the next century… but i agree, the modern definitions make a clear distinction.

The focus on the term "domicile" by Mr. Sauer is good but he didn't put in the work to fully flush out that term. "Domicile" only applies to white citizens of a State. "Resident" would apply to US citizens and aliens. Had he explained this and given more structure and evidence to his domicile argument, it could have been a great position.

Agreed. We are all distracted by the wrong question... By now, it should be common knowledge that the sole PURPOSE of the 14th amendment was to confer a citizenship STATUS on the freed slaves. Surprise!  There are NO MORE freed slaves to protect! The 14th is OBSOLETE, and no longer needed. We could all be state citizens... that STATUS still exists SEPARATE from US citizenship. END OF DEBATE, PROBLEM SOLVED I’ve written numerous articles with court citations on citizenship. link is on my profile.

Birthright Citizenship was written for freed slaves, NOT the anchor babies of illegals. Pass it on.

Agreed. We are all distracted by the wrong question... By now, it should be common knowledge that the sole PURPOSE of the 14th amendment was to confer a citizenship STATUS on the freed slaves. Surprise!  There are NO MORE freed slaves to protect! The 14th is OBSOLETE, and no longer needed. We could all be state citizens... that STATUS still exists SEPARATE from US citizenship. END OF DEBATE, PROBLEM SOLVED I’ve written numerous articles with court citations on citizenship. link is on my profile.

If the Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t strike down birthright citizenship, it will be codifying the overthrow of the Constitutional Republic of the United States. The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, ratified in 1868, explicitly granted birthright citizenship to former Black slaves and their descendants, overturning the 1857 Dred Scott ruling that had denied them citizenship. The clause was specifically designed to guarantee citizenship to newly freed slaves born in the U.S. In other words: if there had been no slaves, there would be no birthright citizenship. Is that simple. Meaning, birthright citizenship applies only to individuals who are U.S. citizens by birth or through naturalization. The End.

Such ignorance from an elected representative… An ‘American citizen’ is not a legal entity. the only citizenships are state citizens, the original one, and US citizens. SCOTUS stated that the 14th did NOT create a ‘national’ citizenship. it created a citizen of the District of Columbia, aka a US citizen, aka a citizen of the federal government.

If you’re born in the United States, you are an American citizen. That’s a constitutional guarantee in the 14th Amendment and reaffirmed by court precedent, including US v. Wong Kim Ark. Any attempts to strip citizenship from people born on U.S. soil are unconstitutional.

Of course there is more to the 14th, but the impetus was that the freed slaves had no standing in the courts BECAUSE they had no citizenship status. how many cases have you read re the 14th, and citizenship? i have read most of the relevant ones. the other clauses only serve to define the jurisdiction of federal citizens that reside in the states because the states are separate sovereign nations with their own constitutions and state citizens. duh

@marki2059 @TristanSnell You don’t understand if if you think that was the sole purpose. Birthright citizenship is just 1 clause in the14th. There is also Due Process, Equal Protection, immunities, public debt, disqualification, and other things

If SCOTUS ends Birthright Citizenship Then ANYONE’S citizenship can be revoked Then Trump can deport ANYONE — or let them stay but strip them of voting rights HE ALONE will determine who is a citizen and who is not THAT is what’s at stake here — American democracy itself

@JDStokes79 @JackPosobiec your reading comprehension needs work. i never said the 14th was not law. how many of the relevant SCOTUS cases have you read? i have read most of them. you probably think that US citizens have unalienable rights… you’d be wrong.

@marki2059 @JackPosobiec Your (contradicted repeatedly by SCOTUS) only-freed-slaves talking point aside, the 14th is still law until and unless it's repealed. The opinion of some random guy on the internet doesn't invalidate it. There are people who insist the 2nd is OBSOLETE too, and no longer needed.

"Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" means those who have primary allegiance to the United States and not a foreign power The 14th Amendment does not apply to foreign citizens on US soil and never did

where did i say the states make immigration laws? The issue is about citizenship, and that topic i know. i have read most of the important cases on citizenship and many books. what have you done to better understand the legal nuances? this country existed just fine for a hundred years on state citizenship.

@marki2059 @MattWalshBlog @Rach_IC States cannot make law regarding immigration.

The left’s argument for birthright citizenship is obviously insane but it’s even more insane when you consider that they actually don’t believe in your or my “birthright.” We are on stolen land and don’t belong here, according to them. But the anchor baby whose parents got here from Guatemala 10 seconds ago has a “birthright” and is tied to this nation by blood for all time. That’s actually their position. It’s so psychotic that you can’t even argue against it. Like trying to have a political debate with a dog. These people are not rational.

@Salazar_Matthew @atrupar NOT my opinion… SCOTUS. i’ve read numerous SCOTUS cases on citizenship, the 14th amendment and civil vs unalienable rights. how many have you read?

@marki2059 @atrupar Shit they shoulda had you in there today, my guy.

GORSUCH: Do you think Native Americans are birthright citizens under your test? SAUER: Ah, I think ... so. I have to think that through.

@SantaMonicaMM @atrupar NOT my opinion… SCOTUS. i’ve read numerous SCOTUS cases on citizenship, the 14th amendment and civil vs unalienable rights. how many have you read?

@marki2059 @atrupar The 2nd Amendment was written to confer the right of ownership of muskets to a citizen militia at a time when there was no national army. Today, we have semiautomatic rifles and a professional military. The 2nd is OBSOLETE and no longer needed. END OF DEBATE, PROBLEM SOLVED.

@mmapropsguy @atrupar NOT my opinion… SCOTUS. i’ve read numerous SCOTUS cases on citizenship, the 14th amendment and civil vs unalienable rights. how many have you read?

@marki2059 @atrupar Not a lawyer but you stayed at a Holiday Inn.

@ArifOguz12 @atrupar NOT my opinion… SCOTUS. i’ve read numerous SCOTUS cases on citizenship, the 14th amendment and civil vs unalienable rights. how many have you read?

@marki2059 @atrupar Shame you missed that law career - do you also do drywall ? Transmissions?

@superdave10 @atrupar NOT my opinion… SCOTUS. i’ve read numerous SCOTUS cases on citizenship, the 14th amendment and civil vs unalienable rights. how many have you read?

@marki2059 @atrupar This is your interpretation, but it’s not backed up by SCOTUS.

@ArifOguz12 @atrupar 78 followers… big time loser! 🤡😂

We are all distracted by the wrong question... By now, it should be common knowledge that the sole PURPOSE of the 14th amendment was to confer a citizenship STATUS on the freed slaves. Surprise!  There are NO MORE freed slaves to protect! The 14th is OBSOLETE, and no longer needed. We could all be state citizens... that STATUS still exists SEPARATE from US citizenship. END OF DEBATE, PROBLEM SOLVED I’ve written numerous articles with court citations on citizenship. link is on my profile.

@WSJ @WSJopinion Disagree, There is no settled meaning. It is simply a mis-interpretation of an assumption.

From @WSJopinion: The place to fight illegal immigration is at the border. It doesn’t require trying to change the settled meaning of the 14th Amendment by executive order. on.wsj.com/4v0V80a