@shawood1969 @greggnunziata The parent doesn't get a benefit. The child being born has not broken any laws. Even by your own standard you fail.
English
Matt
6.6K posts
Matt
@mremisso
Patent attorney, amateur home bartender, home cook, gamer, stay at home dad.
Charlotte, NC Katılım Kasım 2009
160 Takip Edilen174 Takipçiler
@greggnunziata When was the precedent set that you can break the law then benefit from that criminal action under the law? NEVER
English
This sentence can be read two ways, to different results. One comment in legislative history is hardly conclusive under any interpretative approach, especially a conservative one.
And it's both dishonest and irresponsible to suggest he's just arguing against the far left.
Mike Lee@BasedMikeLee
The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t say what the far left wishes it said Didn’t mean that then Still doesn’t mean that today
Woodside, PA 🇺🇸 English
@NeveltenJohn @greggnunziata And to focus so hard on the commas specifically and then hand wave away missing words that have to be added to make it remotely intelligible as a list is where it gets extra silly
English
@greggnunziata Transcription is imperfect even today—it is silly to give much weight to the comma placement in one 19th Century transcription of one speech.
Hampton, VA 🇺🇸 English
@BedroomS69751 @JacobALinker @greggnunziata It would be "produce, fruits, which belong to the family of apples".
And again, there only thing to be purchased from this statement - produce of the apple variety! You aren't going to the store for produce, fruit, AND apples.
English
@JacobALinker @greggnunziata if you asked me what i was getting from the store and i said "apples, milk, some snacks" you would understand that i mean each of those things individually without the need for an and
English
@mremisso @ASFleischman I'm not the confused one.
You just explained that someone here legally having a kid isn't a citizen, but here illegally it would be.
English
Mike Lee vigorously argues that it's illegal to deport immigrants because they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Mike Lee@BasedMikeLee
You never address the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” It’s amazing what you can declare “clear” in the Constitution when you omit language you don’t like
English
@moronislegion @jkimballcook I mean, it's a pretty easy claim to make and be correct about.
English
@jkimballcook The fact you hold yourself out to know more about Constitutional law and interpretation than Mike Lee is the truly hilarious thing here
English
Mike Lee, who used to pretend to be a conservative legal scholar, relying on legislative history and making purposivist arguments, is pretty funny.
Mike Lee@BasedMikeLee
The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t say what the far left wishes it said Didn’t mean that then Still doesn’t mean that today
English
@erikgroves @jkimballcook The absolute simplest is to understand that was a spoken not written statement. "Aliens" was a repetition, driving the point home. Today it would be transcribed and offset with dashes, not commas. You can remove "aliens" without having any impact on the rest of the sentence.
English
@jkimballcook I am thinking best way to read this language is that Sen. Howard was modifying/defining the term "foreigner" as "aliens who belong to the families of [a]mbassadors or foreign ministers...". That is the language construction that makes the most sense.
English
@tap364 @revjohn22 @JamesTate121 You can't add words and then pretend you haven't changed what he said.
Read the sentence aloud once. It is perfectly clear.
English
@tap364 @revjohn22 @JamesTate121 You have fundamentally changed the meaning of the statement. You are the one struggling with the commas. To be what you say, it would need additional word(s) before "who belong". Such as "or those". Those aren't there, nor implied. There is one group "foreigners...who belong"
English
Kentanji Brown Jackson is too good for this court.
I don’t have a transcript yet but she basically asked:
“Didn’t they put birthright citizenship in the constitution in order to avoid this type of debate over who gets to claim a domicile?”
And Sauer just stuttered.
And then Sonia Sotomayor comes in with the “doesn’t this open the door to the government withdrawing citizenship from people who were born here?”
More stuttering.
English
@Josh_Shakun @dilanesper Like, the entire point is that we were settling citizenship questions for the vast majority of people, with limited exceptions like for diplomats and native Americans (b/c of treaty stuff). Excluding "foreigners" would have been entirely contrary to the point.
English
@Josh_Shakun @dilanesper It isn't. At all. This is a transcript of what was spoken aloud. Grammatically, oratorally, and logically he is plainly only referring to the kids of diplomats. If he meant foreigners that would defeat the entire point of "will include every other class of persons."
It is clear
English
Scalia is turning in his grave as conservatives confuse the legislative history with the text.
Mike Lee@BasedMikeLee
The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t say what the far left wishes it said Didn’t mean that then Still doesn’t mean that today
English
@oldburner24 @revjohn22 @JamesTate121 If it's for the same reason in your mind, then those "illegals" can't be in violation of our laws and are necessarily legal to be here. This you fucks are losing this and making self defeating arguments.
English
@mremisso @revjohn22 @JamesTate121 We don't give a diplomat's child birthright citizenship for the same reason we shouldn't give it to illegals. They're citizens of a sovereign nation, we literally have Chinese baby farms that do this exact thing but it's okay to you because they're not diplomats. Fucking retard.
English
@Whats18447841 @permatruck @revjohn22 @JamesTate121 The maga argument here is entirely based on being unable to read. So you guys are fucking idiots.
When illiterate bots can't read, I assuage my annoyance by saying fuck off and blocking. Like is happening right now.
Fuck off.
English
@mremisso @permatruck @revjohn22 @JamesTate121 lol whenever they lose the argument it always turns to calling the opponent an “ist” or hater
English
@Whats18447841 @vilepostuff2 @revjohn22 @JamesTate121 Yes, the writers of the 14th amendment were the "crazy libs" of their day, trying to move forward from a past that was steeped in white supremacy as evidenced by slavery among other stuff. It was conservatives that did jim crow laws.
And no one is being overrun by "foreigners."
English
@vilepostuff2 @mremisso @revjohn22 @JamesTate121 lol they can’t even get their arguments straight…on one hand the US was designed as a white supremacist country but at the same time they wrote in laws to have it overrun by foreigners…
English
@HChristian73342 @ASFleischman It has nothing to do with the parent (unless they are a diplomat, the only real exception these days). In either case, the kid is a us citizen. Having a kid doesn't convey citizenship to the parent under any circumstances.
What part of this confuses you?
English
@mremisso @ASFleischman So youre saying a foreigner that is legally in the country and has a child isn't a citizen, but a foreigner in the country illegally that has a child would be a US citizen.
Listen to your own argument.
English
@mremisso @aGuyOnMyPhone @ABasicAlt @dilanesper No, local cops is not the relevant part of the conversation, moron. Remember it was YOU that brought up deportation, which is a federal role. You should be familiar with it since you try every day to put more and more ICE agents in danger.
English
@JohnnyMosby1776 @aGuyOnMyPhone @ABasicAlt @dilanesper Under very specific circumstances and in communication with their country.
The local cops can't do shit to a diplomat, which is the only relevant part for this discussion.
English
@mremisso @aGuyOnMyPhone @ABasicAlt @dilanesper Also, Matt, my night school attorney, we can kick out/deport diplomats. Whoops.
English
@aGuyOnMyPhone @JohnnyMosby1776 @ABasicAlt @dilanesper That's the funniest part, that even if they were right about undocumented immigrants not being subject to US jurisdiction, that would mean they couldn't deport them because they wouldn't subject to us laws. It's so idiotic, it makes total sense why maga falls for it.
English
@mremisso @JohnnyMosby1776 @ABasicAlt @dilanesper Side note: Originalists don’t care about any of this cause this is all legislative history! But to the extent we’re deciding to use legislative history, it all weighs in OUR favor
English
@DJCrabhat @mremisso @souljagoyteller Then explain to me what he meant by aliens. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean Little Green Men from Mars.
English
Actually, Congressman Gill, this very matter was debated in the original deliberations on the 14th Amendment, where it was stated beyond a reasonable doubt that the children of foreigners do, in fact, share the same rights as you and I
Brandon Gill@realBrandonGill
Something tells me that when Senator Jacob Howard wrote 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th amendment, his intention wasn't that pregnant Guatemalans could cross into Texas, give birth, and have a child with the same rights as you and I.
English
@WilliamT4479 @DJCrabhat @souljagoyteller Non citizens. Foreigners. Person not originally from the place.
Pick your favorite term.
English
English
@LMZettergren @permatruck @revjohn22 @JamesTate121 What? Sweden doesn't have BRC, so trying to compare their citizenship rules to the us is utterly irrelevant.
Fuck off bot that can't even make a non gobbledygook post.
English
@mremisso @permatruck @revjohn22 @JamesTate121 1, because the left likes to lie about Sweden and use them as an example of what the US should be. 2, makes more sense, and is a lot more relevant, than KBJ's stealing a wallet in Japan comparison. Also, an example of "under the jurisdiction there of".
English