The guy judging people who worship rich people

@TomiLahren @DarrigoMelanie Glad you hold one state amongst 50 to a higher standard then *checks notes* the federal government

@DarrigoMelanie California allotted 24 billion to the homeless crisis and the state audit shows they don’t really know where it went…

Trump wants a $1.5 trillion military budget. It would only cost $45 billion to end homelessness and hunger in the U.S.

@Obamasucks83223 @BasedMikeLee @mrddmia You’re so right might as well spend enormous amounts of taxpayer money to overwhelm polling places (Which is illegal) for a fraction of a % of instances where a known illegal immigrant tries to vote. B O Z O

@SaveABootlicker @BasedMikeLee @mrddmia There should be zero illegals voting, one is too much. Taking away a citizens vote should never be allowed. I don’t want to live in a police state, I don’t want people here that don’t belong here. I’m tired of working to support illegals.

Want to encourage illegal immigration? Easy! Just ignore the limiting clause in the middle of the sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

@KeithGross Hmm interesting that you know better than the Supreme Court who defined it in US v WKA

@SaveABootlicker No. It doesn’t mean that at all.

"Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" Illegals and any person not authorized by our government to be present have not subjected themselves to US jurisdiction. They remain subject (allegiant) to their home nation. This is not the same a criminal jurisdiction for prosecution - here is why: Anyone present inside our borders could be subject to jurisdiction for the purpose of criminal prosecution. That is not the type of allegiance based subjection used in the 14th Amendment. This was clarified in Wong Kim Ark where the child in question was born to lawful permanent residents and was granted citizenship for that reason. The children of illegals, like the children of an invading army or resident diplomats of other nations are not automatic citizens. Never were supposed to be. @POTUS is correcting decades of erroneous interpretation. This will be a legacy defining gift to Americans who are tired of seeing our country stolen right in front of us with the assistance of communist inspired democrats. America is worth saving.

@Obamasucks83223 @BasedMikeLee @mrddmia So desperate to live in a police state… my god you are a bozo. Illegals are not voting in elections in any way that matters. Any instances are few and most cases have been dismissed.

@SaveABootlicker @BasedMikeLee @mrddmia Easy fix, stay at the road, can’t stop that.

@Obamasucks83223 @BasedMikeLee @mrddmia Definition says at not inside

@SaveABootlicker @BasedMikeLee @mrddmia I didn’t say inside

@Obamasucks83223 @BasedMikeLee @mrddmia Except their not legally allowed either and would be yet another violation by President Trump

@BasedMikeLee @mrddmia If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the ACLU, ICE should be at every polling station and in every blue district rounding up every illegal alien and deport them within 48 hours.

@Pb_sndwich @AndrewDSteele94 @BasedMikeLee Just say what you think a real American is Jimbo it’s a simple question

@AndrewDSteele94 @BasedMikeLee If you get emotionally triggered, you should consider withholding your comments until you calm down instead of sending snark to another man

@ClayTravis But crickets for gun control and how the founding fathers would’ve written the law knowing modern firepower capabilities

Thoughts on the birthright citizenship case. 1. The court is going to reject the president’s executive authority here & say his interpretation of the 14th amendment is incorrect. 2. In so doing they are going to cite the historical record & say birthright citizenship is the law.

@Timcast It’s the same argument that keeps your precious 2nd Amendment untouched Tim grow up

the debate on birthright citizen is fucking hilarious Justice's be like "yes this will destroy the fabric of our nation but it was written down so whatever"

@JackPosobiec And offer citizenship to every person who loves the US over their country of birth!

We should denaturalize every single person who lacks allegiance to the United States of America

@WeStandResolute @EricLDaugh It’s at the courts because Trump signed an illegal executive order

@SaveABootlicker @EricLDaugh It doesn't say that, hence why it's at the Supreme Court. You think if a foreign army invades the U.S. that their children will be citizens? Lmao of course not. Rubio's parents were LEGAL, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. Again, this is all common sense.

🚨 JUST IN: SCOTUS Justice John Roberts is VERY skeptical of President Trump ending birthright citizenship, repeatedly firing back at Trump's top lawyer This would mean we require Amy Coney Barrett for a shot at 5-4. SAUER: China has 500 birth tourism companies to bring people here to give birth and return to our nation! ROBERTS: That has no impact on the legal analysis...it's a new world, it's the same Constitution. SAUER: It is, and as Justice Scalia says, you have a constitutional provision should extend to reasonably comparably evils. What a disappointment. Roberts is acting like he doesn't know or doesn't CARE the ramifications of this!

@WeStandResolute @EricLDaugh It’s not history it’s English

@SaveABootlicker @EricLDaugh No, it doesn't. Please actually learn some history. This was not their intent at all. This is why children of foreign soldiers and diplomats are excluded. They are not subject to our jurisdiction.

@WeStandResolute @EricLDaugh Yeah but since when do we charge kids for the crimes of their parents?

@SaveABootlicker @EricLDaugh We charge parents for crimes of children, bartenders for drunk drivers. Dems want gun manufacturers to pay for crimes they didn't commit. Point is we as a society know that babies don't have the capacity to choose where they are born, that's why citizenship is based on parents.

@WeStandResolute @EricLDaugh It literally means that once you’re born you are subject to the laws of the United States

@SaveABootlicker @EricLDaugh That's the problem, it isn't the whole point. 14th was for children of slaves, not for every single person on earth. That's why it says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and not subject to everybody. It is specific to what it was for and the intention behind it.

@WeStandResolute @EricLDaugh That’s not what that means

@JoeyMannarino Lmao we’ve come full circle and now it’ll be the Republicans expanding and packing the court. Whole voting base is a fucking joke.

If Amy Coney Barrett fucks this up for us, it’s absolutely time to expand the court with at least six or seven far-right justices.

@WeStandResolute @EricLDaugh You must’ve missed the part of the 14th Amendment that gives people BORN in the country citizenship. It doesn’t mean their parents have citizenship. Ask Marco Rubio

@SaveABootlicker @EricLDaugh Wrong, passing laws changes it. Ex: When a felon loses his 2nd amendment rights, the law as passed override their constitutional right to bear arms. Immigration is the same, the law passed congress barring illegal entry. This establishes clear jurisdiction and illegals have none

@WeStandResolute @EricLDaugh You’re in favor of changing laws I’m simply saying that you’re a hypocrite because you believe some constitutional laws are worthy of changing and some aren’t. I can accept not knowing everything but can you accept being a hypocrite with no actual principles?

@SaveABootlicker @EricLDaugh Guns existed though that's the point. Illegal immigration didnt officially exist until 1882 when the first immigration act was passed, nearly 20 years after the 14th. The amendment was for slaves who like guns, already existed. Common sense, which is why no other county does it