SaveMeeJeebus

@bigchaunc64 @FilmCritHULK Twitter is a fun game where you have to guess the news based on your feed’s info-sparse commentary

@NotoriousAKG x.com/SaveMeeJeebus/…

So why didn’t they write that?

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 Elk was born on a reservation!

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 Supreme Court’s ruling in Elk v. Wilkins....

Without fail, whenever the topic of birthright citizenship comes up and we begin debating the 14th Amendment all over again, the level of sheer stupidity and hallucination in my replies makes me weep for the future of this country. Stupidity, because we have this massive thing called "The Internet" where anyone with basic typing, research, and comprehension skills can confirm if the things they believe are true or not, and there is a large part of this country that refuses to use it. Hallucination, because the number of those same people who have become perfectly comfortable inventing something in their heads and spewing it as fact - with complete confidence - is way too high for us to survive as the world's largest superpower. The definitions MAGA concocts for the word "jurisdiction" alone are something else. I'm just going to start replying with this image from now on. MAGA, how do you all function at work?!?

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 Link me to a counter example!

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 lol go tell that to a non-native.... I know my peoples own history....

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 Not true. There is no reported case of a Native American born outside of a reservation but in the United States who was denied citizenship. The Native Americans who were denied citizenship were all born on a reservation (which was considered outside US jurisdiction).

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 nope...even the ones born outside of the reservation....

@riktov @GravityDarkAge @tommysantos14 "Applies in most cases" isn't "universal". "Universal" means "applies to ALL cases", which by my several counter examples I have disproven. Birthright by place of birth is the standard in the western hemisphere.

@SaveMeeJeebus @GravityDarkAge @tommysantos14 It is universal in that every country in the world does it in some form, even if limited, that applies in most cases. By contrast, citizenship solely by place of birth is completely rejected by many countries.

@furiouswhopper @kevinbaum013 "people who have blatantly refused to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US" who are in the United States and aren't a diplomat are still under the jurisdiction of the United States. You can run from the police but you're still under the police's jurisdiction.

@SaveMeeJeebus @kevinbaum013 ... no, those definitely aren't words that I said.

Congrats you figured out that kids diplomats didn't get birthright citizenship, which has been the law for well over a 120 years. Do you want a cookie?

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 Yeah because they were born on Indian reservations which at the time were not considered under the jurisdiction of the United States.

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 either way it is wrong.... because Indians are not representatives of the government of a foreign nation and yet their children whether born on US soil or not were not citizens....

@GravityDarkAge @tommysantos14 They’re not “permanently subject to their country’s jurisdiction”. That’s absurd. Jurisdiction is explicitly tied to geography.

@tommysantos14 1. 14th applies to baby, not parents. Clear in text. 2. Foreigners are temporarily under US territorial jurisdiction, BUT permanently subject to their country's jurisdiction. 3. Universal understanding: Baby has parents' citizenship as birthright, and is under that jurisdiction.

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 It’s not a circle answer. It’s just the answer. You refuse to accept it for some reason.

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 lol wtf circle answer is that BS?

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 Because they are not the children of representatives of the government of a foreign nation.

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 What's that sentence above that say??? and explain how illegals have OWE ALLEGIANCE to the US in any way....

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 He was EXPLICITLY talking about children of foreign ministers. That is the context of the quote snippet you pulled as seen here.

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 nope....it doesn't say that it says "persons"

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 Yeah, the children of ambassadors, foreign ministers, and other diplomats.

@SaveMeeJeebus @tommysantos14 “persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens.”

@furiouswhopper @kevinbaum013 You’re saying anybody who breaks the law and tries to get away with it isn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Come on man.

@kevinbaum013 It's bizarre to claim that people who have blatantly refused to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US are somehow subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

@KCH_76 @tommysantos14 Trumbull was obviously talking about the children of ambassadors, foreign ministers, and other diplomats.

It was defined on the senate floor by the man who wrote it.... Senator Lyman Trumbull (key sponsor, author of the 1866 Act): “Subject to the jurisdiction” means “not owing allegiance to anybody else” and “not subject to some foreign Power” — “birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” He explicitly rejected citizenship for “persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens.” now let's look at the historical context... The original Constitution (pre-14th Amendment) contains no explicit birthright citizenship rule. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress power over naturalization, and the Founders deliberately broke from English common laws' doctrine of perpetual allegiance based solely on birthplace (jus soli, as in Calvin's Case and Blackstone). Instead, they adopted a consent-based model of citizenship grounded in natural rights, social compact theory, and mutual allegiance. In his 1774 essay “A Summary View of the Rights of British America,” Thomas Jefferson wrote that “our ancestors, before their emigration to America, were the free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as to them shall seem most likely to promote public happiness.” In his 1791 Lectures on Law, James Wilson stipulates at least three distinct conditions under which individuals may renounce their former allegiance and depart from their native country. This ideal was carried forward in many States constitutions breaking from British Tradition and NOT allowing birthright citizenship... Citizenship had to earned and an immigrant had to be accepted by the people and be a contributing member of society prior to getting citizenship for them or any of their children regardless of where they were born.

@BlemDeux @ClarsenDean @artfanszone I agree, the nausea this video provokes (from the unrealistic, exaggerated, out-of-sync way the background shifts with respect to the motion of the camera), is real.

@ClarsenDean @artfanszone but what you feel watching it, is real, and will never be AI slop. So does it matter?

@shoeboxlarry @anahithevixen @Noredlac_prime @DualityofMane @plaything______ man just shut up

@anahithevixen @Noredlac_prime @DualityofMane @plaything______ How the fuck do you know, you can read their mind? Also what is the financial part of LA exactly? Please explain yourself

i love when LA feels more like tijuana than nyc

@SlidinDelta @SenEricSchmitt It's clearly being used to introduce a clause giving further information about a person or people previously mentioned, the aforementioned "foreigners, aliens"

@SaveMeeJeebus @SenEricSchmitt No. It’s a series starting with the relative pronoun who.

The Citizenship Clause was written to overrule Dred Scott. It wasn't written to create an incentive to prop up our tourism industry, incentivize illegal crossings, or invite invasion by rivals. If a judge can't distinguish the two, they've lost the plot.x.com/mrddmia/status…

@lbyron @neoavatara It's abundantly clear from the senatorial debate over the amendment that they were talking about newborns of ambassadors and foreign ministers when talking about people not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

@neoavatara In both cases the original intent is clear by the writings of the authors of the amendment. In both cases, the right is promoting the original intent. You are not, apparently.

The constitutional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the right wing's equivalent of the Left's use of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." to try to twist the original meaning of the Constitution.

@SlidinDelta @SenEricSchmitt “foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” The “foreigners, aliens” are the newborns “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”

@SenEricSchmitt And here in the Congressional Record stands presented the applicability of the 14th Amendment: