ทวีตที่ปักหมุด
"The Left’s Moral Narcissism," featuring my piece at American Greatness and @rogerlsimon's fascinating book, #IKnowBest. Thank you, #RushLimbaugh, @BoSnerdley rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/05/… via @rushlimbaugh
English
Cindy Simpson
31.4K posts
Cindy Simpson
@Simpsonreport
Thankful. Conservative, Christian, CPA, Entrepreneur, Mainstream Media Skeptic. Essays at American Thinker, Am Greatness, Am Spectator, RedState. #BeABarnabas
Louisville, KY เข้าร่วม Eylül 2011
3.8K กำลังติดตาม3.6K ผู้ติดตาม
@AndrewBeckUSA Exactly. Another way to view the issue: the absurd results the present practice creates. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
Contrary to certain media, ending birthright citizenship is not a dubious theory Claremont cooked up: Eastman, Erler, and Anton just stated the obvious. There’s been almost total agreement among serious scholars. To not end it would destroy trust in the integrity of our system.
Eric W.@EWess92
Professor @RandyEBarnett , one of the most influential Originalists of all time, has written an article in the @WSJ explaining that President Trump is right on Birthright Citizenship. He is one of the leading libertarian law professors. Originalists agree on this issue.
English
@RWMaloneMD @kbean511 Another way of looking at this issue instead of the legal arguments—the “citizens” the “evolved” practice it creates, as well as tens of millions of dual citizens, which in a time of war creates a national security threat. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
9% of of all the babies born in the USA getting citizenship, based on either birth tourism - mostly from the CCP - or whose mother smuggled herself into this country illegally, is not ok and no way to secure a healthy future for Americans.
If the Supreme Court doesn't restrict birthright citizenship, then Congress must -BEFORE the midterms. This is what the citizens of the United States want and require.
English
@mattvanswol @BillMelugin_ @GeneHamilton Related: some interesting examples of “birthright citizens” resulting from the evolved citizenship practice. Another way to look at the issue SCOTUS will be hearing tomorrow, what it means for our nat’l security, and why Trump wants to be there: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
@BillMelugin_ @GeneHamilton I had no idea this happened until this very moment.
That is fucking insane, if true.
So they did this legally? For two years???
ON TOP of illegal aliens crossing the border illegally?
No way, is the true?
English
Cindy Simpson รีทวีตแล้ว
The CBP One app was originally created to streamline trucking cargo for vehicles crossing the border.
The Biden admin altered it to allow 50,000-60,000 otherwise inadmissible aliens from around the globe to enter the U.S. every single month for two years straight.
Snickel ⚡️@Crypto_Fritzz
@BillMelugin_ @monnakll CBP One App was rolled out in Oct of 2020. So Trump created the app.
English
@BrandonStraka It didn’t apply to illegals, nor those like al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese children born to US surrogates—earning “citizenship” w/ parents here temporarily as students, workers, visitors, or sent fertilized eggs from China. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
President Trump discusses upcoming Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship, arguing the policy was intended for post–Civil War conditions, not modern cases.
“And I’m going to go…”
English
Hope so. Another way to look at the issue vs analyzing the 14th, historical context, framers’ intent, case law, etc or its evolution driven by popular perception—is to take note of some of its absurd results, like “citizens” al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese children born to US surrogates—but also the resulting tens of millions of dual citizens residing here, especially a risk in a time of war. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
Cindy Simpson รีทวีตแล้ว
Biden badly misused immigration parole, using it unlawfully to bring millions of migrants into the U.S.
A federal judge has now told Trump he can’t reverse Biden’s unlawful use of this narrow authority.
It’s all so upside down.
The Daily Signal@DailySignal
A federal judge with a record of ruling against President Trump blocked his admin from terminating the parole of immigrants who entered the United States using the Biden administration’s app, writes @FredLucasWH dailysignal.com/2026/03/31/oba…
English
Cindy Simpson รีทวีตแล้ว
Biden decrees legal status to hundreds of thousands of immigrants via an app but Trump can’t un-decree it, says a judge.
But Trump is supposed to be the "King."
English
Meanwhile, US citizens wanting to fly within, to, or from a US airport cannot board the plane without waiting hours in lines to show their Real ID or US passport.
Bill Melugin@BillMelugin_
Remarkable. The Biden administration created out of thin air a pathway on a cell phone app for roughly 900,000 migrants from around the world to bypass the Rio Grande and enter the U.S. at ports of entry. Trump revoked their legal status on day one. A federal judge now says no.
English
@RapidResponse47 @GraziellaPastor It also didn’t have to do with people like al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters or Chinese children born to US surrogates —earning “citizenship” when parents were temporary students, workers, visitors, or sent fertilized eggs from China. My piece: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
Associate White House Counsel @GraziellaPastor on the issue of birthright citizenship: "President Trump is absolutely right. The citizenship clause was passed in order to give citizenship to the children of freed slaves, not illegal immigrants."
English
Another way to look at the issue vs analyzing the 14th, historical context, framers’ intent, case law, etc or its evolution driven by popular perception—is to take note of some of its absurd results, like “citizens” al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese children born to US surrogates—but also the resulting tens of millions of dual citizens residing here, especially a risk in a time of war: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
“The Supreme Court has never resolved this issue.”
@GraziellaPastor pushes back on the left’s claim that birthright citizenship is settled law.
The key question: What does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” really mean—and who it applies to.
English
Another way to look at the issue vs analyzing the 14th, historical context, framers’ intent, case law, etc,—while also noting, as has @DrJohnEastman, that it evolved as “popular perception”—not a constitutional mandate, court decision, or EO—is to take note of some of its absurd results: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
For those who can’t access the paywalled article, everything hinges on what “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States actually means. That much has always been understood, so the professor walks through historical context showing it traditionally meant not owing allegiance to any foreign power. That’s why children of diplomats and foreign fighters are excluded from birthright citizenship.
The question, however, is whether that category might be broader. The main point that is made here, is that this issue has rarely been scrutinized and that decades of practice have simply accepted that anyone born in the U.S. automatically gets a passport. But a closer look reveals that conventional wisdom may be wrong. For example, tribal Native Americans were originally excluded from the 14th Amendment because they owed allegiance to their own tribes, and only gained citizenship later through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
I’d add that that logic can be extended to Chinese citizens using the anchor baby system. China forbids dual nationality, and all its citizens are legally obligated to act on behalf of the state, including as agents of Beijing, meaning they remain under the jurisdiction of a separate sovereign.
So regardless of all the people insisting there is an automatic entitlement to citizenship without actually making an argument (a bit like those who claim the Second Amendment only applies to militias without actually reading the text), I don’t think this is going to be a slam dunk for birthright citizenship. It is more likely to be a close run outcome.
Eric W.@EWess92
Professor @RandyEBarnett , one of the most influential Originalists of all time, has written an article in the @WSJ explaining that President Trump is right on Birthright Citizenship. He is one of the leading libertarian law professors. Originalists agree on this issue.
English
@vdare @DrJohnEastman Hamdi was a great example of the absurdity of the present practice. So are al-Awlaki, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese children born to US surrogates. The resulting millions of dual citizens the practice produces further compromises our nat’l security: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
"The idea was once relegated to obscure articles in right-wing journals." POLITICO says @DrJohnEastman got interested in Birthright Citizenship because of the HAMDI case--which VDARE covered intensively e.g. here in 2002 vdare.com/articles/rescu…
Blake Neff@BlakeSNeff
This Politico article from @joshgerstein is a perfect example of ideological propaganda masquering as reporting. The entire point is to never engage with the historical, constitutional, or practical merits of the birthright citizenship debate. It can't, because the position "every anchor baby born to a tourist or illegal immigrant is a citizen for life" is ridiculous. So instead, Gerstein just uses scare words and smears a lawyer who helped popularize the Trump Administration's position, even though he doesn't currently work for the Admin and didn't write any of its briefs for the case. The view is "fringe" and "radical" and used to be "obscure" and violates centuries of precedent (we all know how much the left cares about centuries of precedent!). Of course, given it's embraced by the president of the United States and most of the Republican Party, the view opposing unlimited birthright citizenship is definitionally not "fringe." And as Gerstein knows (but avoids admitting), the Wong Kim Ark case only concerned the citizenship of a man born to two lawful permanent residents of the United States -- the reasoning there clearly does not extend to illegal residents, travelers, and the like, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on this. Gerstein has to use these sorts of deflections, because the position of birthright citizenship maximalists is obviously insane. It is ridiculous that the Biden Administration can mint millions of citizens by intentionally flooding the country with illegal foreigners. It is ridiculous that Chinese citizens can land in Saipan for a few days, get a C-section, and have a child eligible for a lifetime of benefits funded by U.S. taxpayers. It is manifestly insane that CCP-aligned Chinese oligarchs can purchase dozens of surrogate children and whisk them back to China upon birth, safe in the knowledge that they have irrevocable U.S. citizenship. All of this is why a sane reading of the 14th Amendment must be restored immediately -- and it's why Politico has to resort to shoddy articles like this one.
English
@RapidResponse47 @POTUS It also didn’t have to do with people like al-Awlaki, Hamdi, and El Chapo’s twin daughters—earning “citizenship” when Yemeni visiting students, Saudi visiting workers, or the wife of a Mexican drug lord had children born here then moved back home. See: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
.@POTUS on birthright citizenship: "It had to do with the babies of slaves... it didn't have to do with the protection of multi-millionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get American citizenship."
English
@EricLDaugh @willcain It’s not only illegals and Chinese using US birth surrogates that risks our nat’l security—but also other “birthright citizens” (and dual citizens) the present practice also produces—like al-Awlaki, Hamdi, and El Chapo’s twin daughters. See: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
🚨 HOLY CRAP. As the Supreme Court considers abolishing birthright citizenship for migrants, it's been exposed that a Chinese billionaire has over 100 AMERICAN citizen children through surrogacy x.com/i/status/20390…
WILL CAIN: "The idea — build a future family and business succession plan. Some clients, by the way, request up to 100 babies via multiple surrogates."
"It can cost as much as $200K per child…Also, surrogacy is illegal in China. Nearly 41% of international surrogate parents in the U.S. are Chinese.”
SCOTUS needs to end this SCAM!
English
@ElectionWiz When you see some of the absurd results of the present “evolved” birthright citizenship practice, you can understand why @POTUS @realDonaldTrump is very interested in ending it—not only for our economy, but especially for our national security: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
BREAKING: President Trump tells Fox News' Peter Doocy he's going to the Supreme Court on Wednesday for expected birthright citizenship arguments.
*If he attends, he will be the first sitting President to do so.
English
@zerohedge Some examples of absurd grants of birthright citizenship—al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese born to US surrogates—proving it has “evolved” far beyond the intention of 14th Amendment, risking our nat’l economy and security: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
4 Things To Know About SCOTUS Case That Could End Birthright Citizenship zerohedge.com/political/4-th…
English
.@IngrahamAngle Some examples of absurd grants of birthright citizenship—al-Awlaki, Hamdi, El Chapo’s twin daughters, Chinese born to US surrogates—proving it has “evolved” far beyond the intention of 14th Amendment, risking our nat’l economy, security: amgreatness.com/2023/12/12/bir…
English
Cindy Simpson รีทวีตแล้ว
🚨 JUST IN: The No Kings protestors are being called out as massive hypocrites after waving COMMUNIST FLAGS in NYC
They don't like kings — but they like straight-up DICTATORS.
The dumbest political movement of our lifetime.
English
So true. That the media works to protect a narrative instead of uncover and report basic facts and truth is bad enough; but when the truth consists of any complexities at all, the truth tellers/knowers are even more likely to be ignored or mocked.
Hans Mahncke@HansMahncke
One of the biggest problems in society today is that we no longer share a common set of basic facts. Without that, you cannot have a healthy discourse, or really any discourse at all. Too many people either do not know basic facts or have been led to believe things that simply are not true. In real life, almost no one knows that the Russia collusion plot was cooked up by the Clinton campaign, or that there is a transcript proving Flynn did not lie, or that the Ukraine impeachment scam began the morning after Mueller’s train wreck testimony because they needed a new hoax, or that Fauci demonstrably sent money and technology to the Wuhan lab for them to create deadly coronaviruses. The list goes on and on. And yet, in polite society, you are still treated like a crank for knowing these things rather than repeating the approved version of events. That is a very big problem. So until there is at least some agreement on basic, provable facts, there is no real point in debating anything. If the inputs are garbage, the outputs will be too.
English