Greg Singer

@ProspectsUsmnt Johnny is my only issue. I’d rather bring Morris. I know that’s controversial, but I just don’t think he has shown well for the US, whereas Morris gets better with every chance he gets. He’s also a better fit to sub for Adams

My current USMNT WC team: GK: Freese, Brady, Turner DF: Dest, Scally, Freeman, Jedi, Richards, McKenzie, Trusty MF: Adams, Tessmann, Johnny, McKennie, Musah, Pulisic, Tillman, Reyna, Weah FW: Balogun, Pepi, Wright +3: McGlynn, Arfsten OR Tolkin, Culbreath OR Gozo Thoughts?

@FPLAbhimanyu I’m feeling really adrift without a Free hit to use, but I think I’m going with WC32, TC33, BB36

The most relaxed FPL managers are who owns all 4 Chips. Their Chip Strategy is clear :- WC 32 BB 33 FH 34 TC 36 The most confused FPL managers are who owns 3 Chips. Share your Chip Strategy 👇 #FPL | #FPLCommnity

@thfcjevo @USMNTOtaku Reyna is good at this. Not saying he should definitely be at the WC (minutes are an issue) but he has the skill you describe. Also, Dest and Robinson are solid at finding a target striker in the box, which is an argument that Pepi or Wright should play too.

@USMNTOtaku USMNT has a problem with getting the ball to the 9. We have issues splitting lines and chances creation for our 9s. Big issues is the attackers lack of ability to see the pass and or have the ability to pick the weight of the pass to the striker.

The USMNT doesn’t have a striker problem. Enough of this False 9 crap. Folarin Balogun is the starting striker for the USMNT and should always be the main man up top.

@RobUsry Stoppppppp!!! We have a solid #9.

Hear me out. Weston McKennie: False 9

@fplcopilot 60971

Comment below your team ID The top 3 chip strategies for your team will be suggested Example comment: 2498301 It's DGW season baby!

@1983Level3 @onefiftyfivemm That’s correct. Children of diplomats are not citizens because diplomats are immune from most of our laws—eg, NOT under US jurisdiction

@onefiftyfivemm If the supporters of birthright citizenship are correct in their interpretation of the Amendment, isn't the clause - and subject to the jurisdiction thereof - redundant? That clause must mean that there are persons born or naturalized in the United States who are not citizens.

Oh wild so you're saying the 14th amendment didn't imply that native Americans were subject to the jurisdiction of the US federal government when it was written? That's crazy

@onefiftyfivemm That’s correct. Because they were considered under the jurisdiction of their sovereign tribal nation

@NathanDahm Jurisdiction means you are subject to that country’s laws. That’s why diplomats and American Indians were excluded. It doesn’t say they can’t be subject to another jurisdiction, either, so arguments that citizens of other countries are excluded are bunk.

@gregoryrsinger It’s exactly what jurisdiction means because it’s directly addressing citizenship at birth. If birth in a location was the only requirement they wouldn’t have listed jurisdiction or residing. They listed both because both are required for citizenship.

For several years I filed a bill that would end birthright citizenship in Oklahoma. It was simple: on the birth certificate it would either say citizen or foreign national depending on if the parent(s) were citizens or not. If SCOTUS screws this up, the States can still ignore them & handle it correctly.

@NathanDahm That isn’t what jurisdiction means, and would only be interpreted to mean what you think it does if SCOTUS rules for Trump. In that case, though, your legislation will be redundant

It isn’t a narrower definition. It is the actual definition. Citizenship is only granted based on the jurisdiction thereof & to those residing in the State. Citizenship it not to be granted to illegals who aren’t residing because they’ve entered illegally & aren’t subject to the jurisdiction because they aren’t citizens or legal residents.

@BasedMikeLee That isn't the 14th amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t say what the far left wishes it said Didn’t mean that then Still doesn’t mean that today

@NathanDahm it says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" That means oklahoma can't have a law that has a narrower definition of citizen than the constitutional definition

No, it says that people who are subject to the jurisdiction are citizens of the US and also citizens of the State wherein they reside. My bill would recognize US Citizenship, Oklahoma citizenship, & even tribal citizenship (if that applies) or a combination of all three. For all foreigners who aren’t subject to the jurisdiction & don’t reside in Oklahoma no citizenship would be granted. The birth certificate would list them as a foreign national.

@NathanDahm It says states cannot pass laws restricting citizenship

@gregoryrsinger The 14th amendment prohibits birthright citizenship.

@4nt1p4tt3rn Interpretation

@4nt1p4tt3rn What I mean is they could have written it to say what you are quoting and didn’t, so the debate quotes should not dictate nyeroretatiin

Prior to the existence of the Congressional Record, it was called the Congressional Globe. Therefore, I give you, from the 1866 Congressional debates regarding the passage of the 14th Amendment: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” — Sen. Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2890 (May 30, 1866) “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” — Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2893 (May 30, 1866) “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power … shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” — Sen. Reverdy Johnson, Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2893 (May 30, 1866) There is no question whatsoever: The 14th Amendment was passed with the full understanding, as captured by the very words of those voting on it, that citizenship for births is only granted to children born of American citizens.

@ndhawk88 @briannalyman2 Yes. This is correct.

@briannalyman2 Why would you list foreigners separately from aliens? It should be obvious that the word alien was used as an alternative term for foreigner, which is then limited to who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

One of the strongest arguments against birthright citizenship: Sen. Howard said during opening remarks of the citizenship clause debate: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States...This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” As Edward Erler anticipated, the left has argued that Howard meant to only include “families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” when he used the wording “who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” But “if so,” Erler argues, “this would be an extraordinarily loose way of speaking: ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens and their designation as such would be superfluous.” Erler argues the commas following “foreigners” and “aliens” “suggest a discrete listing of separate classes of persons excluded from jurisdiction.”

@briannalyman2 No it doesn’t. It indicates a spoken rhetorical flourish. It’s not a fucking list.

@ryanswalters73 Completely different because American Indians’ territory(reservations) was considered sovereign—e.g., NOT SUBJECT TO US JURISDICTION. That’s why they had to pass a law to grant them citizenship

Good stuff!! 👇🏻