Disturbing reports of Russians streaming across the border

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Camp

That is creepy

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@Bill.in.PA

People who are here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the government. Neither are people here as short-term visitors.

Of course they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

If they were not subject to the jurisdiction then the whole concept of immigration enforcement would be moot.

Full jurisdiction.

How can one be under partial jurisdiction?

from Here's What The Supreme Court Actually Said About 'Birthright' Citizenship - Sovereign Nations

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, the principle author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, explicitly said that candidates for citizenship must be born here and not owe allegiance to any another authority. Echoing Trumbull, he said “a full and complete jurisdiction” means “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” He made it clear that allegiance “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.”

That’s how.

Well if “sovereign nations” website says so….

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@Bill.in.PA

People who are here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the government. Neither are people here as short-term visitors.

Of course they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

If they were not subject to the jurisdiction then the whole concept of immigration enforcement would be moot.

Full jurisdiction.

How can one be under partial jurisdiction?

from Here's What The Supreme Court Actually Said About 'Birthright' Citizenship - Sovereign Nations

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, the principle author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, explicitly said that candidates for citizenship must be born here and not owe allegiance to any another authority. Echoing Trumbull, he said “a full and complete jurisdiction” means “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” He made it clear that allegiance “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.”

That’s how.

Well if “sovereign nations” website says so….

Lame.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@Bill.in.PA

People who are here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the government. Neither are people here as short-term visitors.

Of course they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

If they were not subject to the jurisdiction then the whole concept of immigration enforcement would be moot.

Full jurisdiction.

How can one be under partial jurisdiction?

from Here's What The Supreme Court Actually Said About 'Birthright' Citizenship - Sovereign Nations

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, the principle author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, explicitly said that candidates for citizenship must be born here and not owe allegiance to any another authority. Echoing Trumbull, he said “a full and complete jurisdiction” means “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” He made it clear that allegiance “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.”

That’s how.

Well if “sovereign nations” website says so….

Lame.

Well… either the country has been doing it wrong for over 150 years or this goober website called “Sovereign Nations” via Daniel Horowitz, editor at “The Blaze” has the correct answer.

[Guvnah]

@Jezcoe

Well… either the country has been doing it wrong for over 150 years or this goober website called “Sovereign Nations” via Daniel Horowitz, editor at “The Blaze” has the correct answer.

“Sovereign Nations” isn’t saying what is quoted there. It’s a historical quote from the author of the amendment.

The quote doesn’t evaporate just because some entity with which you disagree is citing it.

[Jezcoe]

@Guvnah

@Jezcoe

Well… either the country has been doing it wrong for over 150 years or this goober website called “Sovereign Nations” via Daniel Horowitz, editor at “The Blaze” has the correct answer.

“Sovereign Nations” isn’t saying what is quoted there. It’s a historical quote from the author of the amendment.

The quote doesn’t evaporate just because some entity with which you disagree is citing it.

The country has been operating under the idea of birthright citizenship for over 150 years now.

So either we have been doing it wrong for a century and a half or Horowitz is cherry picking what people want to hear.

My bet is the latter.

[Guvnah]

@Jezcoe

Well if “sovereign nations” website says so….

@Jezcoe

My bet is the latter.

Well if one of our resident board libs says so …

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@Guvnah

@Jezcoe

Well… either the country has been doing it wrong for over 150 years or this goober website called “Sovereign Nations” via Daniel Horowitz, editor at “The Blaze” has the correct answer.

“Sovereign Nations” isn’t saying what is quoted there. It’s a historical quote from the author of the amendment.

The quote doesn’t evaporate just because some entity with which you disagree is citing it.

The country has been operating under the idea of birthright citizenship for over 150 years now.

So either we have been doing it wrong for a century and a half or Horowitz is cherry picking what people want to hear.

My bet is the latter.

We did slavery wrong for a long time as well. Women and minority voting, separate but equal, gay marriage etc etc. It hasn’t been challenged in court. Only one way to find out, legislate it out of existence and see how this court rules.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

We did slavery wrong for a long time as well. Women and minority voting, separate but equal, gay marriage etc etc. It hasn’t been challenged in court. Only one way to find out, legislate it out of existence and see how this court rules.

Hey… funny that all of those things fall under the 14th amendment.

It is always amusing to see people who align with the textualist philosophy twist themselves into pretzels to deny the plain words of that amendment.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

We did slavery wrong for a long time as well. Women and minority voting, separate but equal, gay marriage etc etc. It hasn’t been challenged in court. Only one way to find out, legislate it out of existence and see how this court rules.

Hey… funny that all of those things fall under the 14th amendment.

It is always amusing to see people who align with the textualist philosophy twist themselves into pretzels to deny the plain words of that amendment.

Progs wouldn’t know a “plain word” if it wore a bonnet.

Progs imagine all kinds of things are in the constitution no matter how PLAINLY they arnt.