Every cowardly Senator that voted to confirm this DEI dumbass to the highest court in the land should be voted out of office.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6vD5LsBNhI
Ketanji Brown defines what stupid and DEI look like in comments made regarding the imaginary fabricated claim of birthright citizenship.
- Thread starter Truth Detector
- Start date
Funniest take on KBJs idiocy.
www.facebook.com
"If I go into a Walmart and start stealing stuff, am I automatically an employee? "
"If I break into KBJs home and start eating her food and watching her TV, am I automatically a member of her family?"
210K views · 113K reactions | The dumbest take ever… | Nick Freitas
The dumbest take ever…
www.facebook.com
"If I go into a Walmart and start stealing stuff, am I automatically an employee? "
"If I break into KBJs home and start eating her food and watching her TV, am I automatically a member of her family?"
What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?
The simplest way to try to educate a clueless, brainless lying leftist Democrat is this way: it means "citizen". In other words, if you are a CITIZEN of any nation OTHER than the US, this amendment does not apply to you.
The simplest way to try to educate a clueless, brainless lying leftist Democrat is this way: it means "citizen". In other words, if you are a CITIZEN of any nation OTHER than the US, this amendment does not apply to you.
"All persons born"
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
You're as brainless, uneducated and clueless as KBJ.
There is much documentation of the debate the leaders of the time were having leading up to the 14th that bring into focus exactly what they were intending with it. And it wasn't to allow anchor babies and it's very clear to anyone with a functioning brain this isn't what they intended. Just because the wording was a bit ambiguous mostly due to different than our current vernacular doesn't change this fact.
No one has yet given a solid argument as to why birthright citizenship is good for us. Some simple minded fool said because we need more people to work. This is stupid because then the expansion would exponentiate and bankrupt our resources. Our country was doing just fine back when it had 1/2 the population it has today.
If Biden were the one taking on this nagging problem instead of Trump all you leftists would be in favor of it.
No one has yet given a solid argument as to why birthright citizenship is good for us. Some simple minded fool said because we need more people to work. This is stupid because then the expansion would exponentiate and bankrupt our resources. Our country was doing just fine back when it had 1/2 the population it has today.
If Biden were the one taking on this nagging problem instead of Trump all you leftists would be in favor of it.
Correct.
That's because there isn't one.
Dumber still in that we have H1B visas for farm workers and work visas for professional workers.
We saw that when Clinton and Obama took it on and sounded exactly like Trump. It is TDS which is a mental condition that causes the brains those afflicted with it to atrophy to the point they mindlessly parrot what the media tells them.
And also the leaders of the civil war era could not have possibly foreseen modern transportation. Thus the idea of a Chinese woman flying here to give birth and citizenship to her baby was not conceivable at the time. Or driving an automobile 75 miles while in labor to cross the border and drop the baby. These are modern work arounds that were impossible to know at the time so thus couldn't possibly been in their intentions.Correct.
That's because there isn't one.
Dumber still in that we have H1B visas for farm workers and work visas for professional workers.
We saw that when Clinton and Obama took it on and sounded exactly like Trump. It is TDS which is a mental condition that causes the brains those afflicted with it to atrophy to the point they mindlessly parrot what the media tells them.
I agree, however, even with that, it still doesn't meet the Constitutional requirement of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". There has never been a birthright citizenship clause in the Constitution any more than there never was a "separation clause." Both are fabricated narratives from the leftist dominated Democratic Party.
FastLane
Verified User
Absolutely . The definition "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was settled by the SCOTUS in the Elk V Wilkins case. They decided that since Elk was a member off the Winnebago tribe , a sovereign nation, Elk was therefore not a citizen of the US.
"
Well at least according to some nobody named “Kevin Dietsch,” want to near what my barber thinks, he’s as noteworthy as “Kevin Dietsch” but he don’t have a podcast
I don't think you can post without lying, looking uneducated, being vacuous, looking moronic or flailing.
There is also nothing in the Constitution about privacy, nor the Air Force, nor jury of one’s peers, nor Presidential immunity, or numerous other entities, are we safe to assume then they are all fabricated bullshit?
No matter how many times one explains American History and the idiocy of strict constructionism the MAGA still regurgitate the same errors over and over again
Lie? So “Kevin Dietsch” isn’t an obscure nobody?
And? You still don't comprehend what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means? I can't say I am surprised.
So, you believe that the 14th amendment is an error? Another laughably stupid comment lacking intelligence and common sense. You are quite full of them.
He's not the topic you brainless thread trolling moron.
FastLane
Verified User
But you morons seem to think BIRTHRIGHT citizenship is in the Constitution and is a Constitutional right. As far as I know the air force is not considered a constitutional right. Now show me where the Constitution says Birthright Citizen.
Not entirely true, at the time of the 14fh Amendment, and prior to it, their existed a strong sentiment that immigration was necessary, that the size and vastly underpopulated areas of the nation needed immigrants, and birthright citizenship was a selling point
This county is based upon immigration, always has been, and work is a consideration, arriving immigrants usually fill those jobs other people are unwilling to do
Ah, other’s explained that above, I am commenting on your absurdity that “there has never been a birthright citizenship clause in the Constitution any more than there never was a "separation clause." Both are fabricated narratives from the leftist dominated Democratic Party.” Which I noticed you deflected off of
(time for the “you are a …………” and “a ………….,” or corny GIF)
No, not specifically in the Constitution, but covered by the Constitution, just as a right to privacy and right to a jury of peers, neither of which are specified in the Constitution