Offthemat

No

Those are feds.

No, but if you are pestered by someone else you are expected to seek aid from your local authorities before seeking asylum. It’s kinda common knowledge.

We should just sell them some pagers.

Pompeo’s and Bolton’s too. Said they can afford their own.

All, or just the reservation breed?

Only if it is a directed personal threat by the government, not if it’s just a dangerous place to live.

Neither of those are reasons for asylum, either. Making a false claim for asylum is another crime.

Yep, that’s one of Eastman’s references. The Wong Kim Ark case that Eastman predicts that dimocrats will rely on, is about a son, Wong Kim, who was born in the U.S. to legal resident parents, not illegal.

Our own Bagdad Bob.

What i keep looking at is the way it is laid out as a two part qualification. Born in the U.S. and under the jurisdiction thereof. This dispels @Wrestleknownothing’s stance that everyone in the United States is under the jurisdiction thereof. If everyone here is under the jurisdiction thereof, then it’s redundant and unnecessary to say it. It must have further meaning, which hasn’t heretofore been explained. For some reason, there are people who think they wanted a pathway for those anchor babies. I don’t.

The economy was recovering, business was opening back up, schools were opening back up, the unemployment rate was going down on election day. Biden shut it down, spent trillions on nonsense, shut down the energy industry. Trump can turn a lot of the inflation back simply by exploiting the energy industry.

Wong Kim wasn’t born to illegal immigrants. It’s different.

Shirley he can beat that.

Eastman and the other people he noted addressed the difference in, and the widely held belief that Wong Kim was wrongly decided. Like he said, “honest scholars will be forced to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants, or even temporary lawful visitors, are constitutionally entitled to automatic citizenship merely by virtue of their birth in the United States. This is undoubtedly headed for the Supreme Court. Originalists will prevail, and I find it hard to believe that they will decide that illegal immigration’s anchor babies are what they desired when it was written. Don’t you worry yourself in the least about your cute little remarks bothering me. I’ve noticed you saying the same about others. I appreciate it that you don’t spend your time telling us how smart you are.

It seems pretty simple, doesn’t it.

As many as 10,000 troops at the border. https://archive.is/SlN75

How long are these folks going to keep crying?

They’re simply opportunistic, and liars.

But I’d be interested in hearing your response to the discrepancies between your claims and his. I think you might want to rethink or rephrase this one: "But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." That is just plain false. Are you saying that the Constitution says everybody born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S.. citizen? Eastman: “Indeed, honest scholars will be forced to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants, or even temporary lawful visitors, are constitutionally entitled to automatic citizenship merely by virtue of their birth in the United States.“ Next you say: “‘The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”' This one is more insidious. It ignores the fact that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in reference to Native Americans whose land we had not yet taken, but would, and who were not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There were no plans to grant Native Americans citizenship. That only changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.” It was about more than the indians, who started losing land long before the 14th Amendment. The Trail of Tears, which came after the indians had ceded much of their original land, began about 1830, some 38 years prior to the Amendment. This is possibly the dumbest thing you stated, within the context of the discussion. “Every person now born in the US, hell every person who is in the US, legally or illegally, is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. To claim otherwise is dumb.“ While most people are subject to the laws, foreign diplomats are not. Illegals, visas, vacationers, etc, are not (supposed) to register to vote, serve on juries, or register for the draft. Your position is weak, unsupported, and illogical. Floating on a whim.

Good grief, still at it. It’s a special kind of idiocy that tries to equate Elon’s enthusiasm for the overturn of the most ruinous administration ever with Naziism. Even the people doing it know they’re lying. So what do they think they stand to gain, because they’re losing votes.

He doesn’t have his jus mixed up, he’s talking about one and not the other. He’s talking about the one that dims will try to use in their favor.

John Eastman: Alas, when it comes to anything related to Trump, there are very few honest scholars. Instead of acknowledging the Supreme Court’s limited, actual holding in Wong Kim Ark, they will point to dicta in which the Court’s majority falsely claimed that the Citizenship Clause codified the old English common law rule known as jus soli—that anyone born on the king’s soil owed perpetual allegiance to the king. They will overlook that our Declaration of Independence was an explicit and eloquent repudiation of jus soli, stating in its closing paragraph that “these United Colonies…are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown.” They will overlook that Congress did not view Wong Kim Ark as mandating automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil when, a quarter century later, it extended citizenship to Native Americans pursuant to its power under the Naturalization Clause, an act that would have been superfluous if Wong Kim Ark had already settled the matter that everyone born in the U.S., including Native Americans, were automatically citizens. And they will overlook that when a 1920s guest worker program ended in the wake of the Great Depression and more than a million Mexican workers were repatriated to Mexico, the repatriation included their U.S.-born children. No one at the time claimed that the children were U.S. citizens. https://americanmind.org/salvo/birthright-citizenship-game-on/