Comments by "Ego Brain" (@egobrain7349) on "Trump Goes All In, Says Tom Homan Will be Border Czar" video.

  1. Yes! I cannot tell you how pleased I am that he was chosen. 😁 God, I hope they really are able to do their plans.
    3
  2. ​ @Codysdab In the Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
    2
  3. ​ @gdaddy7096 Nah, if the parent goes, so does their children. Being a charge of the state is not an option. They can come back when they're adults.
    2
  4. ​ @frankenz66 👏🏻👏🏻 It is unconstitutional anyway. Thry purposely misinterpret 14A. It says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They misinterpret it to allow for AB. We need to show the original intent and stop it. It needs to go in front of a conservative SC
    2
  5. ​ @housegoth No. The only option should be to take them with them. You're talking about us having to pay and take care of them. No. They can return as adults.
    2
  6. @housegoth  Well...same really. 😄
    2
  7. ​ @stagbeatle5617 Exactly. They purposely misinterpret 14A. It says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Heritage foundation has a good article on it
    1
  8. ​ @MarkPoullos-v4f Exactly
    1
  9. ​ @Codysdab No, it isn't. They misinterpret it. It was solely to make slaves citizens and they made it for their children, as well. They specifically said "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." If they wanted what we're doing now, they would have had no reason to say it. Their other words of the time and legislative history also proves they did not intend for this.
    1
  10. ​ @Arassar That is exactly what it meant. Today, they're purposely misinterpreting it.
    1
  11. ​ @PhillyFan20 Well said.
    1
  12. ​ @LuciusC the literal text AND the intent are both the same. They did not intend that anyone born was a citizen. And that is what the text says.
    1
  13. ​ @Heywoodthepeckerwood Exactly
    1
  14. ​ @aaronc4899 It is already in 14A. It says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof "
    1
  15. ​ @LuciusC Those already having citizenship this way (even though it was gained unconstitutionally) should keep it. It just has to be no more.
    1
  16. @LuciusC  Incorrect. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" puts a specific qualifier on it. You have to be born here AND "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
    1
  17.  @LuciusC  In the Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
    1
  18. @aaronc4899  Wrong. Simply standing here does not make you subject to the jurisdiction. They made this clear at the time, the SC made it clear, and the entire point of them putting the qualifier there is clear.
    1
  19.  @thedappermagician6905  Yes, they should be. The one who was given the birth certificate (erroneously, so we need to stop that in the future) can come back when they're an adult.
    1
  20. Yes! This has been my response whenever someone brought that up. 😅 Omg, common sense! I hope we get more of it.
    1
  21. ​ @admirathoria0073 Exactly
    1