Comments by "Ego Brain" (@egobrain7349) on "CNBC Host HUMILIATES Never Trump Republican For TURNING ON Trump And Supporting Kamala Harris!" video.

 @phillyrocks3847 No, there does not need to be compromise. Cone the right way only. That is the compromise.
24
Exactly. Also, when they're just here visiting or with a temp Visa.
23
 @douglasmaxwell1767 We should not be counting on those who came the wrong way and who have no connection to our values and way of life. That just makes it worse.
22
👏🏻👏🏻 They purposely misinterpret the 14th amendment. It says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It was meant for slaves, which were subject to the jurisdiction thereof. US citizens.
21
 @victorslyvester8977 Then you are wrong.
15
 @bl8388 Heck no. That is how they change areas to blue which changes representation which changes electoral votes. Have you not been paying attention?
12
@SobberMacSobberMac They misinterpret it. I don't understand the point of using places that are US territory. We are clearly not talking about those...your comment makes no sense. They use the 14th to do this. They misinterpret it.
5
@thomashasty2936 How about this? They come the right way when they're older.
4
@Flyeaglesfly215 Wrong. The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. And again, you can see what they meant by reading their other comments of the time. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
4
 @todddoyle2248 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
3
@ovrurhed0yezir Exactly
3
@ovrurhed0yezir I just understand what you were trying to say. Lol Sorry
3
@Flyeaglesfly215 Their parents are citizens of another country. That is their child's country. The child is subject to the jurisdiction of their parents home country.
3
@Flyeaglesfly215 Birthright citizenship is an unconstitutional misrepresentation of the 14th amendment. "And Subject to the jurisdiction thereof." You're welcome to read the other words of those who wrote it and clearly see that this meant.
3
@Flyeaglesfly215 That isn't a response.
3
@Flyeaglesfly215 Children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country. If you go have a kid in China, your child is still subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore, still a US citizen, and not a citizen of China. Why do you think that is not the case the other way around?
3
@charliedulin No, they're still not under this jurisdiction. They're still subject to their home country.
3
@christopherforsyth5284 Exactly. And it is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They blatantly misinterpret that part. We know what it means by just reading the other words of those who wrote it, but this is what they want now, so they just lie.
2
@Flyeaglesfly215 Because that other country is their country....very easy.
2
@disf5178 No, because they're still subject to their home country.
2
@josecabanas6293 It doesn't go against what we stand for. Come the right way.
2
@TheHomieNess No, that is the purposeful misinterpretation. You can read the other words from those who wrote the law at the time, past court cases from closer to then, etc.
2
@josecabanas6293 If they're citizens, than yes, they are and should be. Your idea, and the current misinterpretation of the law which it unconstitutional, is a huge problem with the the II. They come in and pop one out and get billions in taxpayer funds through them and stay through them.
2
@mybestlifefortherestofmyli7137 It is bring misinterpreted. I've said this 100 times.
2
@ovrurhed0yezir I have no clue what you're trying to say.
1
@Flyeaglesfly215 Also, I'm a woman. No amount of "BOYs" in your comment is going to effect me. Nor will it if you change it to something else. Be rational.
1
@daviddiggens8841 No, they should not be given the option just because they broke the law a long time ago. We need to stop this cycle. This is how they're changing representation and the electoral map.
1
@daviddiggens8841 No, just because they did it illegally a long time ago doesn't mean they're owed grace now. That is the circle we keep doing. It has to stop.
1
@TheHomieNess 🤦🏻‍♀️ The other words of theirs at the time. Or, look up sites that go over this and explain it
1
@TheHomieNess Incorrect. You read them eith the writers intent. Always. The 2nd doesn't do that and their original intent is exaxtly how it is to be read.
1
@TheHomieNess It was written with their intent. It is their intent that was passed. Their intent is what you follow. And it doesn't matter anyway, it is written as they intended. Ppl today are just purposely misinterpreting it. It says that you have to be a subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Not just be in this vicinity but be a subject. They're subject of their parents home country. I think you need to do some reading. Lol.
1
@TheHomieNess It was written that way. Lol That is what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. I just said this. It is being misinterpreted today. On purpose.
1
@josecabanas6293 It isn't taking away the right to be born here. Lol If you have a parent who is here legally, you're a citizen. Easy as that. Nobody should be able to step over a line, drop a kid out, and that kid then be their connection to keep them here. That's absurd. The parent is still the subject of their home country.
1
@josecabanas6293 Except since you agree that the child is, the child gets those things. So the parents get those things. And the parent gets to stay. It isn't "American." It is unconstitutional.
1
@josecabanas6293 Yes, it is, if your parents are not citizens. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof." You're sticking to a belief that is and has been forever harmful to this country.
1
@josecabanas6293 Explain how it isn't.
1
@Talking_He4d Exactly!
1
@josecabanas6293 So, it isn't unconstitutional because you don't want it to be? Lmao 🤦🏻‍♀️ Wrong. They would still do it because that kid is how they get tethered here. You do not get it. You care more about an idea than what is good...and what is actually constitutional.
1
@josecabanas6293 The 14th amendment is the thing that says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and is what makes it unconstitutional. 🤦🏻‍♀️ You and the current Gov (on purpose) are misinterpreting it. Legislation history, the other words of those who wrote it, etc are all proof that you're misinterpreting it. Why would other laws that made AI citizens be needed afterwards if this A did it already? Why would they add that part if it was just that anyone born here, regardless, is? I have a pocket Constitution/Declaration of Independence. Reading it means nothing if you don't understand it and don't understand the history of it, or understand the intent of those who wrote the parts of it.
1
@josecabanas6293 🤦🏻‍♀️ You completely misunderstood how to read the 2ndA. Just like my last comment said, reading it is far different than understanding it. It gives the right to all, militia or not. Again, read their other words of the time. And the reason is for a tyrannical gov. Not having militias doesn't make that not a concern. And "being outdated" isn't a thing when it comes to the Constitution. Their intent is how it is understood. You do not change the meaning based on today's feelings.
1
@josecabanas6293 I am. Hence why I'm going with the intent of 14A, as I've stated and explained already. This intent can be seen, again, by looking at legislative history, knowing what it was for, their words of the time, etc. Etc. As has already been stated.
1
@Flyeaglesfly215 If your parents did not come legally, yes, you should be deported because according to the Constitution, you are not a citizen. You can blame it on the state for purposely misinterpreting the 14th amendment.
1
@Flyeaglesfly215 Yes, if your parents were not citizens when you were born or in the process of becoming one, you should be deported.
1
@Flyeaglesfly215 If your parents were not citizens, yes. Children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country, not this one. The 14A is being misinterpreted purposely.
1
📢This guy uses bots/alt accts to like and comment.
1
@evalunloca I didn't say 100% are his. Obviously, some aren't. However, most are. This has already been proven. He has since changed his way of doing it (because I pointed it out to prove it) so it isnt as obvious unless you follow his comments on other channels and go through them.
1
@Noonelike.3 <<and here is one of them
1
@Liezbehindthozeeyez <<and this one
1
@Leetllee <<and that one
1