Comments by "Pickle Rick" (@TmanRock9) on "Donald Trump signs executive order to end U.S. birthright citizenship" video.

@tlee1 the 14th amendment begs to differ. any Enforcment of this is unconstitutional and should be challenged.
10
@BonstersBar incorrect. As long as your are bike on US soil and are subject to its jurisdiction then your a citizen. The status of the parents is irrelevant.
5
@MSJ_xx the right to citizenship when born on US soil. cant change this with an executive order.
3
@ in the wording no such distinction is mentioned and is there for irrelevant. 2A does not necessitate that you have all the same weapons as the federal government. adequately armed does not mean "access to nuclear weapons"
3
@whatisthepointofthis1 1) it still protects all born in the US and under their jurisdiction including the children of illegals. 2)it was actually passed with the 14 amendments. 3)it was ratified in 1868
3
@michaelholder3933 which is unconstitutional if your born on US soil you are a citizen regardless of if your parents are or not. this is also false, the constitution still applies to those who aren't American citizens, besides this is about who is a citizen.
2
@charlesfragoso3932 doesn't seem to be one. the supreme court defines it as anyone born on US soil. meaning this is unconstitutional.
2
@I_amFrankEinstein not according to the supreme court or the language of the amendment.
1
@Chuck8541 the kids of people strolling in or flying by are generally subject to Us jurisdiction and are therefore citizen. seethe.
1
@ yes the US does. If they weren’t then you couldn’t arrest them for committing a crime.
1
@opinionated4219 those born to people who wonder or fly in are subject to US jurisdiction.
1
he might just deport everyone since even the ancestors of the natives migrated. guess the entirety of the USA has to be vacated.
1
@joeygarcia6647 at the beginning of the fourteenth amendment is says that. the children of illegals are subject to US jurisdiction and are born on US soil therefor they are citizens.
1
@opinionated4219 people who stroll or fly in are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. foreign diplomates are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, illegals are. diplomates are offered immunity, illegals are not. if illegals also had immunity, you might have a point. also their children regardless of their status are born on US jurisdiction and therefor qualify. diplomat's children are not because they also have immunity generally even when born in the US
1
@rosewood5017 the constitution says otherwise.
1
@BonstersBar the new EO is unconstitutional and therefor irrelevant.
1
@BonstersBar it actually doesn’t state that. It just states you have the right to own weapons and doesn’t specify which ones you can or can’t have. Not having access to all weapons is not a 2A violation. No one in recent time as far as I’m aware has tried to ban weapons outright, if they did it’s unconstitutional and must go up for a vote with congress and hopefully it fails. It’s also not subjective, EOs do not override the constitution.
1
@BonstersBar it’s completely relevant, you can’t have nuclear weapons can you? And the US would easily do such if it’s existence was threatened why would they not?
1
@BonstersBar so your suggesting that nuclear weapons are just for show and wouldn’t be used? If your existence is certain to end it would be pretty silly not to use them. Why would they care about what’s left when they are pretty much done for?
1
@ I’m well aware of the blast radius of a nuclear bomb. Your point? Why would a government that is going to not exist soon care about the cities and roads it already lost?
1
@ I’m well aware of the blast radius. You could provide a point though.
1
@ brilliant retort
1