that dude

[that dude @imrightusually]

@bobWaltzer @ProjectLiberal so they used three different words with commas to say the same thing. no. commas back then were pauses or breathes. so foreigners. pause. aliens. pause. diplomats.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@bobWaltzer @ProjectLiberal but not subject to the government. protected by laws yes. but full rights no. non citizens cant vote in fed elections or carry firearms. due process can be different also.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@theturtleizov @ProjectLiberal it wasnt until 1898 supreme court decision of us v wonk kim ark. until then it wasnt cited anywhere that i have found. and how do u cite q source of somethin that isnt used? and that is when birthright citizenship was actually codified

[that dude @imrightusually]

@bobWaltzer @ProjectLiberal they speak on this also. sayin they cant be robbed or murdered just cause they arent citizens. but not be compelled to pay taxes or become part of the electorate. hence under the jurisdiction. in other words answering to the government.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@bobWaltzer @ProjectLiberal yes. but it meant somethin. it meant that u were eligible for things like jury duty and becomin part of the electorate. they talk about it. they even say things like we all kno what it means so we dont need to debate it. but it is talked about. same with citizen. context matters

[that dude @imrightusually]

@theturtleizov @ProjectLiberal im sorry. i dont just go with google. sure today its that way. but it wasnt always like that. hence the 14th amendment and the debates then and now and multiple time in between.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@bobWaltzer @ProjectLiberal juat being here is no subject of the jurisdiction. thats why they kept sayin that phrase. in fact connes mentioned the chinese gettin it for birth but it wasnt until 1890 somethin that the supreme court actually granted birthright citizenship.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@theturtleizov @ProjectLiberal not once mentioned in the law or during the debate over that i have seen.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@bobWaltzer @ProjectLiberal only because they asked are they under the jurisdiction of california therefore also the fed gov. it is brought up that cali taxed them but it was struck down provin they are not under the jurisdiction. and thats the whole native debate. juat ahowin up isnt enough.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@bobWaltzer @ProjectLiberal they were not of our nation but we had treties with some and we were in ways tesponsible for others. they were discussin how to treat them in this admendment. also gypsies and chinese. but moatly natives.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@ProjectLiberal @bobWaltzer once again. the argument was about natives. they reiterate multiple times that just being born here isnt enough.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@bobWaltzer @ProjectLiberal bro. the next few pages are about indians ccause of the jurisdiction question. it is stared multiple times just bein here isnt enough.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@therealpauldahl @ProjectLiberal

[that dude @imrightusually]

@JamesBrown00777 @NBCNews read bottom half of second and all of third column. it states no child of foreigners and aliens. oh and gives examples of immigrants not gettin it in third.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@bobWaltzer @ProjectLiberal did u read this? it actually gives examples of immigrants from other countries not gettin citizenship. and the only taxes referenced is again natives.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@bobWaltzer @ProjectLiberal source? i dont mind bein wrong but i would like to read it myself. i didnt bring up the natives that dont pay taxes but that meams they are not under us jurisdiction.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@JamesBrown00777 @NBCNews any and every writing and speech had to do with slaves and their offspring. it says it outright. no foreigners, aliens, diplomat kids. caus ethey do not fall under the jurisdiction of the us government. it was to force the states to give full rights and immunities to ex slaves.

[that dude @imrightusually]

@therealpauldahl @ProjectLiberal why would they use those terms to describe diplomats? foreifners and aliens are seperate since those catagories of people are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the united states" just like diplomats. they answer and pledge allegience to another sovereign.