The Moderate Lib from Ohio

Deconstructing internet fairy tales. Dissecting viral scams, bot-driven panic, and political fiction with raw data. Just a moderate Ohioan exposing the grift.👇

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

@aulet_roger My fault. You post some facts here and the flood gates open lol.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

GOALLLLL!!!!!! 🇺🇲🇺🇲

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

Yes, and definitely no fight here! To understand where this lands textually, it helps to look at how the rule was built.

When the 14th Amendment was written, it adopted a centuries-old rule inherited from English Common Law called jus soli (the 'right of the soil'). Since the colonial days, the default law was simple: if you were born on the nation's soil, you were a citizen.

The reason this went to the Supreme Court 30 years later wasn't because anyone was trying to 're-read' or expand the amendment—it was actually the exact opposite. After Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the government tried to invent a brand-new loophole to deny citizenship specifically to the children of Chinese immigrants.

When the court ruled on the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898, the 6-2 majority didn't change the rules or create a new policy. They simply dug into 300 years of legal history and confirmed that the 14th Amendment had permanently locked that traditional birthright rule into the Constitution so the government couldn't strip it away based on race. Even the two dissenting justices agreed that birthright citizenship had always applied to European immigrants; they were just arguing that Chinese families should be uniquely excluded.

So historically, the court didn't expand the law to include 'tourist babies' or undocumented immigrants—they just confirmed that the blanket 'right of the soil' rule had been the default law all along. Whether that default rule makes sense in the modern world is where the policy debate lies, but textually, that's how it was locked in!

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

Was there like a memo that went out for you all to be spewing this propaganda? I live in a bipartisan area in Ohio. Our cities asked us to do the same. Power plants only support so much. It's a request, not a demand. This has literally been a thing for decades across the entire U.S during heat waves.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

Stop with the fucking propaganda. It is a request not a demand. It helps relieve stress on our power grids which desperately need to be upgraded. I am in a bipartisan area in Ohio and they are asking us to do the same right now. This has been a thing for decades during heat waves all over the United States. Dumbass.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

You all have lost your minds. This has been a thing. I'm in Ohio and there are cities asking us to do the same right now and I am in a bipartisan area. It's not a demand, it's a request to ease strain on the electric grid. If you don't want to, don't. It can just lead to brown outs. You don't want it to happen, update the grid.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

@realBrandonGill Lol this is not socialism or communism. You don't have to, it's a request/recommendation to help prevent brown outs. If you don't want to, don't. It just strains the electrical grid and can lead to outages. It's not unprecedented at all during heat waves.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

You’re raising a really common-sense point. It definitely looks completely backward on the surface that a welcomed diplomat’s child is excluded while someone here without legal status is included.

​The reason it works this way comes down to a strict legal distinction: immunity vs. accountability.

​Foreign ambassadors carry diplomatic immunity. Because of that, the U.S. government legally cannot arrest them, put them on trial, or tax them. In a very literal sense, they are immune to our laws, which means they are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States.

​On the other hand, anyone else physically standing on U.S. soil, whether they are a tourist, an undocumented immigrant, or tragically, a victim of human trafficking, has zero immunity. They are 100% accountable to U.S. law. If they break a law, they are prosecuted in an American court and sent to an American prison. Because they are fully under our legal system's thumb, they meet the 14th Amendment's requirement of being 'subject to the jurisdiction.'

​Your point about trafficking victims and vacationers highlights exactly why this is still such a massive policy debate today. The reason the framers chose a flat, automatic rule based on geography (jus soli, or 'right of the soil') rather than a case-by-case system was actually to keep politicians out of it. They worried that if the government had the power to decide citizenship case-by-case based on a person's specific circumstances, whichever political party was in power would just manipulate the rules to favor their own voters.

A blanket rule avoids that government overreach, even if it leaves us with these sensitive and tricky policy debates we're still sorting through today.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

@boldnewginger @NancyMace Yeah, not sure how I missed that. Good looking out.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

Incorrect. Regarding the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, it’s actually a really interesting piece of history because it wasn't a 'rereading' it was the exact opposite! Birthright citizenship had been the default law in America inherited from English common law since the colonial days.

The only reason the case happened 30 years later was because of the Chinese Exclusion Act. The government tried to invent a brand-new loophole to deny citizenship specifically to Chinese children.

The 6-2 majority didn't change the rules; they dug into 300 years of legal history and confirmed that the 14th Amendment had permanently locked the traditional birthright rule into the Constitution so the government couldn't strip it away based on race. Even the two dissenting justices agreed that birthright citizenship had always applied to European immigrants; they were just arguing that Chinese immigrants should be uniquely excluded.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

You make a fair point that writers could definitely omit conjunctions for style or emphasis (in grammar, that's called 'asyndeton'). The reason historians and linguists point to apposition here, though, is that 'foreigners' and 'aliens' meant the exact same thing legally. If it were a list of separate groups, it would be like saying 'cars, automobiles, that belong to rental companies.' Because the words overlap so perfectly, they work together to narrow down a single group: foreigners (aliens) who belong to diplomatic families.

Regarding the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, it’s actually a really interesting piece of history because it wasn't a 'rereading' it was the exact opposite! Birthright citizenship had been the default law in America inherited from English common law since the colonial days.

The only reason the case happened 30 years later was because of the Chinese Exclusion Act. The government tried to invent a brand-new loophole to deny citizenship specifically to Chinese children.

The 6-2 majority didn't change the rules; they dug into 300 years of legal history and confirmed that the 14th Amendment had permanently locked the traditional birthright rule into the Constitution so the government couldn't strip it away based on race. Even the two dissenting justices agreed that birthright citizenship had always applied to European immigrants; they were just arguing that Chinese immigrants should be uniquely excluded.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

That’s a really interesting historical perspective and semi true. But there’s a slight mix-up here regarding what the Oxford comma rule actually changed.

The 1905 Oxford rule was just about the punctuation mark - specifically, whether to put a comma right before the 'and' or 'or' at the end of a list (like writing 'red, white, and blue' instead of 'red, white and blue'). It didn't invent the practice of using 'and' or 'or' itself; English speakers have always used conjunctions to finish a list.

In fact, we can look at the text of the 14th Amendment itself from 1866 to see how they wrote. Right in the main text, the framers wrote: '...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...'

Because they clearly knew how to use 'or' to make a list, the fact that Senator Howard omitted it in his speech ('foreigners, aliens, who belong...') is a big clue. He wasn't making a three-item list; he was using a grammatical tool called apposition, where you stack descriptive words together to clarify one specific group - in this case, foreign diplomatic families.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

I'll repost this since it seems there are a lot of you that need a grammer lesson.

In 19th-century English, as is true today, a list of distinct items requires a coordinating conjunction (like and or or) before the final element. Senator Howard’s quote completely lacks one: "...who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors..."

Because there is no "or," the words "foreigners" and "aliens" are functioning in apposition. Apposition is a grammatical construction where words are placed side-by-side to clarify, describe, or narrow down the same exact subject (for example: "My neighbor, the teacher, who lives next door..."). Howard was using "foreigners" and "aliens" as descriptive synonyms to specify the exact type of foreign citizens he was talking about: specifically those who belong to the families of foreign diplomats.

If he had intended to exclude all foreigners, listing "foreigners" and "aliens" as separate categories would be completely redundant since they meant the same thing legally. Furthermore, it would make the final clause about ambassadors completely useless.

I get you disagree with it and I honestly admire your passion for our country, but you are 1000% wrong on your interpretation vs the actual meaning here.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

@WalshFreedom So, is it not possible to condemn the Israeli government for genocide and for influencing our political landscape through massive political donations and still like and care for a regular Jewish person? It is possible for 2 things to be true at the same time you know.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

Most corrupt administration in our history. 🤬

[The New York Times @nytimes]

President Trump reaped at least $2.2 billion from his family’s holdings last year, a new filing shows.
https://t.co/Rdp8KHJLxl

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

Shocking 🙄

[GOP Ls @GOP__Ls]

🚨 TPUSA leader Austin Smith forged hundreds of signatures for his reelection petition.

He has pleaded guilty to election fraud.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

So do we need a grammar lesson here or something?

In 19th-century English, as is true today, a list of distinct items requires a coordinating conjunction (like and or or) before the final element. Senator Howard’s quote completely lacks one:

"...who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors..."

Because there is no "or," the words "foreigners" and "aliens" are functioning in apposition. Apposition is a grammatical construction where words are placed side-by-side to clarify, describe, or narrow down the same exact subject (for example: "My neighbor, the teacher, who lives next door...").

Howard was using "foreigners" and "aliens" as descriptive synonyms to specify the exact type of foreign citizens he was talking about: specifically those who belong to the families of foreign diplomats.

If he had intended to exclude all foreigners, listing "foreigners" and "aliens" as separate categories would be completely redundant since they meant the same thing legally. Furthermore, it would make the final clause about ambassadors completely useless.

I get you disagree with it and I honestly admire your passion for our country but you are 1000% wrong on your interpretation vs the actual meaning here.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

Got it directly from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics. The current number of illegal immigrants residing in the United sates is around 11-13.7 million. You are off by about 150%. And the PRWORA (1996) bars them from Medicaid, Medicare & ACA. EMTALA only covers emergency care for them. I respect your patriotism and worry for this country, I do. Your numbers and facts, however, are wrong.

[The Moderate Lib from Ohio @ModLibFromOH]

Fair points, and yes real fraud exists in the mix as I stated earlier. The point I am making is that "1 million" figure they highlight is kind of a hook. When you scale it down it does not scream widespread fraud. 1 million with no-SSN ÷ 23.4M enrollees = 4.3%. That's 4 people in a room of 100, and "no SSN on file" isn't fraud, it's a data-match flag that opens a 95-day window to prove eligibility. Most resolve it or roll off automatically. Catch and fix the actual fraud yes, but twisting it to say there is an actual campaign to defraud America is just not true. That more of a propaganda spin vs. what is actually happening.