NC Bearkat

Avid outdoorsman who loves sporting clays and most target shooting. I am an NRA CRSO and instructor for rifle, pistol and shotgun. Eternally homesick Texan.

[NOBUNAGA🇯🇵🏯_夏樹蒼依 @japan_nobunaga]

A two-week-old infant was stabbed to death in Modesto, California.

Two. Weeks. Old.

He had not yet learned to focus his eyes.

His mother, 23, was stabbed too.

His grandmother, 54, was stabbed too.

The man arrested for it had been deported once, returned illegally, and arrested four times for drunk driving in California.

After the fourth DUI, ICE asked the jail to hold him.

The state of California said no, by written law.

There is no debate here.

There is no policy disagreement.

There is no "both sides."

There is a two-week-old American baby in a coffin because a state government decided that the word "sanctuary" was more important than him.

He should be alive.

God bless every American who refuses to call this normal.

[Defiant L’s @DefiantLs]

What happened to people?

[Ted Cruz @tedcruz]

true

[Mark R. Levin @marklevinshow]

I am still seeing some insist, with an unwarranted air of sanctimony, that "the Court simply continued interpreting the citizenship clause as it has for 140 years." That is a lie.

Clarence Thomas notes in his dissent what the rest of us who've studied this have also known for decades: "The Citizenship Clause was consistently interpreted not to apply to the children of foreign temporary visitors, who were by definition not domiciled in the United States.” “Regardless of administration or party, the Federal Government for decades after ratification regularly denied claims to citizenship by children who were born in the United States but not domiciled here.” Roberts had to ignore this for to do otherwise would undermine his argument. But we don't have to play along.

Some are saying, relax, there are statutory fixes. There are no statutory fixes to birthright citizenship per se, certainly not now, since the Court just constitutionalized the practice. A statute cannot fundamentally cure this. And there will not be a constitutional amendment as long as there are Democrats in Congress and RINOs to support them.

Well, the issue was a close call, we are lectured. No, it was not. Not if you are thoroughly familiar with it. It was actually straightforward and relatively simply. Read Roberts's opinion. He mostly ignores the contemporary record at the time, which is loaded with statements by relevant congressmen and senators rejecting the entire notion of birthright citizenship, the context of the citizenship clause (even excluding Indians because of dual loyalty), and on and on. There is not a definitive piece of actual historical evidence of any kind supporting the interpretation Roberts and the Majority embrace. Hence, they go to 17th century Britain and power of Kings over servants. The irony is lost on the 250th anniversary of our independence.

We are told, look, the border is secure, the damage is limited, there are a number of executive and administrative decisions that can be made to help control this. Tell me, folks, when the Democrats are back in power, why wouldn't they undo every executive and administrative effort to limit the damage since they caused most of it in the first place, and why wouldn't they throw open the immigration doors even more enthusiastically knowing they've the birthright citizenship decision behind them.

It is one thing to say don't be hysterical and another to be damn near braindead to what just happened. There is cause for alarm. This isn't some manufactured concern. There's a revolution by immigration. It is swallowing Europe; it is swallowing parts of our country right now. That's precisely why President Trump acted. The Court's ruling has removed one of the most important constitutional and societal tools we have for fending off this crusade, and the Democrat Party's lawlessness in stoking it. The fact that the 14th amendment has been used to promote birthright citizenship for multiple decades is not a rational defense of its constitutionality. The fact that there are other ways to try to deal with this, with varying degrees of effectiveness, is not the point and not relevant to what the Court did. The Court has constitutionalized a policy without a real constitutional, factual, or historical basis. That is what Roberts's opinion demonstrates, and the dissent highlights. It was raised now because President Trump saw what had and was transpiring, including through the abuses of the amendment, took executive action to stop it, and lawsuits were brought to block his action. And what was and is happening is the abuse of birthright citizenship as never before.

Thomas and Alito went to great lengths to explain our history and that of the amendment, spending much time correcting Roberts's deceit. And they were blunt about their frustration. So, too, were they emphatic about the dire consequences of the decision.

Thomas and Alito are right. I have spent more than half-a-century studying, discussing, and writing about Supreme Court arguments and decisions, etc. I have also participated in several very big issues before the Court. I predict the dissenting opinions will be cited, studied, and praised by scholars and historians long after the Roberts Court is gone, whereas the Roberts opinion will be dismissed as a hodgepodge of mostly gibberish.

What was intended to be an amendment to the Constitution to protect the civil liberties and rights of newly freed Black slaves and their progeny, has been turned into a legal absurdity -- a spigot to justify granting citizenship to aliens who have entered our country in violation of federal law and, who in turn, are rewarded with American-citizen babies. The entire purpose of immigration laws used to destroy immigration laws, along with our national security, cultural and societal assimilation, economic determinations, electoral processes, etc. Who knew this was all intended when, in 1868, the 14th amendment was drafted, adopted by Congress, and ratified by the states? Certainly, its authors and the elected federal and state representatives who debated it and approved it had no idea. And I doubt the British monarchy in the 1600s would've approved, either.

[Senate Republicans @SenateGOP]

One year ago, Senate Republicans passed the Working Families @TaxCuts.

Every Senate Democrat voted against the largest middle-class tax cut in history.

[2A History @2aHistory]

Fact: There is no evidence that banning scary black rifles lowers either the murder rate or the suicide rate.

In fact rifles are involved with just a tiny percentage of murders and suicides.

[Gun Owners of America @GunOwners]

We are very thankful @CivilRights is holding the line and forcing the courts to treat the Second Amendment like the fundamental right it is.

GOA will keep fighting to turn our temporary injunction into a full smackdown of Abigail "Ban-berger's" gun ban.

[VirgosWindsong @holdsecrets]

GREAT POINT‼️

[VirgosWindsong @holdsecrets]

The more you know! 📖👇👇👇

[Joel Pollak @joelpollak]

It’s only the most prosperous society that has ever existed in the history of human civilization, built by the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents, but let’s find a reason to be resentful

[MAZE @mazemoore]

1993. Dianne Feinstein: Should people be able to come to this country, get on Medicaid, give birth to a baby, and then go back to their home country? The answer is no.

Democrats used to be somewhat sane. Those days are long gone

[Nick Sortor @nicksortor]

🚨 BREAKING: The House has PASSED @RepThomasMassie’s resolution to FORCE the release of names of Congressmen who used the Congressional slush fund to pay out for sexuaI misconduct settlements, 420-0

These are TAXPAYER DOLLARS being used to PAY OFF accusers.

And it’s all about to be public.

The Committee on Ethics must now preserve and public release all relevant records.

[Rapid Response 47 @RapidResponse47]

.@RealTomHoman: I saw the birthright citizenship decision. Now, we step up enforcement. Even though we're doing record amounts of enforcement now, we need to do more — and not only that, we need to really buckle down on birth tourism.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Four-story elevator … wow

Real “man of the people” he is

[Ms. Ezell (Ms. "right to acquire and maintain") @ms_ezell]

Hey @saeileenburke, what happened in this case.

Real Talk.

[Buzz Patterson @BuzzPatterson]

Thanks to SCOTUS, @realDonaldTrump is absolutely right! The US Congress cares more about China than our own citizens. It’s despicable. Both sides! I’m disgusted.

[Buzz Patterson @BuzzPatterson]

Jessica Gorman, whose daughter Sheridan was killed by an illegal alien is going off on Congress right now! She’s lecturing @PramilaJayapal and @jamie_raskin. It’s powerful!

[The White House @WhiteHouse]

Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship.

[Mark R. Levin @marklevinshow]

We come back to the word "jurisdiction," where Roberts makes the same argument as those who've always supported birthright citizenship make -- that is, jurisdiction means physical jurisdiction.  If a pregnant mother is in our country illegally and has her baby in our country, the baby is granted immediate citizenship according to this argument.  As a practical matter, does that make sense?  So, a foreigner can unilaterally confer jurisdiction on their soon-to-be born baby by coming into the United States illegally?  Think about that as a matter of simple logic.  Does that make sense?  Moreover, the country from where the parent comes continues to treat that baby as a citizen of their country.  And why are there exceptions for babies born of diplomats?  Does the 14th amendment, if interpreted as Roberts insist, create exceptions of any kind?  

The language states: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. Notice, the authors did not leave it at "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," which would have been enough if the purpose was to confer citizenship to a baby born in the United States.  So, why did they add superfluous language?  Because the rest of the sentence is KEY to what they intended and did.  "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something more.  It means subject to the political allegiance to our country.  What does that mean? A fundamental duty of loyalty to our country (patriotism), part of the civil society, a legal bond and societal ties, in exchange for which you receive the legal rights and protections afforded all citizens.

[End Wokeness @EndWokeness]

Justice KBJ: "If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws….. in a sense, it's allegiance."

Their "logic" for birthright citizenship: