Nathan Wikman

Christian, husband, father, web developer. Psalm 40:2

[Hitler Hated Christ @not_our_guy]

The Untied States of America is the greatest country on earth

[Josh Hawley @HawleyMO]

Religious liberty founded America.

And it’s going to keep us strong for the next 250 years

[Nathan Wikman @WikmanNathan]

@HawleyMO Long may our land be bright
With freedom’s holy light
Protect us by Thy might, great God our King

[Nathan Wikman @WikmanNathan]

@EndWokeness Not surprised. Two tier policing; the victims get arrested.

[Nathan Wikman @WikmanNathan]

@JustinUSA The DNC has moved so far left as it catered to the LGBTQ Marxist Islamist soup. We cannot allow Tucker and his fellow Jew-obsessed friends to dictate the direction of the Republican party.

[Wasson Watch Co. @WassonWatch]

One sign that our nation is healing will be when mainstream people comfortably refer to people pretending to be the opposite sex as insane, deranged, etc.

We aren't there yet.

[Nathan Wikman @WikmanNathan]

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!

[Nathan Wikman @WikmanNathan]

My native country, thee
Land of the noble free
Thy name I love

[Nathan Wikman @WikmanNathan]

My native country, thee
Land of the noble free
Thy name I love

[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.

[Nathan Wikman @WikmanNathan]

@B_A_Purtle David Baron wrote of Israel in a similar way, referring to her tribulations and judgements: “burning but not consumed”.

[Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee]

The Senate should reconvene to debate the SAVE America Act and other legislation made more urgently needed by recent Supreme Court rulings.

Who’s with me?

There’s no time to waste.

[Nathan Wikman @WikmanNathan]

@SenTedCruz Make it happen

[Dan Bongino @dbongino]

If “the Constitution is not a suicide pact,” today’s birthright citizenship ruling is a major step backward.
Modern global travel, the liberal love affair with open-borders policies, and a dangerous international security environment make this decision an immediate national security threat.
It’s past time for a constitutional amendment.

[End Wokeness @EndWokeness]

Charlie Kirk left a tweet for everything

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

So maybe we should revoke visas when a non-citizen gets pregnant.

That’s a cruel alternative.

But less cruel than what SCOTUS did to the USA’s citizens today.

[Andrew Kolvet @AndrewKolvet]

What can we do now?

Pass much stricter visa laws. If you're pregnant, no visa.

Ifyou want to visit a US territory, you must have a visa with strict vetting.

End dual citizenship.

End the exploitation of U.S. surrogacy laws.

Mass deportations.

[Nathan Wikman @WikmanNathan]

@elimcgowan @JayCCalhoun @ryancduff https://t.co/oVBdGkoL0z

[Fox News @FoxNews]

BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas pens a scathing dissent after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship.

Thomas accuses the majority of “repurposing” the 14th Amendment “to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text.”

“Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”

“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”

“I respectfully dissent.”

[Waterboy @GMRench]

Justice Thomas is correct.

[Dan Bongino @dbongino]

It’s way past time for a constitutional amendment.

[Nathan Wikman @WikmanNathan]

@elimcgowan @ryancduff Except that the four more conservative justices of the supreme court disagree with you.