First, it what is written in the amendment ("all persons born...") not what the author says that matters. Second, a baby born in the United States who has never breathed a single breath of air in any other country is by no reasonable definition a foreigner.
-
-
-
there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret : "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Do you really want to set the precedent that a president can destroy an amendment with an executive order ? What’s to stop a dem from doing it to the 2nd. It’s a slippery slope
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Your breaking context of the statement, and cherry picking. For shame friend, thats NYTs level. Just be more honest, and present how this is an issue for Congress to decide and moderate by legislation at the behest of the governed, i.e., not a constitutional law issue.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
US vs Wong Kim Ark, Pyler vs Doe
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The 14th Amendment was already decided in a Supreme Court casepic.twitter.com/SZwGJojfzI
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So, that whole Ellis Island thing? Are we just going to gloss right over that? are you saying that the children of everyone who came through Ellis Island were non citizens?
-
They were LEGAL immigrants, and that's how it SHOULD have been written. I agree that the law should be changed, but I don't agree with the EO approach.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.