The Vicious AntiFederalist 🇺🇸
@Enforce2A
Followers
3K
Following
12K
Statuses
20K
Blood Enemy of Totalitarians & Kendiists. Constitutional Extremist. #1A #2A #BillOfRights #SicSemperTyrannis GWOT Combat Veteran, 3/3rd 69th AR, Vicious.
Colorado, USA
Joined October 2023
The interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14 Amendment to exclude illegal aliens from automatic citizenship involves several layers of historical context, legal interpretation, and legislative intent: Historical Context & Original Intent: 1. Freed Slaves Citizenship: The primary aim of the 14th Amendment was to secure citizenship for freed slaves after the Civil War. It was introduced to overturn the Dred Scott decision, which had denied citizenship to black individuals. Therefore, the focus was on ensuring that former slaves and their descendants were recognized as citizens by birthright. 2. Intent of the Framers: - Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the citizenship clause, explicitly mentioned that the amendment was not intended to include children of foreigners or aliens. He specified that it would not apply to "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." This commentary, contemporary to the writing of the amendment, proves that a narrower interpretation of jurisdiction than mere physical presence is required. - Senator Lyman Trumbull and others emphasized that "subject to the jurisdiction" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else." This implies a full and complete allegiance to the United States, which excludes those with foreign allegiances, a category that includes illegal aliens. Legal and Textual Interpretation: - Allegiance vs. Physical Presence: The argument that "jurisdiction" merely means physical presence within the country is countered by the understanding that jurisdiction in this context was intended to denote political allegiance as well as legal obedience. - Political Jurisdiction: Being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant as not just being under the laws for criminal or civil matters but also having a political tie or allegiance to the U.S. government. Illegal aliens, by maintaining allegiance to their home country, are not be considered fully under U.S. jurisdiction in this political sense. Historical Precedents: - Cases like Elk v. Wilkins (1884) clarified that Native Americans were not automatically citizens under the amendment because they were under the jurisdiction of their tribes, not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the political sense. This precedent could be used to argue that individuals who owe allegiance elsewhere (like illegal aliens) should be similarly excluded. - Legal Exclusions: The amendment itself excluded certain groups from citizenship (children of diplomats and those born in territories under foreign occupation), indicating that "jurisdiction" does not equate to mere presence but includes exceptions based on allegiance and legal status. - Modern Legal Interpretations: Congress could legislate to clarify "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude children of illegal aliens. Though this can also be achieved through executive action based on the arguments above in terms to expanding who is eligible for deportation proceedings by the executive branch. In summary, the argument for excluding illegal aliens from automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment hinges on: - The historical intent to primarily grant citizenship to freed slaves. - Interpreting "jurisdiction" as involving allegiance and complete legal and political submission to the U.S., not just physical presence. - Drawing from legal precedents where jurisdiction is nuanced beyond mere location. Now that America First is in control all of the workings of government as well as the Supreme Court, we can and should implement all measures to take swift action on this by the end of 2025, and even carving out a filibuster exception should be on the table to defeat The Great Replacement from ever being realized.
@SgtAntiFed @LDS_Dems Jurisdiction here refers to physical presence in the United States. I don’t know what you’re trying to argue here.
4
10
28
RT @gunpolicy: FPC is taking on mag bans across the country! Who needs more than 10 rounds? We do, now fuck off.
0
330
0
RT @cyb3rops: I've changed my mind on DOGE. Violating FedRAMP policies is just too much. It doesn’t matter how much waste they uncover - h…
0
105
0
RT @NatlGunRights: A right that requires a permit is no right at all. Still no, don't give a inch.
0
18
0
@gunpolicy States are governments. States cannot have rights. The Bill of Rights has always applied, and will always apply, to individuals per the Founding Fathers’ numerous writings and correspondence. @davidhogg111 is a cunt.
0
0
1
@shellenberger When we talk about free and independent media, that does NOT include the establishment media. They are totalitarian scum.
0
0
1
RT @shellenberger: They said the government was by and for the people, and the media was free. They weren't. Deep state actors controlled t…
0
8K
0
RT @Rep_Clyde: I’m drafting articles of impeachment for U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. He’s a partisan activist weaponizing our ju…
0
10K
0
@gunpolicy Good morning. I think I should get a couple more 30 rounders here in Colorado as a fuck you to the Denver totalitarians.
0
0
3