>>510959517
Who is that kike and why do they hate Jesus so much?

>>510293034
>Noooo you have to love migrants!!
And yet it's atheists and jews championing and rioting and assaulting federal officers over their precious pet slaves
Don't feel bad you don't have any real arguments though, your boy Adam Green fled a twitter slap fight when confronted with the statistics too.

>>510103843

Keep to the subject at hand, faggot. You are only mad because this move helps whites. You are only faking concern.

>>510065227

>hey guys maybe mass immigration isn't a good idea
>WHY ARE YOU SO FULL OF HATE YOU ARE HITLER

Your distortion of scripture is a more egregious sin than me suggesting a reasonable border policy.

>>509943600
Does "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" merely mean subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States? That is, subject to the laws of the United States as is virtually everyone on US soil including aliens who are here illegally, or are here for the purpose of bearing a child to make it an American Citizen, or does the "jurisdiction" of the United States mean something more than that? Such as the FULL and COMPLETE jurisdiction, requiring an allegiance that comes from a permanent lawful commitment to make the US ones home, the place where one permanently and lawfully resides. I believe this latter interpretation is compelled by the citizenship clause, text structure, and history, as well as by Common Sense.

If "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means nothing more than the duty of obedience to the laws of the United States then why did its framers choose such a strange way to say that? Why didn't they just say "subject to the laws of the United States"? Doing so would have been quite natural given that this straightforward unambiguous language is used in both Article VI and Article III of the US Constitution.

The clause also makes sure that it makes Citizens the newborns in both the United States and of the "states wherein they reside", that is where they live, their home, these words standing alone implies lawful permanent residence, and it plainly excludes tourists, as well as other lawful visitors, as well as illegal aliens who are prohibited by law from residing within a state although they all must obey our laws.

The shitlibs didn't care about the Epstein list or Joe Biden groping kids or the Laptop from Hell from 2021 - 2024 and they still don't care they are only using the situation to attack their perceived enemies in the migapedes.

But the end result is still the migapedes being the ones who care about children being trafficked and raped while the shitlibs still don't give a single fuck about children being raped and trafficked.

Really tickles the almonds. The migapedes are devastated because they care too much, and the shitlibs are attacking the migapedes for their empathy because the shitlibs never cared about any of it, they never cared that kids were raped, they never gave a single shit.

Does "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" merely mean subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States? That is, subject to the laws of the United States as is virtually everyone on US soil including aliens who are here illegally, or are here for the purpose of bearing a child to make it an American Citizen, or does the "jurisdiction" of the United States mean something more than that? Such as the FULL and COMPLETE jurisdiction, requiring an allegiance that comes from a permanent lawful commitment to make the US ones home, the place where one permanently and lawfully resides. I believe this latter interpretation is compelled by the citizenship clause, text structure, and history, as well as by Common Sense.

If "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means nothing more than the duty of obedience to the laws of the United States then why did its framers choose such a strange way to say that? Why didn't they just say "subject to the laws of the United States"? Doing so would have been quite natural given that this straightforward unambiguous language is used in both Article VI and Article III of the US Constitution.

The clause also makes sure that it makes Citizens the newborns in both the United States and of the "states wherein they reside", that is where they live, their home, these words standing alone implies lawful permanent residence, and it plainly excludes tourists, as well as other lawful visitors, as well as illegal aliens who are prohibited by wall from residing within a state although they all must obey our laws.

>>509518442
Senator Trumbles language illuminate two important points about the intended meaning of the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by its authors. First, they intended that the children of Tribal Indians who resided on reservations and owed their direct allegiance to their tribes would not be entitled to Birthright Citizenship, but the children of assimilated Indians, who had left their reservations, who had established a PERMANENT RESIDENCE among the body politic of the states would be entitled to birthright citizenship.

Second, it is not at all plausible that the framers of the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment intended that tribal Indians to be able to evade this limitation on Birthright Citizenship for their children by the simple expedient of leaving the reservation long enough to give birth to a child.

The KEY DISTINCTION between the tribal Indians and the assimilated Indians was ALLEGIANCE. Tribal Indians owed their direct allegiance to the Tribe while an Indian who had established a permanent domicile within the state and assimilated into the body politic committed his PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE to the United States.

>>509501629
I was never in Egypt so I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to me. Care to try again?

>>508079687
>Jesus said this to specific people at one place one time = that's a new commandment for everybody everywhere at all times.
Your pilpul game is weak.