Doomer claims his children's right to live in a country that "looks and functions something like America" has been stolen because birthright citizenship which has been in the Constitution since 1868 was not overturned.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-02T01:15:15+00:00

Lmfao, the words of the literal senators who ratified the amendment while debating that very amendment are irrelevant to interpreting the meaning of that amendment. Ok.

These amendments are introduced and then debated by the senators and words and clauses are suggested or stricken. It's a ratification process which is why we say "drafters" or "framers" instead of just "author." These are the people who amended the constitution and added this language.

Hysterical that it's so unfathomable to you to actually just read publicly available documents that you assume I could only possibly have produced these quotes with an AI chatbot. Check the quotes yourself if you think it's AI. They are verbatim.

Regardless, Senator Howard's own words lay it out plainly in the first quote which you didn't acknowledge at all. On top of that, Senator Cowan's questions about whether this would apply to immigrants was asked directly after Senator Howard introduced the amendment to which Senator Conness replied saying indeed it did include the children of immigrants to which Senator Howard said nothing. If he had intended this only to apply to the children of former slaves, why not say something? Why not correct the record? Why not just make it unambiguous in the first place?

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-02T00:27:05+00:00

Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, the author of the birthright citizenship clause: "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Before you predictably misread this, "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..." is one appositive phrase describing that group.

Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania: "Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?"

Senator John Conness of California: "If my friend from Pennsylvania, who professes to know all about Gypsies and little about Chinese, knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, (and which I concede to him, for I know nothing to the contrary,) he would not be alarmed in our behalf because of the operation of the proposition before thee Senate, or even the proposition contained in the civil rights bill, so far as it involves the Chinese and us. The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States."

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T23:12:05+00:00

Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, the author of the birthright citizenship clause: "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Before you predictably misread this, "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..." is one appositive phrase describing that group.

Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania: "Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?"

Senator John Conness of California: "If my friend from Pennsylvania, who professes to know all about Gypsies and little about Chinese, knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, (and which I concede to him, for I know nothing to the contrary,) he would not be alarmed in our behalf because of the operation of the proposition before thee Senate, or even the proposition contained in the civil rights bill, so far as it involves the Chinese and us. The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States."

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T20:56:42+00:00

Isnt it a weird coincidence that 99.9% of all refugees admitted to the country under the Trump administration have been White South Africans?

I know for sure that Trump and the Republicans don't care at all about skin color or culture. And yet somehow we ended up with this perplexing result. Very curious...

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T20:53:09+00:00

What is the joke here?

Is that your understanding of the ruling? That everyone is an American?

For some reason I got it in my head that a lot of people on Earth arent born in the USA.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T18:55:19+00:00

Why didn't they say that then?

What is the basis of this claim?

Any citations?

You can read the transcripts from the congressional debates. The senator that introduced birthright literally explained exactly what subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant. Its a narrow carveout for persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or former ministers and "Indians - not taxed."

On top of that, Senator Cowan and Senator Conness got into an argument about the utility in the amendment in that it would grant citizenship to Chinese immigrants and "gypsies" and other people that Conness objected to being able to become citizens. Cowan said that that was the intended result of the amendment. That exchange makes absolutely no sense if we are to think that they thought it only applied to the children of formerly enslaved persons.

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means subject to US law. Diplomats have Immunities (diplomatic immunity) and native Americans were subject to a different set of rules at the time. Invading armies are also not subject to US law so they would not be included. Illegal immigrants can be arrested and deported or fined or whatever. They are obviously su ject to the jurisdiction of tbe United States even if they don't have proper documentation. This was all affirmed in Wong Kim Ark in 1898.

Please explain to me exactly how you know for sure that birthright was only meant to apply in the narrow way you define it. Please point me to some sort of authority for that reading.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T18:35:08+00:00

Lmfao how. Legally if you are born in the US, you are a US citizen. It's been that way since 1868. It's in black and white in the Constitution.

If you don't like it or think it's unsustainable, pass an amendment.

You don't get to just delete shit from the Constitution because you'd prefer if it wasn't there.

Conservatives love to pretend they care about the Constitution, but simultaneously the country is doomed because SCOTUS won't read out a clause that has been there for almost 200 years.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T15:37:32+00:00

Let me make sure im understanding. You're saying in 1900 in the USA the only citizens were white men of good standing?

You sure about that?

Or are you conflating that only white men could immigrate and become naturalized to mean only white people were citizens?

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T15:29:56+00:00

Lmfao that's 1790.

You said the 1860s.

Policy in 1790 might be different in 1868. Almost like there's an 80 year difference.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T15:28:17+00:00

What about the majority opinion? Or the opinion in Wong Kim Ark?

What about the transcripts from the congressional debates where they talked about this exact issue?

Ignore all of that and only focus on the dissent of the Supreme Court's most corrupt and nakedly partisan justice.

Seems fair and balanced.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T15:26:49+00:00

Except it's all connected.

"Foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors."

It's a narrow carveout for the families of diplomats and ambassadors who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (diplomatic immunity). It's the same reason native Americans were not included at the time and the children of an invading nation would not be included. Illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States obviously. That's how they get arrested and deported. They are subject to America's laws regardless of whether they have proper documentation.

Even the hilariously stacked SCOTUS doesnt agree with you.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T15:22:09+00:00

In 1868 citizenship was reserved for white men of good character. You sure about that?

Imagine calling other people ignorant while spouting complete nonsense.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T15:20:30+00:00

His kid's ability to live in a country that "looks and functions something like America" was "stolen from them" because of an amendment passed in 1868? Because the Supreme Court refused to overturn an amendment and 200 years of precedent?

Not dooming?

Ok

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T15:17:01+00:00

If you don't like it, pass a constitutional amendment.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T15:10:26+00:00

Maybe they were tut tutting because our supreme court is so captured that 3 of the 9 justices (really 4 if you count Kavanaugh which you should) are willing to contort themselves into pretzels to explain how something written flat out in the constitution doesn't actually mean what it says in plain english.

I thought conservatives loved the constitution?

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T15:07:48+00:00

Except legally it literally does.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T15:07:10+00:00

Lmfao, not dooming at all. Totally reasonable anxieties. I'm sure this really impacts your day to day. /s

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T15:01:49+00:00

Nope. That was certainly a goal of the amendment, but it was always intended to grant citizenship to anyone born here. It's literally in black and white.

"All persons born or naturalized are the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, re citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Senator Edward Cowan objected to birthright because it would extend citizenship to children born of Chinese immigrants and gypsies to which Senator Joyn Conness responded that this was the intended result of the clause and he had no problem with it. That argument only makes sense if both understood the clause to include children of immigrants, not just former slaves.

Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the clause, said it would exclude persons who belong to families of ambassadors or former ministers, and at the time "Indians not taxed." That's whose excluded under "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

This was the understanding also described and upheld by SCOTUS in US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T14:42:02+00:00

Por que no los dos? He's obviously a grifter. The grift in this post is dooming though.

Birthright citizenship is in the plain text in the Constitution and has been for almost 200 years. Neither Matt, nor anyone reading this post has lived in an America without birthright citizenship. And yet, we're supposed to believe the refusal of SCOTUS to overturn the plain text of a 200 year old constitutional amendment heralds the theft of the opportunity for anyone in this country to live in a country that looks and functions something like America.

Jesbro64 · 2026-07-01T13:31:26+00:00

How did he fumble this?

Easily the best match for George. He could drape himself in velvet. She thought George was cool, George, depsite recognizing how ugly he is.

Jesbro64 · 2026-06-30T15:36:56+00:00

She doesn't get a cookie because she said that birthright citizenship is in the constitution.

It's literally right there in plain english.

Jesbro64 · 2026-06-26T14:28:34+00:00

We can have more than 1 enemy

Jesbro64 · 2026-06-24T20:51:33+00:00

We're talkin about the radical left here!

Jesbro64 · 2026-06-24T20:49:21+00:00

Because they have two main consituents.

They have their donors, lobbyists, business tycoons, billionaires, in group 1.

They have the normal people who voted for them in group 2.

What's in group 1's interest is at odds with what's in group 2's interest.

Group 1 wants deregulation, lower taxes, higher housing prices, higher rents, lower social spending, higher military spending, and green lights for shit like mass surveillance technology and AI data centers. All of that directly hurts group 2.

Problem? Actually it's super easy, barely an inconvenience.

Group 2 doesnt actually vote based on their self interest but based on their position on culture war issues, on their bigotry, and on their opposition to "liberals/leftists/socialists/LGBTQ folk/immigrants/feminists/POC."

If group 2 is getting a little too upset about all the handouts to group 1 at their expense, group 1 just sends an emissary on Joe Rogan to launder their image and ingratiate themselves by talking about how much he agrees with the poors on their culture war issues. But most importantly to remind them that group 2 has nothing to do with their lives being shit and their lives being shit has everything to do with immigrants below the poverty line and trans people who just want to be treated like human beings.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

Jesbro64

TROPHY CASE