Swearer goes on to suggest the 14th amendment then “extended birthright citizenship only to the U.S.-born children of citizens or permanent resident aliens whose consensual integration into American society renders them subject to the nation’s complete political jurisdiction.”
The major thesis of Swearer basically boils down to, “not every person residing within the geographic borders of the United States owed the nation its allegiance, nor was subject to its complete political jurisdiction" it's used repeatedly in her article
Swearer is trying to establish that "partial versus full jurisdiction" was ever a thing when in reality there is no case law or Congressional debates where "partial jurisdiction" was ever established and then uses that to read intent in two different debates.
Skipping over idea that the Executive can't dictate a legislative remedy, there are issues in Swearer's argument Swearer seeks to rewrite Howard's quote through a very thin lens of conscription during Civil War (not a lawyer, just used to Eastman trolls last decade and a half)
This is how corruption in the @whitehouse works with Kushner trying to steer the purchase and @POTUS saying he will get involved Meanwhile @LeaderJohnThune sits back and does nothing as media in America becomes quasi-state owned by the Oligarchy https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/1998086011293958452
How is having more American citizens born equal national suicide? It seems increasing population would be good for a Nation https://x.com/adamkjohnston/status/1998058163795308881
Do people remember what is like when insurance companies could deny you for preexisting conditions? https://x.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1998161111334756593
The idea that the Executive Branch can decide Citizenship by Executive Order, while arguing that the The Civil Rights Act of 1866's citizenship clause and the 14th Amendment's Citizenship clause make birth-right citizenship illegal is silly. The Executive can't do that https://x.com/AmySwearer/status/1998054421519909038
@ThomasSayre13 @WadeMiller Do Senator Lyman Trumbull, next and then finish highlighting the sentence "who belong to the families of ambassadors" (also Elks v Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark came after the 1866 debate)
@ASFleischman That's what kills me about everyone using Eastman's piss poor reading of Schuck and Smith. Schuck and Smith would never argue that the Executive had the sole authority to decide "jurisdiction" by Executive Order
You don't need a law degree to know it is morally wrong for the President to order the military to execute low level drug runners That said, it would have been nice if the Pentagon didn't fire all JAG Officers https://x.com/RepGregSteube/status/1998123728560156793
It is only a misdemeanor to illegally cross the border, and you can ask for a refugee hearing after crossing and legally stay in the United States https://x.com/AndrewKolvet/status/1998116485257187533