DC Tom

Yes, but it didn't say which unit. There's a mix of combat and non-combat units there. The two non-combat units (and a logistics group based there) would be extremely useful in the situation. A LAV brigade, not so much...

A drunk woman, actually. The man self-identified as a woman. So the woman's shelter discriminated against a woman. Or something. I don't even ***** know anymore. "Have a Y, you're a guy" is just so much easier.

What unit? There's an interrogator-debriefer unit and a civil affairs group based at Pendleton.

Peterson? What, did the Bills sign another QB in the past fifteen minutes? Would we be surprised if they did?

Seems crazy...yet, would be the second time in three weeks they did so. God, this season is comical.

That's one of the few times your comprehension would benefit from toking up.

Neither, however, can be changed from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone. At least, not by a Republican...

This is what I was getting at. TYTT, please argue for me that 8 USC 1401 only applies in historical context.

Putting the corn back on the cob, are you?

Yeah, those are real.

How good was that ad campaign that we still remember that number?

"We" can, by not using it. Just like "we" did to Sears.

I hadn't until now. But this lawsuit is a case study in that doctrine. How the hell do you sue for someone "being detained for years before being deported without a hearing" when they're not even in the country yet, much less detention???? I mean...laughing this straight out of court, should be a no-brainer, right? Petitioning for relief from something that hasn't happened? (And it's STILL not as dumb as putting lithium in the drinking water.)

Because he ran a madrassa and led a Pakistani political party?

"Father of the Taliban" is a reference to him being Mullah Omar's teacher, not to him actually "fathering" the Taliban.

He was only rehearsing tomorrow night's Trump sketch... So, Trump's fault.

Of course not. What Democrats wants to campaign with a Republican?

I did say it was a pithy observation. Tongue-in-cheek, and not entirely serious. But even so, you're generalizing a specific case, and in doing so making a rather fallacious argument that relies on a very broad definition of "jurisdiction" (as evidenced by "literally anyone anywhere in the world...") "Jurisdiction" may be more than "the ability to prosecute and deport," but it is certainly less than "subject to the influence of." And as such, it is tied rather closely to "sovereignty": the 14th, more than overturning Dred Scott, was very much a statement of the primacy of national sovereignty over state sovereignty in determining citizenship. The denial of birthright citizenship to Native Americans was likewise based on sovereignty: as evidenced by the numerous treaties between the US and Native American nations, they were considered to have a measure of limited sovereignty (still are, in fact) that limited US jurisdiction over them. Neither of those cases would necessarily apply here: when someone is born in the US, there is no question of dual- or multiple-sovereignty. There is no question that a person born in the US, remaining in residence in the US, is subject to US jurisdiction (note that my phrasing specifically excludes diplomats and travelers - but again, the issue of sovereignty in those cases is clear: they are subject to the sovereignty of another foreign power, hence not under the complete jurisdiction of the US). And to argue it's determined by "allegiance" is fallacious in and of itself. My declaring allegiance to Sierra Leone does not remove me from US jurisdiction in any way - jurisdiction is not something the individual chooses for themselves, because, again, issues of sovereignty (i.e. Sierra Leone would have to grant some recognition of my hypothetical statement of allegiance). To argue that "jurisdiction" is based on anything as individual as "allegiance" is to justify "sovereign citizens" in all their craziness. It's also to argue, in the case of the children of illegal immigrants, a concept of "birthright allegiance" that somehow supersedes any concept of sovereignty or "birthright citizenship." TL;DR: bottom line, it's inaccurate, when considering something like citizenship that is explicitly granted by the state, to discuss "jurisdiction" in terms of individual "allegiance," Trumbell notwithstanding, instead of sovereignty. And as the children of illegal immigrants have no question of competing sovereign interests, there should be no question about them being under US jurisdiction.

Saw this earlier. It's silly, narcissistic, and obnoxious. And it has everyone talking about the silly, narcissistic, and obnoxious tweet, and not the sanctions. They fall for it every time...

I'm aware of that argument, too. And I generally dismiss it with the pithy observation that if you can legislate their residency and deportation, they are in fact subject to your jurisdiction.

However, the 14th was clearly a post-war act to establish the citizenship of freed slaves, and as such it can be argued that the original intent did not include establishing citizenship going forward. No such argument can be made about 8 USC 1401. Which is my point: the statutory argument is stronger than the Constitutional argument in this case, so why even invite the argument by citing the 14th, given Trump can't override either one?

It's enough to initiate several investigations...but those investigations may just as easily find that O'Keefe staged the whole thing. But again...it's not up to the authorities to prove the accused guilty. It's up to the accused to prove their innocence. So sayeth Senate Democrats. So ***** 'em.