That thread began by objecting to robots picking tomatoes and then got … there.
11.03.2026 02:12
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
That thread began by objecting to robots picking tomatoes and then got … there.
That’s FIFA Peace Prizer Winner Donald the Dove to you.
I’d just take the disbarment.
Important fossilized butthole news
www.scientificamerican.com/article/see-...
Ready! Fire! Aim!
Is this another post about how anything less than $120K is poverty?
A US citizen does not universally transfer citizenship to their child, and there are additional rules related to whether the US citizen was the mother or the father. Various laws were passed to limit the descendants of US soldiers from claiming citizenship.
It wouldn't be a problem for most, but what if you're a citizen through a chain that started with a grandparent? If grandma can't be proven to have been present legally, then her kid doesn't have citizenship. You're now stateless.
Professor Amanda Frost made a point I hadn't heard before - a ruling that 14A requires legal presence would have retrospective impact. If your citizenship status depends on legal residency of your parents, then your PARENTS citizenship would also depend on the legal residency of their parents.
I mean, if that all was happening, we should probably do something about it, but it's got nothing to do with the intended meaning of 14A.
The hearing was kinda boring. It was mostly a couple of conservative witnesses repeatedly saying the 14th Amendment does not include birthright citizenship for those who illegally enter because China is doing a vast surrogate birth tourism thing and Mexico is "exporting Mexican sovereignty".
I meant that if there was some particular provision that was flatly illegal, like breaking minimum wage or safety laws, or could be deemed unconscionable, MN law prevails.
If your parents snuck into Minnesota and had a kid, did they transmit jurisdiction to the baby? The baby had no allegiance to Canada. They aren't domiciled in Canada.
Okay. Let's say that true. Here's the problem - nobody is saying someone who enters illegal becomes a US Citizen. The 14th says those born in the USA and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. It doesn't mention the parents' status. It's about the kid.
I'm watching the Senate hearing on birthright citizenship, and once again I'm seeing the same dodge. The opponents will argue that illegal entry means you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
No bow tie, though.
"Sharia law is illegal in the United States, for we are a nation of laws and honor the Constitution, which means this particular Christian bible is the ultimate authority"
I used to get occasional whacked-out security questions from customers and I'd scoff and say "I'll believe you care about security when I no longer see your employees walking around with USB drives."
Half his opening speech was word-for-word from his blog article.
You could argue a lot of lawyers here have engaged in Sharia law. If you have a Muslim client, you might need to structure specific fixed payments over time to avoid the prohibition on charging or paying interest.
Private contracts. They could gone with rock paper scissors if they wanted, and if there was a conflict with Minnesota law, the Minnesota law would have prevailed anyway.
We had a round of hysteria about this in Minnesota about a decade back. Some Muslim businessmen signed some contracts with each other specifying elements of Sharia law would be applied to contractual disputes that may arise. Republicans declared that to be "imposing Sharia law in Minnesota".
There’s a road near me where pits open up every Spring and you can see the old streetcar tracks 6 inches down.
I once had a business class flight from Munich to Singapore and ordered the Thai curry for lunch. Three different cabin crew stopped by, begging me to reconsider.
It won’t even be hard. She’ll fill the airwaves with attacks on the totenkopf guy with white supremacist leanings and used to proclaim himself a communist. Whether it’s fair criticism is immaterial.
Arbys? I hear they have the meats.
America is crying out for elaboration on this one.
Well, I got nothing.
It didn’t prevent lying, it merely said if someone thought you were lying they could get some airtime to respond. They could lie in turn themselves if they wished.
The FD didn’t do what you think it did. If CBS criticized a new stadium, stadium proponents could demand a chance to respond. The station would give them 2am on a Wednesday. Law satisfied. It barely did anything then, and with cable/internet it would be even more pointless today.