Transcript here.
ADDED: Margaret Brennan seemed keyed up from the start. Her desire to get Vance was ludicrously obvious. Meanwhile, Vance was perfectly even-tempered and articulate, prepared for everything she had hoped to flummox him with. Brennan's style of constant interruption failed to throw him off. It backfired, making him look steady and rational and her look afraid of what he might have to say.
MARGARET BRENNAN: A federal judge, appointed by Ronald Reagan, who I think you'd agree, has some conservative credentials... paused the order to end birthright citizenship, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional." How do you reconcile this challenge to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?
VICE PRESIDENT VANCE: So, I obviously disagree with that judge and these things — some of them will be litigated. That's the nature of our constitutional system. But here's the basic idea of President Trump's view on this. If you are a lawful permanent resident or a legal immigrant who plans to stay, your children, of course, should become American citizens. But let's say you're the child of an ambassador, you don't become —
MARGARET BRENNAN: — but that's not part of it.
VICE PRESIDENT VANCE: Well, that's an important principle —
MARGARET BRENNAN: — there's already a carveout having to do with kids of diplomats.
VICE PRESIDENT VANCE: But we're saying that that carve out should apply to anybody who doesn't plan to stay here. If you come here on vacation and you have a baby in an American hospital, that baby doesn't become an American citizen. If you're an illegal alien and you come here temporarily, hopefully, your child does not become an ille- American citizen by virtue of just having been born on American soil. It's a very basic principle in American immigration law, that if you want to become an American citizen, and you've done it the right way, and the American people in their collective wisdom have welcomed you into our national community, then you become a citizen. But temporary residents, people who come in here, whether legally or illegally, and don't plan to stay, their children shouldn't become American citizens. I don't know any country that does that, or why we would be different.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, this is a country founded by immigrants.
VICE PRESIDENT VANCE: Well, this is a country founded by —
MARGARET BRENNAN: — This is a unique country.
VICE PRESIDENT VANCE: This is a very unique country, and it was founded by some immigrants and some settlers. But just because we were founded by immigrants, doesn't mean that 240 years later that we have to have the dumbest immigration policy in the world. No country says that temporary visitors- their children will be given complete access to the benefits and blessings of American citizenship. America should actually look out for the interests of our citizens first, and that means, again, if you're here permanently and lawfully, your kid becomes an American citizen. If you're not here permanently, if you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States —
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah —
VICE PRESIDENT VANCE: — and don't plan to be, why would we make those people's children American citizens permanently?
Brennan's "that's not part of it" and "there's already a carveout" did not advance her argument but only showed her failure to understand — or refusal to hear out — Vance's argument. Once you acknowledge that carveout, you should see that we haven't been following the literal text. Not that they ever got to the literal constitutional text. It devolved into the question of who we think ought to have birthright citizenship. And Vance dominated. But I don't think Brennan would have done better to stand on textualism. You could see where that argument would go. Vance was prepared to discuss all aspects of the question calmly and intelligently, but Brennan just seemed to want to get him on one thing or another. And all her attacks failed.
Posts
185 comments:
"Prices are not coming down" - says the DNC fem-hack.
After 4 years of Crook Joe's money printing and money wasting - prices coming down does not happen over night - you idiot Democratic hack. OMG.
Leftists are economic idiots.
I'm less than half way thru. JD is very impressive. He knows how to speak.
I'll give the Dem hack a bit of credit - so far she actually lets him speak. A big no no in standard leftist Soviet media interviews.
i liked the people Complaining about How Little Trump had accomplished in Dec!
Now, those SAME people are Complaining How Little he's done in 6 days (ok, 6.5 days)
Oh, hahaha, he went there. Upbraiding the USCCB on immigration and the money they make from it. It's about time a Catholic gave them push back.
He was a good little boy. However, attacking his own church... not much of a Catholic. Can' pick and choose what part of Catholicism you like or don't like.
Democrat media are insufferable A-holes. ugh!
Those bishops were given millions. and they look the other way when it comes to child sex trafficking. You're OK with that - like a good leftist grrrl.
JD Vance the 48th President of the US of A.
Love the way he handled the grilling by the biased jurno
Tell us about the pedos in the Catholic Church.
Every single Catholic I know picks and chooses. The left-of-center ones do so on a Brobdingnagian scale.
Actually, Trump said: “You just watch: They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast, not only with insurance, with everything.”
Granted, a week is too soon to hold him to his statement. But then again, he did promise to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours.
All Illegals let in under Crook Joe must go. Defund and Deport- and never apologize or allow the corrupt money whore left get in the way.
Schools- churches - no sanctuary for illegals.
"The bishops are more worried about their bottom line" 🎇
J D is one smooth leader. He was even able to keep The Donald happy while outshining him. But Trump wanted us to have a great successor, which can be foundational like FDR’s selection of Captain Harry as VP in 44.
“However, attacking his own church... not much of a Catholic. Can' pick and choose what part of Catholicism you like or don't like.
This is my problem with lefties. Criticism is great because it clarifies issues. A robust liberal, left, honest disagreement can help both sides. But “um, You’re a Catholic, you can’t disagree with a Bishop.” is an attempt at a gotcha moment that doesn’t advance any ideas.
When the right course of action slips out of JD's mouth, and he has to backtrack: Start time 12:54
“Margaret Brennan seemed keyed up from the start.”
I can’t think of any of her broadcasts where she hasn’t been all wound up. She’s like Welker from NBC, sans the “Manson lamps”.
The team was counting on her.
There's only a narrow range of stuff on which you can't pick and choose. That's how Catholicism survived, rendering unto Caesar lots of different things in lots of different places. I've heard lots of hilarious bullshit from lots of pulpits.
Granted, a week is too soon to hold him to his statement.
A concession to the real world made by Freder. You bastard, you owe me a new keyboard because the old one shorted out from tears of joy and amazement pouring down my face.
JD is a communication powerhouse.
Thomas Homan is letting Pope Francis -- and victoria who survived the Eaton fire no thanks to Democrat politicians -- that the adults are back in charge.
I have not and will not watch the clip. The Hostess's summation is the entire case. Margaret is guilty and should be banished back to CNBC.
If Margaret Brennan had half a brain it would be the first half she ever had.
I would prefer she receive a week in the stocks while passers by pelt her with rotten vegetables.
Freder - there are many ways to help lower the costs of goods. National Energy production is one - and JD touched on that. Job creation - JD touched on that. JD did not mention the inflationary trap that is created when government prints too much money and spends and wastes too much money... kicking our debt to dangerous levels. ... with nothing to show for it - except rich insiders (Like Catholic Bishops! NGO’s, & Insider green energy start-ups to nowhere)
Trump likes to use bravado. Whatever. Americans are hopeful that some or most of what the new administration plans, will help Americans who are struggling. Democrats like rich Nancy don't give two poops about Americans. Economic illiterate media-democrats don’t get how it works, either. Just mining for the gottcha.
It's not that bad. JD Vance eats her lunch and she, to her credit, actually lets him speak.
You don’t know much about Catholic history if you don’t think Catholics disagree with their bishops.
"Those bishops were given millions. and they look the other way when it comes to child sex trafficking. You're OK with that - like a good leftist grrrl."
Not only is victoria of pasadena "good with" child sex trafficking (per her policy preferences), victoria has also heaped praise on biden for showering with and sexualizing his own adolescent daughter which BOTH gadfly AND victoria of pasadena called perfectly "normal".
This is how sick one must be to be a partisan New Soviet Democratical these days.
Community organization through legal jurisdiction is of notably American provenance. The pursuit of emigration reform to mitigate progress with collateral damage is a moral imperative.
14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Question for Althouse: Can the definition who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States]" be determined by congressional legislation, therein bypassing the entire issue of constitutional interpretation?
Catholics pick and choose? How about every person on earth.
HUGE
Margaret Brennan seemed keyed up from the start. Her desire to get Vance was ludicrously obvious.
I didn't think it was too bad. Our national leaders should be able to sit for an extended interview covering a broad scope of policy and handling an aggressive interviewer with aplomb. We haven't seen it in awhile. Imagine Joe or Kamala under similar circumstances. Vance met the challenge beautifully. Even a bug-eyed leftie here and there should have been impressed.
- Krumhorn
I’ve read the opinions on birthright citizenship from John Yoo and John Eastman. Wondering if Ann Althouse has an opinion.
My opinion is based upon the fact that Native Americans were NOT considered US citizens after the 14th Amendment was adopted. Native Americans lived on US soil but they were subject to the jurisdiction of their Tribes. Congress had to pass a statute in the 1920s to make them US citizens. Native Americans today have dual citizenship.
The children of illegal aliens who are born on US soil are NOT US citizens and SCOTUS will agree with me.
Open borders is not Catholic Dogma.
Open borders is not Catholic Dogma.
"all her attacks failed" Interesting, isn't it, that the "interview" consisted of attacks. How often did they do that with JB and his flunkies?
But while the attacks may have failed with JDV, they may yet succeed in the courts. The JDV argument makes obvious sense as a matter of political theory and basic principle, but since constitutional law has become as arbitrary as it is, judges, including SCOTUS squishes, can easily decide that illegals' anchor babies come "under the jurisdiction of" the US and are therefore automatically citizens.
I think that after Trump's blizzard of EOs and other actions and the actual start of deportation flights within the first week, Democrats would be happy if it was ONLY the Project 2025 stuff being enacted. Insincere whining about how the cost of consumer goods hasn't dropped in the first week can be ignored. The poor bastards are in shell shock.
Brennan has a producer talking in her ear, telling her what to say. What's his name? We should make that known.
And is this "a nation of immigrants" - actually its not. Its a nation of British colonialists who in 1776 broke free from England. There was very little immigration into 1848. And Jews and people from eastern europe and Italy didn't start coming until 1880. Anyone who came here after 1890 found a country that was filled with millions of people with a massive industry and the frontier closed.
The didnt "Build America". They helped the native born Americans develop it further. Further, due to WW 1 and the 1924 restriction act, we had very little immigration from 1914 to 1975, the time when the USA economy grew at its fastest rate.
If any non-native kid is born on the rez, does that kid become an enrolled tribal member? Could be a good way to increase tribal populations.
Margaret is trying too hard. Fast talking gives the illusion of acuity but lacks persuasiveness.
Brennan is just doing the usual Liberal/left thing of never giving a Goddamn inch in any discussion, implying (or calling) the opponent a horrible "-ist" or "-ite" , and tossing out cliches.
THe Courts will decide if we can get rid of birthright citizeship, just like they decide everything. That's what 'muricans want. I think its dumb, but that's irrelevant.
If the writers of the 14th A had known people in the future would use to legalize abortion or promote birthright citizenship for illegal aliens and anchor babies, they would've put in language to explicity forbide that. But again, the American way if for 5 SCOTUS Judges to decide what the constitution means, and they can say it means anything.
“Margaret Brennan seemed keyed up from the start.”
I got the impression that she thought she was smarter than J. D. and could easily tie him in knots. I mean, he is a dumb Republican, right?
Is it possible to ban the offensive troll permanently? Makes reading the comments unpleasant.
Reminds me of the infamous Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson interview. It really launched his career.
Yes please!
This. You can see the same kind of animus from the interviewer in each case. I believe Newman then played the female victim card during and after the ensuing criticism of her performance.
The American Vice-Presidency has come a long, long ways since Cactus Jack Garner said the office was "not worth a warm bucket of piss".
It is too bad he will never be president.
He'll join Humphrey, nixon, gore, Mondale, Harris in the dustbin of vice presidential losers
John Henry
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/blog-comment-killfile/kpoilnkelonbaapoapibddjaojohnpjf?pli=1
Overview
Provides a killfile for certain blogs.
The intention of this script is to hide the comments of commentors you, the reader, do not wish to hear from. In that respect, it's like an old usenet killfile. It does not affect what other visitors to the site will see.
This is not a tool meant for handling spam, only for an individual comment reader to avoid having to see comments they don't wish to see.
When the script works for a given blog, comments will have a [hush] link near the commentor's name. (visible only on mouseover!) Clicking on that will hide comments from that person from then on.
Can' pick and choose what part of Catholicism you like or don't like./
Why not? I'm not a Catholic, but I would perfectly understand a Catholic that doesn't like the Spanish Inquisition. Like other issues brought up in this thread and by the host; once you establish that a Catholic cannot like the Church's involvement in the Spanish Inquisition, then you invalidated the notion you can't pick and choose. Yes you can, and you should. If for no other reason is the ability to like and dislike attributes of single entity shows an ability be tolerant. What I see in the left is growing intolerance.
serious question..
is there ANY limit to what trolls can post here?
i see they are now posting PORN.
i'm assuming that Professor Althouse has EITHER completely lost ALL control over "her" blog..
OR
She is now profiting from porn?
Every single question is a "gotcha" question. No listening to the answer. Brennan's goal is to create division within the Trump administration, and her audience is her friends in the media. Sad.
"The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this week condemned some of the executive orders signed by President Trump, specifically those allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enter churches and to enter schools."
Well that's nice. Did they condemn Biden for pushing abortion while POTUS? Have they attacked israel for genocide in gaza? Have they attacked Hollywood for putting out toxic filth? Have they attacked the ACLU and other groups for trying to de-Chrisitanize American life and drive Christianity out of the public square? Have they attacked the west for giving Ukraine billions in weapons to keep a useless, unneccssary war going on?
These Catholic Bishops seem to be more like liberal/left pols than men of Christ. And I don't see anything in the bible or 2000 years of Christian tradition that says countries cant enforce their immigration laws.
Reminder: This is what The corrupt lying liars who lie on D-MSNBC called a Nazi Rally.
It’s good to see a Marine enlisted swine doing well.
Ann must be out enjoying the day. Because this shit is out of control.
Well. I think the Mohicans might have seen things a little differently. Or, for that matter, the people who named "New Amsterdam". Personnel is policy, and demography is destiny.
It's not a "war" against Catholics waged by Trump. Earlier this week, MSM and op-eds were worried the Trump administration contained too many Catholics, was too biased towards Catholic belief doctrine, too religious-leaning.
Trump Administration wants to dissemble the non-profit "immigrant relief" agencies, including religious-affiliated agencies whose sole mission is the importation (and exploitation) of illegal aliens entering USA. These are businesses that pretend to be non-profit agencies, who obtain enormous government contracts, but PROFIT from commercial enterprise of people-trafficking illegal aliens into and throughout USA.
The "migrant" NGO business is as immensely lucrative as the "homeless" NGO business. The fake charities pay large salaries to their executive and middle-management ranks; that's where the monies go; their migrant and homeless "clients" see little genuine benefit , live in 3rd-world conditions despite being in America, despite costing the American taxpayers enormous amounts of municipal, county, and state agency budgets.
These charities are rackets, profiting from the misery of others.
For every "Tribal official" named Wilma Mankiller, there are a dozen with names like John Smith. But it has to do with who your parents are, not where you were born.
Looks like we may be about to return to the days of curated comments. It may prove an improvement, but it sucks that it is needed. WTF is wrong with people on the Internet?
Wow! My own private Idaho!
Once you acknowledge that carveout, you should see that we haven't been following the literal text.
What carveout are you talking about? the carveout for those "not subject to the jurisdiction of thereof"? That is what the text says! We are following the literal text by not letting those with diplomatic status from claiming citizenship for their children.
You have gone past "cruel neutrality" to accepting the administrations ridiculous bullshit arguments.
If Trump wants to get rid of birthright citizenship, then he needs to propose a constitutional amendment.
Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the state or federal government? Of course they are.
You are a really bad lawyer who can't read the plain, unambiguous text of the 14th amendment.
I have encountered the claim, that the Spanish Inquisition was not anything like as bad as it is commonly represented, and that most of the horror stories are British propaganda. Like the Kaiser's soldiers raping nuns and bayonetting babies in Belgium in WWI. I haven't really looked into it. But the Brits are damned good at propaganda. Look at the Steele Dossier, for example.
An online search for commenter (D.S.) is mildly interesting.
Is Vance lying or just ignorant about no other nation having birthright citizenship like ours. Canada's birthright citizenship may be even less restrictive than ours. For example, a baby born in an airplane over Winnepeg en route from New York to Alaska is a Canadian citizen by birth regardless of mother's status. I could not find any diplomatic exception as we have in the US. (But it might exist in another law I did not find)
Mexico's birthright citizenship is pretty much the same. Born in Mexico, regardless of mother's status, and one is a Mexican "National", eligible for "citizenship" at age 18. (Nobody is born a "citizen" in Mexico)
36 other countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship.
John Henry
Missing the point of all the pornhub links. The Troll of the Year voting doesn't even start until November.
It's Birth-right for illegals. That is not spelled out - and should be! those looking to give birth during a "vacation" - *wink. That loophole needs closing.
Lets go to court!
He speaking to an audience of 1, his lord and master. I will say it again, a good boy for the Pres., not for America. He has NO evidence that recruitment has gone up since Hegseth was nominated, none. Sounds good for them, but, i suspect, not good for reality. And, anyone whose gone to any university, including Yale, should be able to speak, that's about the only qualification for the job of VP he's nailed. Oh, and kissing the butt of his "boss"... and lying.
I wonder if repeatedly putting porn links on someone else's site is even legal. Could Ann sue her? She used to post under a different name (Mary Ellen G----) that is in fact the name of a lawyer in small-town Wisconsin. If she is that M.E.G., she will be easy enough to track down. (I've always assumed Derve the Perve is a former student of Ann's still pissed off about her grade in the course.)
RCOCEAN II said...
"And is this 'a nation of immigrants' - actually its not. Its a nation of British colonialists who in 1776 broke free from England."
The population of the 13 colonies in aggregate was >80% white, with >75% of the total being British - English, Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, etc.
And I just spot-checked Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and Adams. All of them were the great-grandchildren or great-great-grandchildren of immigrants, not immigrants themselves.
Thanks, Drago, for putting words in my mouth. let me put some in yours, Republicans don't care about people, they only care about winning, like their worthless "boss".
Don't blame "people on the internet", it's just one or two on this site. D---- S---son is obviously the same person as Mary Ellen G---n, who infested this site for years, and may (I can't tell) be the same person as Spr-zz----a.
I also do not understand the connection between jurisdiction and mother's status.
In the first place, it seems like any infant born in the US is subject to US jurisdiction as well as anyone in the US regardless of status (Diplomat excepted) Are they subject to sole jurisdiction? Some might be, some might not but it does not depend on their US status. They will be subject to home country jurisdiction or not regardless of legality in the US.
Assume 2 sets of Indian parents. One pair here legally, the other here illegally. Neither infant will be an Indian citizen. They can become Indian citizens if they return to India or jump through hoops at a consulate but even then it is not automatic.
So neither baby is subject to Indian jurisdiction. Both are essentially stateless. Both, I would argue, are subject to US jurisdiction.
Yet one would be a birthright US citizen, the other not.
It makes no sense to me.
John Henry
Amen, Freder.
"Vance was prepared to discuss all aspects of the question calmly and intelligently, but Brennan just seemed to want to get him on one thing or another."
Give the Devil her due, Brennan is well aware that there is plenty of material for a long, complicated debate. But having a long, complicated debate is not her job. At least as she sees it, and probably as it has been explained to her in no uncertain terms, her job is to keep jabbing, trying to find a weak spot and score a point. Vance is happy to take a few shots in exchange for the opportunity to put his arguments before the public.
JD Vance, making that Yale LS training great again.
Worthless bosses are people too, Vicky.
Frankly Margaret, I don’t give a damn. JD exceeds expectations!
What makes illegal aliens subjects of the state or federal government?
Granted, it made a lot more sense before their were airplanes. But the basic idea is that if your parents are carrying passports, they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of whatever government issued those passports. If a couple holding Turkish passports visit the US, and the woman gives birth here, do you suppose that Turkey will refuse the child entrance? Of course not. The child is as Turkish as his parents. Though I admit, I'm not sure how they handle that. The kid hasn't got a passport.
Thanks to the blog hostess.
Vic - When you disagree with a fact - You as a loyal leftist - using loyal leftist tactics - will not persuade anyone.
Turns out YES - Military Recruitment is up.
Newsweek:
"U.S. Army recruitment is "going like gangbusters," with an expected 81,000 new people expected to sign up, Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said this week." &
"The U.S. Army is poised to hit its 2025 enlistment targets, a significant rebound for a service that has faced years of recruitment struggles and recently overhauled its approach to attracting young recruits."
Of course to dedicated leftists - if they don't hear it on The View of D-MSNBC - The evidence is ignored.
DEI killed military recruitment. DEI is gone now. DEI is toxic.
PBS - (loyal left source) cannot deny it. Tho - they do deny it's due to the death of woke. LOL
PBS "Army to meet 2025 recruiting goals in dramatic turnaround, denies ‘wokeness’ is factor"
Unlike Joe Rogan, she has a time limit. Also unlike Rogan, she has a mandate to make her guest look bad.
He is the VP. VP's support their president. When Kamala kissed Biden's saggy lying mob-butt - it was all groovy..
"Prices are not coming down" Whoever was actually running the Biden administration spent 10 weeks frantically inflating the money supply so prices wouldn't come down.
"Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the state or federal government? Of course they are."
Some people must not be, otherwise the clause wouldn't be there.
A Canadian born on a train transiting Yugoslavia got a draft notice from Yugoslavia when he turned 18. It isn't all good :)
VP's support their presidents. Didn't Kamala kiss Biden's saggy mob-butt all the time. yeah - she did. Almost as much as Joe Scarburough.
“First they came for the illegal alien criminals.
But I said nothing.
Then they came for non-criminal illegal aliens.
But I said nothing.
Then they stopped coming for people because the problem was solved and everything got better.”
— — Harrison H. Smith
For the love of god, JD, stops saying "Margaret!"
Setting aside the constitutional question for a second, since we probably all have a good idea of where that argument will be for both sides, I have been trying to consider this question of birthright citizenship limitation under a civic or moral framework.
From a government perspective, the pro-limitation benefit is one of control. By only allowing legal residents to birth citizens, the government is better able to control how the population (of cotizens) expand by controlling who expand it. Currently, that is not completely the case. This allows any random person in the world to obligate this country to support their progeny via the entitlement programs with essentially no say from those of us paying for that.
But that whole discussion is likely moot, depending on how the judiciary tells us to interpret the constutional verbiage. My money is that it will be interpreted the way you see it, but IANAL and all that.
How did they go from "the American people just don't know how good Biden's economy is" to " What has Trump done in the last 5 days to bring prices down?" in less than 3 months? Vance had infinitely more patience than I could've mustered with the media whore.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Deport a man and you never have to feed him again!
FF:
Until that statute was passed in the 1920s, Native Americans were not subject to the jurisdiction of their United States.
I will say it again, a good boy for the Pres., not for America.
You don't speak for all of America. Stop acting like you do.
Can' pick and choose what part of Catholicism you like or don't like.
A Biden voter just wrote that. Without a hint of self-awareness.
As AMDG said, not dogma, which means a bishop's opinion on the topic is just one man's opinion, not a religious requirement.
@Iman and @Clyde, excellent
This was not an interview. It was a debate. Aside from continually attacking Trump, she talked too much. An interview is supposed to be about what the interviewee believes, not what the moderator believes.
@Freder: “Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the state or federal government? Of course they are.”
I think it is at least arguable that by defying federal immigration law by entering the country illegally, and remaining here illegally, they have exempted themselves from federal jurisdiction by definition.
It's the beard. The toxic masculinity got Margaret all tingly in her nethers. Then she invited him to do the Apache dance and throw her around the set a few times. Being a gentleman, he obliged.
She's at home right now playing with her "little friend."
Certainly, there are lots of angles from which you can look at the matter. My view is that my US citizenship is a valuable possession, which I inherited from my parents. If anyone who wants US citizenship can have it for the asking, then it has no value. So, those who argue for universal US citizenship (which is what they are pushing, no matter what lies they may tell) are arguing for my dispossession. And I resent it.
This new found interest in “prices coming down” by the democrats is ludicrous. Brennan sounds like a COMPLETE idiot trying to ask why they had t come down yet. But JDVance was ready with those answers as well. Asking journalists pointed questions is the best way to turn there vitriol against them. “How do you think food gets to the grocery store? How do you think farmers grow that food? How do you think fertilizer is made?
There is a book called economics 101 by Thomas Sowell. She should read it.
It is one of those things that makes things simple and unpolitical -- until it is abused. And that is the problem, it is being abused. And not necessarily by the parents, but by other nations, NGOs, and the Democrats. It has been turned from a way to avoid conflict into a weapon.
Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the state or federal government? Of course they are.
Even the drafter of the Amendment and the then-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee each stated clearly that you are wrong. That was not the meaning the phrase. The Amendment would never have passed through Congress nor 3/4 of the states if the leftie view of universal birthright citizenship was the meaning of "subject to to the jurisdiction thereof".
- Krumhorn
Jupiter - well said.
second!
It only work if you read the comments that are posted in chronological order. If you read them where the REPLY option is available, it doesn't work. For me, anyway.
Neither the WSJ or National Review are conservative media…
Wow, that was something. The look on Brennan's face when she thought she had scored gotcha points was unseemly. But Vance easily held his own. Is Margaret Brennan the best CBS can field?
Guys, guys! He may not be a lawyer, but Freder did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Reading the transcript, I can see JD's point, that if kids of legal ambassadors born here don't become citizens, why should the kids of illegals? I missed that part in the video back and forth. Thanks for posting the relevant transcript.
I just have an uneasy feeling that in their zeal to move quickly, because there isn't much time, something is going to go wrong and threaten everything else.
I love the REPLY option.
They served that vacuum, if you will, before the internet.
OK, now recognize that the United States is unique in having language in its Constitution, drafted to address and end the practice of slavery and its aftermath, and defining and restricting automatic or naturalized citizenship, and make the same argument. You are comparing apples and ONE GREAT BIG ORANGE.
Next, discuss the famous Supreme Court dicta saying "The Constituion is not a suicide pact."
As AI search engine Perplexity puts it: "The phrase is commonly attributed to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), though similar sentiments appeared in earlier cases.
The context was about balancing civil liberties with public safety - arguing that Constitutional rights, while fundamental, shouldn't be interpreted in ways that endanger the nation's survival."
You wanna argue that letting millions unvetted, unknown aliens into our country does not threaten our survival, go right ahead.
Like for example, I'm reading that some South American countries are refusing the planes of illegals the US is flying back.
Makes me wonder who is advising these countries to do that? Is the "deep state" back countermanding Trump again?
@Freder: Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the state or federal government? Of course they are.
This occurred to me after my previous comment.
Take as given the assertion that illegal aliens are subject to federal jurisdiction, and that therefore their children born in the US are US citizens.
That leads directly to the bizarro world conclusion that the jurisdiction of the federal government doesn't extend to deciding who may become a US citizen.
JD embarrassed Margaret in the VP debate and she hasn't gotten over it.
Althouze has explained many times it is,indeed, technically impossible to block unwanted commenters
That is seriously funny.
“You’re a Catholic, you can’t disagree with a Bishop.”
Simple people proffer simplistic invectives.
I did no such thing
You, despicably, and continually, praise joey bag-o-dementia as an honorable and good man even AFTER you learned of his showering with and sexualizing his own adolescent daughter while SIMULTANEOUSLY being in full support of open border child sex trafficking while SIMULTANEOUSLY being in full support of pro-groomer, anti-parent policies in schools AND, if that was not enough, and oh, it very much is, you also supported keeping sexually explicit books in school for elementary children to access.
By your every pro-policy position.
At ANY TIME over the last 4 years you could have changed your mind, offered up a policy retreat, take back earlier comments supportive of these heinous policies.
Even the astonishing dolt Inga walked back some of her biden commentary over the revelations.
But you never did.
I suspect you never will.
You and gadfly both.
So enjoy having your very own words draped around your neck, where they belong. You EARNED it.
OK, I now understand why the 14th Amendment included the "except" clause. It was to exclude Native Americans ("Indians") from full citizenship rights. Now what about immigrants? There were fairly few of them (other than In the early days. About a quarter of my ancestors came here in the 1600's .
But my German and Irish ancestors came in later in the 1860-1880's.
So what rights to we we have? Please define your terms exclude me from the 14th Amendment .
"Like for example, I'm reading that some South American countries are refusing the planes of illegals the US is flying back."
Colombia tried that, but it didn't stick.
From the New York Post:
"Colombian President Gustavo Petro quickly reversed course about accepting flights of deported migrants from the US after President Donald Trump threatened emergency tariffs of up to 50% on the South American country for refusing to cooperate.
Petro not only acquiesced to Trump’s demands, he even offered up the official Colombian presidential plane to help shuttle migrants back to the country, calling it a response to “the Government’s commitment to guarantee decent conditions.”
More winning.
"... I believe Newman then played the female victim card during and after the ensuing criticism of her performance...."
Card played, hand lost. Her reputation preceded her.
interesting legal theory/fact is International Immigration area in US airports etc after you exit planes and ships is not US Soil and everyone is under jurisdiction!!
Jupiter, before ww1 (but not before airplanes) the only country that had or required passports was Russia.
I think that the child in your example gets Turkish citizenship via the parents, but when they show up at the Turkish border they'll need to prove it is their baby or they won't get in.
John Henry
I've read that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to assure that the freed slaves were citizens. If that's true, it seems to me that excludes everybody else and the intent of the carve outs was to do so.
When your German and Irish ancestors came, were they put up in hotels at taxpayer expense? Were they given money taken from US citizens to feed themselves? Did they get free medical care, paid for by taxpayers?
The answers to those questions might have something to do with why now is not the same as then.
My family has German heritage from that era too. Mine entered the country through a legal port of entry and were lawfully allowed to enter and stay in the country as they earned their citizenship. Their children retained that gained citizenship.
Did your family not enter the country from a legal port of entry? Did they enter without the knowledge of the US government? Did they never obtain their citizenship by studying US history, US civics, learning English, and pledging allegiance to the flag? If so, how did they manage to hide their history during WWI or WWII?
I’m unclear as to why you think your citizenship is in doubt because someone, say from Columbia, that entered the country by crossing the border at some place other than a legal port of entry. Somebody that then claimed to seek asylum from persecution in their home country, and maybe so as they seemed to have a criminal record in their home country. Yet they were a pregnant woman or were with such a woman carrying their infant, who was born on US soil.
In other countries, this person or couple would have been detained in a facility that for legal purposes would not be considered national territory. Something like the “international zone” of an airport or any port, which may technically be on national soil, but since they weren’t yet legally permitted to be in the country, they were detained in this location until arrangements could be made to send them home. See the movie, The Terminal, for a history of how this used to work.
The media is never that aggressive or hostile in a interview that features a Democrat.
What's even worse is her editorializing before and after each question.
I don't watch CBS News, but happened to do so for a few days after the Trump-Biden debate. My God! They make no effort to appear objective. I expect political bias from the MSM, but was still gobsmacked at what I observed.
There's nothing in the 14th amendment that says we have to let the parents stay in the US after birthing a baby here. If they're swiftly deported from the hospital, they'll stop going to hospitals to give birth, and no one can prove the kid was born here.
To the extent that any such organization really are legitimate in sincere in their goals to help immigrants; the scale and horror of the ones that are not is enough that we should at least pause to root out and hold accountable these human traffickers.
This week CNN lost a defamation case claiming a person quite sincere in rescuing Afghanis was a human trafficker. Imagine if CNN held the same skepticism of other such organizations that are doing with South Americans what they claimed they thought this guy was doing. They don’t, because CNN’s only interest seemed to be optics of how this made Biden and progressives look bad from the Afghanistan pullout. But still, imagine if they had the willingness to show such skepticism to these other NGO’s making bank from aiding immigrants illegally entering the country.
https://x.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1883558913892823112
She says that we're a nation of immigrants. It can be said with equal acuity that we're a nation of anti-immigrants. Ben Franklin bitched about the Pennysylvania Deutsch (Germans). He thought that they were swarthy and drank too much. He questioned whether their loyalty could be trusted during the French-Indian War. Cotton Mather didn't like the Scotch-Irish. He also thought that they drank too much and were noisy as well. The Know Nothing Party, whose members included Millard Fillmore, were for the most part abolitionists, but they had a thing about immigrants which is to say Catholics which is to say Irish Catholics. Why they should feel such animosity is hard to say. My Irish forebears were notable for their sobriety and rectitude. Being an anti-immigrant is just as American as being pro-immigrant.
If illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction, then we have a lot of criminals to release from prison. If they are not subject to our jurisdiction, we had no right to try them for a crime.
I don't mind her grilling Vance. He handled it well, and it's part of the job. What I mind is that the media will not subject Dems to similar treatment. From what I see, the interrogator will ask a couple of hard questions in a gentle way and then they'll moved on in the spirit of amity to discuss how stupid and evil the Republicans are......There were some J6 demonstrators that got greated manifestly unfairly. Do you think she would ever bring up their names in an interview with Schiff or whoever?
I haven't read Hillbilly Elegy but did see an excerpt or summary of his experience as a Marine. His specialty was Public Affairs, and he did some of that work in Iraq. When he came back stateside, he was made the chief PAO for Camp Lejeune after the officer assigned to the duty exposed himself as utterly incompetent. As an E3. He's got some combat experience, so to speak.
That would be a good reason to deport them all, you know. Is that the point you were making?
What cracked me up was the impatience. When is inflation going to come down? Hurry! Hurry! You're not doing it fast enough!
Meanwhile, every other reporter in the universe has noticed that Trump has broken several land speed records in getting stuff done.
How much is the network paying her to take notes on the price of bacon?
"Day Four. The price of bacon has only dropped two cents. So far, it's been a total failure of the Trump administration to rein in prices. And we had that shocker on Day Two when bacon went up a penny. At least Gerald Ford had the Whip Inflation Now campaign. What has Trump done? Nothing. Nothing. My BLT is still expensive. It might be early days, but so far, it's Inflation 362, and Donald Trump 0. Inflation is running away with it. This is Margaret Brennan, reporting from Harris Teeter. Good night."
I would say it already has. There are varying degrees of jurisdiction.
The basic level is that anybody in the US can be charged after the commission of a criminal act. Questions of extradition might arise but nobody disputes that we can enforce our criminal laws on non-citizens in those cases.
The next level would be civil laws that uniquely apply to citizens or legal residents. Citizens can be drafted, for example, or serve on juries (I'm not sure about legal residents). Citizens also enjoy some privileges that neither temporary nor legal residents have such as running for political office. Taxes are probably complicated but I would say only citizens or legal residents would face penalties for non-payment (how would the government know the status of someone in the country illegally). Legal residents, I suspect, only pay taxes on their earnings from US employment so their obligation is commensurate with the jurisdiction the US has over them.
The ultimate 'non-jurisdiction' is the usually cited case of diplomats or others who specifically request non-jurisdiction in consideration for giving up all but the most basic protections in the US.
It certainly seems odd that we claim the government can make these various distinctions with the 14th Amendment worded that way unless a mother is here illegally
Nearly every social opinion held by Francis is a pile of dogma.
The diplomat comparison is ridiculous, because diplomats are not subject to American laws. That's why they can't be arrested or charged with crimes. They are outside the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Illegal immigrants can be arrested and charged with crimes. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Literally nobody disputes this. If illegal immigrants could commit crimes here, without any punishment, y'all would be shitting your pants. We get mad enough when diplomats commit crimes. The comparison between diplomats and illegal aliens is inapt.
LOL!
I can’t believe he let that insipid, biased bitch keep interrupting him. No respect!
"What I mind is that the media will not subject Dems to similar treatment. "
yes. That's why we call the media the democrat party media.
That's my understanding too, and I think it should inform how we interpret the language significantly. "Under the jurisdiction" performs a number of functions with an economy of words.
It excludes diplomatic personnel who are lawful residents but officially not under the jurisdiction of the local government as a form of courtesy and reciprocity.
It excluded the then independent nations of Native Americans who were also lawful residents but legally considered not citizens unless naturalized.
It included slaves and their descendants who were brought to the United States and held in bondage "under the jurisdiction" of the US and the slave states without having to use the word 'slave' (IIRC the 13th is the only portion of the entire Constitution that includes the word) even though they never applied for naturalization, making them not just lawful residents but also citizens so they couldn't be expelled.
Dear Penelope meme.
The issue is if jurisdiction attaches to a legal or geographical domain, the division of families with the latter preference, and how to resolve women's choice.
Native Americans were NOT considered US citizens after the 14th Amendment was adopted. Native Americans lived on US soil but they were subject to the jurisdiction of their Tribes.
I'm not sure, but I think you might be mistaken by your assertion that in the 19th century, the reservations were considered American land. It was land that belonged to the various tribes. So it was like tiny little independent countries in the USA. And of course that's a problem if an Indian is not on the reservation. What's his status? If he commits a crime, do you send him back to his tribe? Or do you prosecute him in the USA? So Congress resolved that issue by making Indians full citizens of the U.S., even if they are born on a reservation.
I think the Indian question is analogous to the diplomat question. What do you do with people who belong to another nation?
If you want to say with a straight face that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., then you cannot prosecute any of them for crimes. All you can do is send them back to their country. But if you recognize they are subject to the laws of the U.S., then your whole argument falls apart. And birthright citizenship applies.
The USCCB is not the Catholic church. Its statements are opinions, not dogmas. Only an individual bishop has special graces to enable him to carry out his office. A conference of bishops isn't grace x 10 as if it were a unified party. IThe USCCB is something less than any individual bishop as shown by the fact that it thinks that the more it's an organ of the Dems, the more saintly it is. In my opinion in the US at present the "conference of bishops" is an organization dedicated to making sure that the Holy Spirit never speaks on the premises. The fear is that the some Spirit-filled bishop - and they exist - might say that "faithful Catholics" Pelosi and Biden, who totally favored abortion, were not faithful Catholics.
Holy shit, Freder is right. Broken clock kicking ass!
He's right twice a day, every day.
I think the dog's point is that babies born here, who are subject to our jurisdiction, are American citizens. And that the claim that illegal immigrants are not subject to our jurisdiction proves way too much, and you would not like where that argument goes.
@Saint Croix: If you want to say with a straight face that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. ...
The fact that they are illegally present in the first place means they are not subject to fundamental US jurisdiction.
Can't have it both ways.
Freder, there is a fundamental contradiction in your argument that needs acknowledging.
I've read that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to assure that the freed slaves were citizens.
Did you read that in an article claiming the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to white people?
I don't know what to say to you people who hate babies so much that you want to rip up the 14th Amendment. Quit doing that shit. I like the 14th Amendment, as written, so you mind-readers with your ESP powers can take your "interpretation" and send it off with all the people who hate equal protection and free speech and all the other rights we enjoy. Our Constitution rocks.
Trash like Vicky burned down any ideals the Democratic Party might have held, completing the Ozark Long March started by Bill Clinton. Now when Bernie Sanders and similar Junior Bolsheviks start shrieking, they look like the hopeless tools they are. It is the Vichy GOP and their handmaidens, the Romneys and the Murkowskis, who are the Republicans most attached to power for its own sake. And the ones who have the most to fear from President Trump.
Enjoy it, you dried up hag. You did everything in your power to make it happen.
The fact that they are illegally present in the first place means they are not subject to fundamental US jurisdiction.
Can't have it both ways.
Gilligan, you are the one trying to have it both ways.
Do you want to try that argument in court?
"Your honor, my client is here illegally. So he is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction."
What the fuck. There aren't any defense attorneys trying this argument. And if there are, they're getting laughed out of court. Of course they're subject to U.S. jurisdiction!
Ok. The baby can stay, the parents have to go back home.
"I don't know what to say to you people who hate babies so much …"
WTF?
I don't think Brennan would have done better to stand on textualism. You could see where that argument would go.
The left has been so busy demonizing our Constitution and the people who drafted it, they're not used to reading it and following it. Making a legal argument to Vance would have been a lot stronger than making some policy argument.
Vance: "...why would we make those people's children American citizens permanently?"
Liberal do-gooder: "Because the Constitution requires it. Because babies born here are American citizens, and that's been the law for 240 years. You can't rewrite the Constitution with an executive order. And while we're on this subject, the Administrative state is not a thing. The Constitution is way up here!" (Holding my hand up above my head). "And an executive order is some disgusting thing on the floor." (Stomping my shoe into the ground). "Right?"
I don't know what to say to you people who hate babies so much …"
WTF?
Yeah, that was too hot. I apologize. I get mad when people start playing with words when we're talking about humanity.
My point is that babies born here are not a threat, and should not be viewed as a threat. They're not criminals. You're a baby, you're an innocent. You can't prosecute a baby for a crime, it would be ridiculous.
Illegal immigration is a real problem, and there are many solutions, including arresting them and sending them back home. But we don't need to be frightened of babies. And we don't need to amend the Constitution -- or, worse, lie about what it says -- to fix this problem.
What you want to bet she hasn't been in a grocery store in years?
Also, Vance is wrong to suggest that birthright citizenship is given to people by the government. No, sorry. We're born here, and we are citizens by the grace of God. People come first. Government is created by us, to serve us.
They weren't subject to US jurisdiction when they entered the country illegally, and as long as they remain in the country illeg, they aren't subject to US jurisdiction, or else they wouldn't still be in the country.
To be subject to jurisdiction means being subject to the enforcement of the law.
So, yes, I want to try that argument in court. If the word "jurisdiction" has any meaning, then its application would obviate the issue of birth right citizenship.
@HeySkipper,
I'm sure you're a wonderful guy, but you should really stop arguing about jurisdiction. You clearly don't know what it means. If this EO makes it to the Supreme Court, you will not hear them discussing the jurisdiction status of illegal aliens.
Vicky who can't spell writes, "[Can't] pick and choose what part of Catholicism you like or don't like."
Tell that to "good Catholic" Joe Biden, who favors unrestricted abortion. Or Henry VIII, and every Episcopalian in the United States.
Catholics have been picking and choosing since the Constantine. Obviously Vicky's never heard of the Council of Nicaea.
If you look at some of the things Oilfield_Rando on Twitter has tracked down, Lutheran Social Services may be even worse. Something like 300 million dollars in grants to one address in Maryland, which just launders the $ through a whole network of agencies and "charities" with slightly different names.
I wonder if in this is a partial explanation for why the Lutheran Church in America looks to be in trouble, with attendance collapsing, congregations shutting down, and church buildings being sold off. Maybe the "leadership" in the hierarchy have done nothing to reverse the slide and evangelize because the worship side of the Church isn't as necessary when the money is coming from the federal government: you don't have to take the concerns of the parishioners all that seriously when you salary doesn't rely on the offering plate.
What a mess.
"Yeah, that was too hot. I apologize."
Thank you.
"My point is that babies born here are not a threat,"
Of course the baby per se is not the threat. The threat comes from the millions of parents attracted here because of birthright citizenship.
And since when is Mexican (or Guatemalan, or Panamanian) citizenship akin to punishment?
I have understood Catholic adjective
including a wide variety of things; all-embracing:
Americans are such pussies. The journalist asked good questions and the politician gave better answers. If you don’t want to be grilled, go into another line of work. Let this be a model for interviews going forward.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Yes. And explains why citizens of American Samoa are American nationals, born, undoubtedly and absolutely in the USA in American Samoa, and NOT American citizens.
Croix, ref Indian jurisdiction: Lincoln fired a (good) general when he found out the general was a tribal member (I think Oneida), because only US citizens can be generals. Lincoln also had a bunch of Indians hanged for rebellion. How could they rebel if they weren't citizens?
Well, "Jurisdiction" isn't a binary status of all the laws apply to you or no laws apply. It's more like the whole package of rights and responsibilities. In that sense the 14th is kind of circular reasoning - you're a citizen if you're a citizen. That's what makes this whole thing frustrating.
(As a much simpler example of jurisdiction, we can certainly prosecute a Norwegian tourist for murder. We can't elect her to office or draft her into the Army.)
JSM
Ever heard of extradition? Though in most case countries reciprocate in allowing their citizens to be punished for violation of criminal law in another country (it even happens between US states IIRC), the right to do so is not automatic absent agreement between the country alleging the offense and the country of which the person is a citizen.
Sounds like ACORN, no?
Post a Comment