My calling Trump's comeback apt does not depend on whether Weld actually is an alcoholic. In fact, it works better — a lot better — if he's not. Here's a picture of him:
And, by the way, Weld did get the VP nomination from the Libertarians, but they had to go to a second ballot, and only with 50.57% of the vote, even after the presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, used his acceptance speech to beg the convention to select Weld.
Posts
122 comments:
illegal immigrants.
illegal immigrants.
ILLEGAL immigrants, goddamnit.
Because arresting people and sending them to their legal countries of residence is exactly like arresting people and sending them to gas chambers.
I mean, six of one, half a dozen of the other, right?
Nice comeback. I thought Hillary had 2016 locked but, at the very least, the GOP will have a fighting candidate this time around.
Paco
Serious question. Do you think most people don't understand that it is ILEGAL immigrants who will be deported?
A pet peeve of mine is when someone says we are a country of immigrants. Legal mmigrants.
The thing is Obama has won.
The problem is, children are natural born Americans, and their parents are illegal immigrants.
The woman came over the border, squatted and created an American. That's the problem right there.
We should abandon birth right citizenship. It is 19th Century logic, and is killing us.
Revoke all citizenship for people born here that their parents were not citizens (by blood).
Send them back to where they came from. I would provide exemptions for people who were dragged to this country against their will.
The Libertarian Party supports open borders, by the way.
Not exactly a winning sentiment this time around with anyone except the Mexicans, I'm afraid.
YoungHegelian said...The Libertarian Party supports open borders, by the way.
So, for all intents and purposes this time around, the Libertarians are just the Democratic Party. So much for an electoral threat to Trump. Now we can just sit back and laugh at them. They don't yet realize that Trump cherry picks the best of R, D, and L policy.
illegal immigrants.
illegal immigrants.
ILLEGAL immigrants, goddamnit.
EXACTLY!!!!!
"Do you think most people don't understand that it is ILEGAL immigrants who will be deported?"
Most people? I don't know. I think there are people who are too stupid to understand it, people whose livelihoods depend on not understanding it, people for whom the "illegal" part is merely a distinction without a difference – no person is illegal, dude! – and lots of people who would just prefer not to think about it.
I do know that there is no point in acquiescing to my ideological opponents on this issue to the extent of joining them in their lies, and accepting their caricatures of my positions.
As for the rest of your comment, I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say.
I really hate the conflation of illegal immigrants with immigrants. It's been going on so long now though, if you want to uphold the law you're suddenly "Anti-immigrant" and I don't think this will end well.
If you conflate the two, do you make illegal immigrants look better, or do you make legal immigrants look worse? Because I've got some really bad news for everyone. Our economy isn't going to hold up much longer. And when it falters, scapegoats will be found.
Too many fools looking for the short term victory don't realize how much damage they are doing over the long term.
"Serious question. Do you think most people don't understand that it is ILEGAL immigrants who will be deported?"
Maybe not, but disingenuousness should be called out.
"I really hate the conflation of illegal immigrants with immigrants. It's been going on so long now though, if you want to uphold the law you're suddenly "Anti-immigrant""
That was always their goal, of course.
"Buenas vallas hacen buenos vecinos"
~Roberto Escarcha (1914)
Paco
I am for legal immigration as long as there is a vote by Congress. And importing tech people to take jobs from American citizens is an outrage.
As to Obama winning, he has let so many illegals into this country that it has been transformed.
Legal, illegal, I don't care. If it's just the legality that's at issue, they will just make everyone legal and be done with it.
No, the issue is too many, too fast, in a welfare state.
"I can hear the glass crunching on Kristallnacht in the ghettos of Warsaw and Vienna when I hear that, honest" ("that" being Trump's plan to deport the 11 million immigrants)
Correction: 11 million scofflaw illegal immigrants.
"I can hear the glass crunching on Kristallnacht in the ghettos of Warsaw and Vienna when I hear that, honest"
Enforcing Immigration laws = Holocaust
Yep, Weld is a libertarian.
"Kristallnacht in the ghettos of Warsaw and Vienna"
There was no Kristallnacht in Warsaw. Hitler didn't conquer Poland until almost a year later.
Lets be honest, anyone who'd say something that stupid in public has to be a boozer.
Point Trump.
well, in the first place, the 11 million figure is nonsense. gotta be at least 30 million illegals.
Forget it, he's rolling.
Weld attended Grateful Dead shows and bragged that he raised a “wee small one” of booze before speaking at an annual Saint Patrick’s Day breakfast. His annual Christmas parties became legendary for the sheer volume of liquor, not to mention Weld’s predilection for doing duck calls after a few glasses of what he liked to call “the amber liquid.” At his second inauguration, Weld’s speech was more than a little slurred. The Boston Globe reported that at a Rolling Stones concert staged the year after Weld resigned, he had been intoxicated to a point that he had trouble standing up (Weld told the Globe he had only one glass of wine). When I asked him about his drinking, Weld dodged a bit, then said, “I used to see Governor Carey drinking at P.J. Clarke’s a lot, and he seemed to get things done.”
Trump is far quicker on his feet than Hillary.
Buenas vallas hacen buenos vecinos
It's true. They do.
David Begley wrote: And importing tech people to take jobs from American citizens is an outrage.
Why is importing limitless numbers of non-tech people to take jobs also not an outrage?
Weld looks well on his way to looking like Tip O'Neill.
The libertarian party is going to take more votes from hillary than they will from Trump.
Here's the Merriam Webster definition of fascist: "a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government". If I were casually throwing that word at anyone my first target would be the Obama administration. Though not a dictator in the accepted sense Obama has done his best to imitate one and his administration certainly accepts no disagreement - see Lois Lerner for starters then segue to the LGBT bathroom issue. There are plenty of other examples between.
We should abandon birth right citizenship. It is 19th Century logic, and is killing us.
I guarantee you, the people who wrote the 14th Amendment had no intention that it be used to justify birth-right citizenship.
The original interpretation of the 14 Amendment did not include the children of foreign nationals, and the first test case extended the right to the children of permanent, legal immigrants. In fact, a court ruled that it didn't even grant citizenship to American Indians, so a law was passed by Congress to specifically include American Indians. This law once again used the phrase: "a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Illegal immigrants and their children are decidedly not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by virtue of the fact that they are not here legally, and have not submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the US.
The 1965 Immigration Act actually has a section that reads: "An alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject, or if he is not a citizen or subject of any country, then in the last foreign country in which he had his residency, as determined by the counselor officer". This is an explicit rejection of the idea of birthright citizenship passed as law by Congress. (Just for the record, Mexico considers all illegal immigrants in the US from Mexico to be Mexican citizens, and allows them to vote in Mexican elections)
There has been no Supreme Court decision codifying birthright citizenship, and there is a solid case that in fact the Supreme Court would be forced to over turn birthright citizenship.
I have a hard time believing that Trump used the words "foolishly" and "perceived" together in a complete sentence. Trump's statement to that effect came through a spokeswoman, I note.
So, the "libertarian" supports mass exodus from second and third-world nations. It complements their support for liberals' "final solution" and other anti-native policies. I wonder if Weld also supports class diversity schemes. Libertarians seems to be liberals without the trillion dollar opiate dispensaries.
If you aren't going to get them to leave, the only choices left are permanent second class citizenship (aka permanent 'guest worker' status), or amnesty + citizenship. Libertarians are easy to cast as idiots, in large part because of their ideological, faith-based belief that open immigration is good for . . . immigrants? Business? Workers? Lawyers? Who knows?
I read an article yesterday about Trump's appearance in San Diego (WSJ?). Toward the end of the article there was a quote from a Latino Trump supporter. His reason? Illegal immigrants were working at wages that made it difficult for his small business to compete. Trump really should get in the habit of always saying "illegal immigrants" when he is, in fact, referring to illegal immigrants. After about a month of that even the MSM would start using the label.
Look at Weld's nose close up- he don't need a roadmap to the bar...
The best Weldism is 'fish or cut bait'.
He's okay at racquetball, too...
Gahrie, 6:51 -
Very interesting comment, but at the end: The Supreme Court would be *forced* to overturn birthright citizenship?
I would say instead that there are at least four justices, and very possibly five, who will happily uphold it, and if the law says otherwise, then the law is a ass.
"people for whom the "illegal" part is merely a distinction without a difference – no person is illegal, dude! – and lots of people who would just prefer not to think about it."
Has anyone else noticed the "college" in the Bay Area that is churning out fake degrees for H1B visa holders ?
A college on the edge of Silicon Valley has turned itself into an upmarket visa mill, a BuzzFeed News investigation has found, deploying a system of fake grades and enabling thousands of foreign students to enter the United States each year — while generating millions of dollars in tuition revenue for the school and the family who controls it.
Spending millions on foreign recruiters, Northwestern Polytechnic University enrolls 99% of its students — more than 6,000 overall last year — from overseas, with little regard for their qualifications. It has no full-time, permanent faculty, despite having a student body larger than the undergraduate population of Princeton.
One more reason why Trump will win.
eric: And when it falters, scapegoats will be found.
But illegal immigrants are not "scapegoats". A scapegoat is, by defintion, innocent of being the cause (or a cause) of the trouble(s) in question. If massive illegal immigration is having deleterious effects (and it is), then illegal immigrants are a cause of those deleterious effects, and hence they are not scapegoats. Actors higher up the food chain may ultimately be responsible for the conditions that drive migration, but the problems on the ground really are caused by the presence of the illegals.
Sorry to go all pedantic on you, but this sloppy use of "scapegoat" is a pet peeve of mine. It's generally used as just another way to muddy the waters and shut down dissent. "But most of these people are good hard-working folk who are just trying to make a better life for their families, so we can't scapegoat them." But that's a non sequitur. Accusing the illegal immigrant family in the neighborhood of poisoning the water supply when the plague breaks out is scapegoating. Pointing out that the mass influx of illegals has driven down wages for poorer citizens and bankrupted your local hospital is not scapegoating. Scapegoats don't cause what they're accused of causing.
For those that don't know, which includes almost everyone at this point, in 1993 William Weld brought Massachusetts into the forefront of 16th century scientific beliefs with his appointment of the first ever official state astrologer in the United States. The Cosmic Muffin, Massachusetts Official State Astrologer.
Yep, indeedy, everyone should take William Weld absolutely seriously.
Michael K. wrote: A college on the edge of Silicon Valley has turned itself into an upmarket visa mill, a BuzzFeed News investigation has found, deploying a system of fake grades and enabling thousands of foreign students to enter the United States each year — while generating millions of dollars in tuition revenue for the school and the family who controls it.
Spending millions on foreign recruiters, Northwestern Polytechnic University enrolls 99% of its students — more than 6,000 overall last year — from overseas, with little regard for their qualifications. It has no full-time, permanent faculty, despite having a student body larger than the undergraduate population of Princeton.
One more reason why Trump will win.
The more pressing issue right now is the Trump University litigation.
We should abandon birth right citizenship. It is 19th Century logic, and is killing us.
That would require a constitutional amendment which means you’d need two-thirds of each House of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures to vote to pass it. I don’t see any of that happening.
That would require a constitutional amendment which means you’d need two-thirds of each House of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures to vote to pass it.
No it wouldn't. All it would require is Congressional legislation clarifying the language. At worst, a Supreme Court decision returning the original meaning.
The Supreme Court would be *forced* to overturn birthright citizenship?
Silly me, I was of course assuming the Justices would be confining themselves to the actual text and legislative intent.
But the South American Jesuit Marxist sitting in Rome wearing Pope clothes says the invasion of Catholic peasant immigrants is not the problem but the Protestant Christian Citizens are the problem. The fake religious asshole believes it too.
"people for whom the "illegal" part is merely a distinction without a difference – no person is illegal, dude! – and lots of people who would just prefer not to think about it."
Why don't we call them 'criminal aliens' instead of 'illegal aliens'? The meaning is the same, and you won't have idiots saying 'no person is a criminal, man!'
Why don't we call them 'criminal aliens' instead of 'illegal aliens'? The meaning is the same, and you won't have idiots saying 'no person is a criminal, man!'
"Justice involved immigrants" is the preferred new term.
A warning to all glass-house dwellers when dealing with Trump.
Carol said...
"Legal, illegal, I don't care. If it's just the legality that's at issue, they will just make everyone legal and be done with it."
My US citizenship is a thing of value. If anyone who cares to can become a US citizen, it ceases to be a thing of value. So, the "legality" we are talking about here is the same as the "legality" that comes into play when someone tries to drive off in your car. Are you really going to get all technical about whose name is on the title? Can't we all just agree that everyone has a right to drive your car?
Trump's proposal doesn't make me think of Kristallnacht, but of the Trail of Tears, and in general Trump seems to me to be a populist on the model of Andrew Jackson or William Jennings Bryan. I don't consider that to be praise.
"I can hear the glass crunching on Kristallnacht in the ghettos of Warsaw and Vienna when I hear that, honest!"
A remarkably foolish statement. The "Night of Broken Glass" occurred in Germany (including anschlussed Austria) and was about beating up Jewish German citizens and wrecking their synagogues and businesses - not about rounding up and deporting illegal aliens.
If any similarity to recent events in this country, it would be to certain groups rioting and going after legal Vietnamese immigrants' and other "Asian" peoples' businesses.
And fascism was billed as an alternative to other socialist totalitarian societies in that "if you liked your business, you could keep your business"; you just had to run it as directed by the regime.
Gahrie
You have hit on a key point. You are absolutely right that American Indians born after 1865 in the United States were not citizens. They were not born "under the jurisdiction" of the United States because they were under the jurisdiction of their sovereign tribal nations. And, yes, a statute had to be enacted.
A statute would create a firestorm. SCOTUS is a wild card. If is crazy how the idea of these anchor babies automatically becoming citizens came into being. Just an interpretation by bureaucrats.
If a statute was introduced it would be front page of the NYT for a month. Libs would go wild.
Come to think of it, strike "Asian" and substitute just "other citizens in some respect different from themselves."
I would hate to see the United States abandon "birthright citizenship" - it is part of "who we are."
Anyway, birthright citizenship is not the problem. Making children born here "anchor babies" is, and that is just "policy" which can be readily changed.
And the babies themselves can be sent back with their parents, but be allowed to come back as adults, provided they have held on to their birth certificates.
I would hate to see the United States abandon "birthright citizenship" - it is part of "who we are."
Birthright citizenship has only existed for about fifty years...we spent much more time without it than with it.
By the way, slavery was once part of 'who we are".
If a statute was introduced it would be front page of the NYT for a month. Libs would go wild.
You sat that like it is a bad thing.....
For every Lib who went wild, two Trump supporters and an independent would cheer.
Paco Wove:
NO, NO, NO. We need to call them what they are. They may or may not be immigrants (legal or illegal) but first and foremost they are "aliens". If they are here legally they are legal aliens. If not, they are illegal aliens.
We need to start calling a spade a spade.
A general summary of U.S. immigration terminology follows. Any references below to USCIS refer to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Alien
An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/immigration-terms-and-definitions-involving-aliensaco
Blogger Hagar said...
I would hate to see the United States abandon "birthright citizenship" - it is part of "who we are."
Anyway, birthright citizenship is not the problem. Making children born here "anchor babies" is, and that is just "policy" which can be readily changed.
And the babies themselves can be sent back with their parents, but be allowed to come back as adults, provided they have held on to their birth certificates.
I was just about to write much the same thing, including the part about anchor babies. Congress could change the problem of anchor babies tomorrow. The baby is a citizen and can stay or come back later. The mother is not, send her home. If the mother wants to leave the baby here, well we have plenty of agencies that will care for unwanted children.
Gahrie,
We have had birthright citizenship since the Constitution was written or before. Born here? You are a citizen. No other proof or documentation needed. It was incorporated into the Constitution in the 14th Amendment in 1866:
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.
The Supremes ruled on it in 1876 or so.
For those who say that a Mexican baby born here is subject to Mexican jurisdiction. Horseshit. They are not in any meaningful way. They are subject to US jurisdiction in every way that any other US citizen is.
If you want to argue that they actually are subject to Mexican jurisdiction, argue away. Even if they are, it makes no difference. They are fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US and that is all that counts.
(exceptions for diplomats etc apply since they are not under US jurisdiction)
John Henry
A question for Gahrie or anyone else:
Just what jurisdiction do you think a Mexican baby (or German, Indian etc) born in the US is under from Mexico?
Can Mexico make them pay taxes?
Serve jury duty?
Anything else?
Yes, they are still Mexican citizens, just like Cruz was an American citizen as well as a Canadian citizen.
Unless the dual citizen goes to Mexico, there is not a thing in the world that Mexico can do to her or force her to do.
If Mexico tries, their US citizenship will protect them from all attempts. As long as they stay in the US. Might be different if they go to another country, I just don't know about that.
John:
You are wrong both as to history and interpretation.
Also, I think, wasn't Obama a Kenyan citizen by virtue of his father?
I am not questioning his natural born US citizenship nor his birth in Hawaii.
I also may be misremembering how Kenyan citizenship passes from father to son or if it does.
John Henry
Blogger Gahrie said...
John:
You are wrong both as to history and interpretation.
Now that is one stellar refutation.
Are you saying that a person born in the US in 1807 was not a a US citizen by birth?
Did I misquote the 14th Amendment?
I'll need to go look up the 1875 (or so) case but can if you like.
John Henry
I think not having birthright citizenship leads to all sorts of problems. Look at Germany. You have people who are 3rd, 4th, 5th generation German born and are not even eligible for citizenship
I fail to see any problems whatever with birthright citizenship. Perhaps Gahrie can enlighten me?
I do see problems with anchor babies but, as Hagar said, that is a policy issue and Congress could change it tomorrow.
Perhaps it could be done with an executive order.
Whatever the process, anchor babies are a problem and the law/policy needs to be changed.
John Henry
open borders lunatic.
guess what happens when you come with "no welfare state, open borders, culture doesn't matter".
you get a bankrupt segregated welfare state with open borders.
Are you saying that a person born in the US in 1807 was not a a US citizen by birth?
Not automatically, yes. That is why the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark was necessary to confer citizenship to people born here whose parents were foreign nationals and permanent residents. We needed to pass a law in 1924 to make American Indians born in the United States citizens. Slaves, and their descendants were not considered citizens which is why the 14 Amendment was needed in the first place.
Did I misquote the 14th Amendment?
Nope. And in fact the same exact wording was used in the Immigration Act of 1965. What you are ignoring however is the fact that illegal aliens are specifically not submitting themselves to US jurisdiction, and are in fact actively evading it.
"
For every Lib who went wild, two Trump supporters and an independent would cheer."
This story is just more evidence of how Trump "hits back twice as hard."
Maybe a couple are misses but most hit the target where it lives.
"..does not depend on whether Weld actually is an alcoholic. In fact, it works better — a lot better — if he's not. Here's a picture of him:"
Too pale? Doesn't spray tan or color his hair? Whatcha gettin' at?
What you are ignoring however is the fact that illegal aliens are specifically not submitting themselves to US jurisdiction, and are in fact actively evading it.
Huh?
I thought we were speaking of babies born in the US. That baby is a citizen by birth and most emphatically NOT an illegal alien.
John Henry
50.57% of the voters
How many voters were there? 5,057? It looks to me like a significant figures problem.
I thought we were speaking of babies born in the US. That baby is a citizen by birth and most emphatically NOT an illegal alien.
I think he's speaking about the ones who refuse to come out of the shadows...why? Back taxes is my guess.
The heart of Libertarianism is the axiom that individuals are the best judges of their own self-interest. About 2/3 of Americans are convinced that their best interests (however measured) are served by not having open borders.
"I think he's speaking about the ones who refuse to come out of the shadows"
Plenty of sun in Central America . . .
Yeah, maybe they are just looking for shade...
I thought we were speaking of babies born in the US. That baby is a citizen by birth and most emphatically NOT an illegal alien.
The baby is not a citizen by birth. Indeed, as I have already quoted, the Immigration Act of 1965 specifically describes these babies as " "An alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject,". If you are correct, this passage is meaningless filler, because there would be no such thing as an alien born in the U.S..
Children born to illegal aliens, who are evading U.S. jurisdiction, are by definition not US citizens, and are in fact citizens of the country their parents are from.
We are currently granting these aliens citizenship at birth because some bureaucrat didn't understand, or willfully evaded the clear language of the law. When and if the Supreme Court ever hears this case, birthright citizenship should be ended.
Weld liked to show up at public events in the wrapper, often making a fool of himself.
Meeting then Gov Weld before a show John Entwistle of The Who afterward call him a "bit of a ponce."
"So, for all intents and purposes this time around, the Libertarians are just the Democratic Party."
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/664089892599631872
Democrats - 1968 to mid 70s to go from 1 to 4. Libertarians - during the G. W. Bush administration. The left always does rinse-repeat.
Hilarious. Weld wants to play hard ball, well, Trump plays hard ball.
I am against birthright citizenship.
Surprised that no one has mentioned the birthright citizenship industry in CA. Pregnant Chinese women who are far along fly into the US. Stay a month or two and give birth. They then fly back to the jurisdiction of China with their American citizen baby. It is a big business.
The Feds cracked down about two years ago. No follow-up in the press.
I think it was racism by Obama to do this. Chinese babies as American citizens is bad, but okay if Mexican.
Gahrie
There is no precedent or statute for your assertion. There has never been a case contesting anchor babies as citizens. Everyone just assumes they are. There might be a regulation to that effect. That's what is so crazy about the whole thing. Nothing from SCOTUS. The only cases halfway close to the issue are NOT on point and very old.
Gahrie,
"An alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject,"
Methinks if that's the "clear language of the law", it needs clarification at minimum.
There is no precedent or statute for your assertion.
Precedent? no. Statute? I cite the Immigration Act of 1965.
There has never been a case contesting anchor babies as citizens.
True. My contention is that when there is, the proper outcome is quite clear if you follow the written word and legislative intent.
Methinks if that's the "clear language of the law", it needs clarification at minimum.
What clarification? If a baby is born in the United States to illegal aliens, it is not a US citizen, but a citizen of the country it, or its parents, come from.
Oh..then no clarification needed. Biz as usual. Good on ya?
Biz as usual. Good on ya?
Nope..we need to end the rule of regulation and return to the rule of law.
This Trump example is more proof positive, If Hillary thinks she can belittle Trump into irrelevance, she has another "think" coming. She will just wind up looking like a fool again when she started barking in front of a friendly crowd. She is going into battle with paper armor on and she doesn't even know it. The press ain't gonna save her this time.
Crooked Hillary and Filthy Bill are cackling with glee and rubbing their claws together in anticipation of once again occupying the White House with the assistance of a 3rd party candidacy. But Johnson is an open borders, anti-American schmuck, and Weld is a blue-blood progressive from Massachusetts. I think they are going to pull more votes from the democrat party and #NeverTrumpers, than from republicans who are determined to vote against Clinton/democrats. We'll see how the American electorate responds, but Trump is certainly more likable and better on the stump than the other candidates. And when the undecideds tune in to the show, they'll see the despicable Mrs. Clinton with a pending indictment, they'll hear moron Gary Johnson declare that Mexicans should be allowed to travel at will over the American border, and they'll get a load of rusty old Masshole Willie Weld doing a Roger Goodell impersonation. Meanwhile Trump will be humorous, self-effacing, sober and unsparing in his diminution and dismissal of the others. Unless the democrat party is counting the votes in November, Trump will be president.
Gahrie wrote: ...we need to end the rule of regulation and return to the rule of law.
So very true but I fear that many, even here, won't "get" that.
Michael Fitzgerald warned: ...Unless the democrat party is counting the votes in November, Trump will be president.
They will be and we should worry.
What you are ignoring however is the fact that illegal aliens are specifically not submitting themselves to US jurisdiction, and are in fact actively evading it.
They may be evading it, but if they get caught for some crime (driving without insurance or without a license, robbery, etc.) they are certainly subject to US or state courts, so surely for purposes of US laws they are under US jurisdiction. It's not quite that simple..
They may be evading it, but if they get caught for some crime
If they get caught for some other crime. Their mere presence in the country is a crime, the crime of not submitting to US jurisdiction. All non-citizens who reside in our country are also subject to its laws, whether they are here legally or not.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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.
chickelit said...Unless the democrat party is counting the votes in November, Trump will be president.
They will be and we should worry.
5/29/16, 11:55 PM
Maybe Jimmy Carter can ask the United Nations to intervene in the process to ensure that the process is transparent, honest, and equitable. Now where did I put that sarc tag...?
Immigration Act of 1965
An alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject, or if he is not a citizen or subject of any country, then in the last foreign country in which he had his residency, as determined by the counselor officer
Walter:
We have already determined that the 14th Amendment does not automatically grant citizenship to every person born in the United States. Among others, the 14 Amendment did not apply to American Indians or the children of permanent residents (even if those children had been born here).
The only question is: Are the children of illegal aliens or tourists among those that the 14 Amendment does confer citizenship? Written word, legislative intent and history all make it pretty clear that they are not.
The only legal source for birthright citizenship is a bureaucratic interpretation of immigration law.
Guess which is gong to prevail at SCOTUS in a fight between a Constitutional Amendment XIV and mere Immigration Act?
Apparently "we" can determine anything we want to "Bureaucracy" will always determine reality in a governed society.
Oh..we can always hope for judicial saviors to prevail..
We have had birthright citizenship since the Constitution was written or before. Born here? You are a citizen. No other proof or documentation needed. It was incorporated into the Constitution in the 14th Amendment in 1866:
This is actually completely wrong. The very first immigration acts written by the Founding Fathers required that your parents be citizens in order for you to be a citizen at birth.
As I have repeatedly shown, even the 14th Amendment did not grant birthright citizenship to everybody...native born children of permanent residents for instance were not granted birthright citizenship by the 14th Amendment.
The sole purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to the former slaves and their descendants, people who were not given birthright citizenship since the Constitution was written.
Guess which is gong to prevail at SCOTUS in a fight between a Constitutional Amendment XIV and mere Immigration Act?
It depends on whether the Justices interpret the law, or make it. The 14th Amendment was not about granting citizenship to illegal aliens and tourists..it was about granting citizenship to former slaves and their descendants. The purpose of the immigration Act passed by Congress was to deal with the issue of immigration.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The case United States v. Wong Kim Ark is the rule, as well as common law jus soli.
Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term "jurisdiction", or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.
A person is a citizen if they are born within the the United States. This was needed to populate the country in the 18th and 19th centuries.
My great grandfather was an anchor baby on his tombstone, but not in real life. He immigrated from East Brandenburg to Wisconsin as a one year old at Castle Garden in New York nearly two months before his grave marker says he was born, making him both an immigrant and an American citizen by birth. His grandparents and most of his aunts and uncles immigrated in 1855. He, his parents and a three year old brother immigrated a year after the rest of the family, delaying their travel to spare his mother the discomfort of a two month ocean crossing while six months pregnant and the risks attendant on the potential for a premature birth at sea.
Neither Trump nor Clinton have any direct ancestors who were United States citizens at the time of the Civil War, much less at the time the country was founded. Trump's ancestors were either in Germany or Scotland at the time of the late unpleasantness, while Clinton's Rodham ancestors were in Great Britain or in Canada, except for one of her Canadian ancestors who was born in Superior, Wisconsin in 1860.
Sarah Palin and Barack Obama both have American ancestry substantially predating the American Revolution and lending them each considerable authenticity as Americans.
The case United States v. Wong Kim Ark is the rule, as well as common law jus soli.
That case grants citizenship to the children of legal, permanent residents who are born in the United States and does not deal with illegal aliens or tourists.
children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory
Sounds like a pretty good description of illegal aliens to me.
Gahrie said...That case grants citizenship to the children of legal, permanent residents who are born in the United States and does not deal with illegal aliens or tourists.
You would think, but that's not how it is interpreted. The USA uses both jus soli (by soil) and Jus sanguinis (by blood) as per common law.
Congress and the Courts allow anyone born within the country to have full citizenship rights. They can even be dual citizens. Many Mexicans and Europeans keep their home citizenship, as well as American.
whswhs: Trump's proposal doesn't make me think of Kristallnacht, but of the Trail of Tears...
Then you need to think a little harder. Cherokees:Oklahoma::illegal Mexican immigrants:Mexico? I don't think so.
The U.S. welfare state and it's unenforced immigration laws are like a free buffet surrounded by hungry people. You can put up a wall around that buffet, but if it's free to anyone who can get to it, it will be eaten. Even if the wall were effective there are enough people on the inside already to eat that buffet till it's gone, in fact it already is. We're stocking it on credit now. The problem is having a free buffet that other people have to pay for often while not even being aloud to eat it themselves. Close the buffet and they will stop coming, stop eating, and go home. Why would you even need a wall if your buffet was not free to all comers? Free buffets cost money, and so do walls. It don't think it makes sense to decide to now pay for both. Close the damned buffet!
Even if there were no illegal immigrants, the welfare state will still be in collapse. Closing the buffet solves our two most unsustainable problems with one simple solution. To get help from the collective, you must be legal, and you must truly be unable to help yourself.
bagoh20: Close the buffet and they will stop coming, stop eating, and go home. Why would you even need a wall if your buffet was not free to all comers? Free buffets cost money, and so do walls. It don't think it makes sense to decide to now pay for both. Close the damned buffet!
Wow, brilliant idea! Why has no one ever thought of it before? If only citizens had figured out that they could exercise their democratic rights, organize legislation, and vote to close the damn buffet! Surely it would never happen that the judiciary would overturn just about every one of these efforts to close the damn buffet, decade after decade? Nah, that's crazy talk.
(In the meantime, while we're waiting for citizens to catch on to this brilliant and unprecedented strategy, no libertarian-minded person should have any scruples about hiring the illegal aliens that are here and partaking of the buffet, because, hey, we're totally against the existence of the buffet!)
The only moral problem I have with kicking illegals out is that our policy for a long time has really been an open invitation that made it seem like we didn't respect our own laws, so why should they. As a nation we were saying: "forget about it, come on in."
It's kind of like if the cops had been videotaping all us exceeding the speed limit for years on the highway, and now retroactively started sending out tickets. Yea, we broke the law, but it was pretty clear that everyone was doing it, and it was A-OK. If you want everyone to obey the speed limit to the letter, then enforce it. Otherwise, it's just a suggestion.
"Surely it would never happen that the judiciary would overturn just about every one of these efforts to close the damn buffet, decade after decade? Nah, that's crazy talk.".
Not as crazy as thinking that same political system will round up families, take away their homes, pull their citizen children out of school, forgive their debts, and deport them without an endless legal fight that will stop it from ever even getting started. That's a lot tougher sell, and besides, it only solves a fraction of the problem if it did happen. Put down the torch and think it through.
Weld beclowned himself doubly with the remark:
..distorting what Trump said;
..playing the National Socialist card.
Trump's response was appropriate, but likely the subtlety likely will be unnoticed or intentionally disregarded by very many.
In trying to walk back his remark, After a circuitous answer, he eventually came to a conclusion. “No, I wouldn’t call Mr. Trump either a fascist or a Nazi,” Mr. Weld said. “I’m just saying, we got to watch it when we get exclusionary about people on account of their status as a member of a group.”
Careful there, Billy!
Giving the benefit of doubt, maybe Weld is the designated attack dog of the campaign team and getting adjusted to his role.
bagoh20: Not as crazy as thinking that same political system will round up families, take away their homes, pull their citizen children out of school, forgive their debts, and deport them without an endless legal fight that will stop it from ever even getting started.
Yeah, it's cattle cars stuffed with wailing children or nothing when it comes to stepping up immigration law enforcement. Think of the children! (Don't think about employer sanctions.)
That's a lot tougher sell...
Tougher sell to whom? Tougher enforcement, just like "shutting down the buffet" sells well to the general population. They're not the ones rejecting the sale. Since the courts have proven themselves remarkably stubborn about shutting down even the weensiest corner of the buffet for the aliens themselves, perhaps the time is right to start political action in favor of getting serious about employer sanctions? Yes, I know the courts have weaseled around that one, too, but getting them to uphold the flaying of a few high-profile scofflaws, pour encourager les autres, might have become more feasible, in the current political climate. I'm sure libertarians have anguished moral reservations about that, too.
...and besides, it only solves a fraction of the problem if it did happen. Put down the torch and think it through.
You first. What's your bold new action plan for "shutting down the buffet", that will succeed where every effort before has failed? Just waiting for the inevitable collapse of the welfare state to bring about the free-market, free-movement-of-labor millenium? Be careful what you wish for, amigo.
Look, if you really believe that nothing can be done about illegal immigration, just say so. Spare us the juvenile libertarian bullshit about "shutting down the buffet" (as if you were naïvely unaware of the many, many efforts to do just that, still ongoing), the moral posturing and self-exculpatory bromides about "we" (guess all those people whose efforts were overturned by the courts didn't exist, or weren't part of "we"), and the "it's pointless to fix it because it wouldn't solve everything" stuff, which is a standard obfuscatory maneuver used by people who don't want the problem fixed.
Anglelyne,
The Nestor decision. While specific to Social Security the logic extends to all welfare schemes. President Trumpy and a suitably compliant Republican Congress use that decision to limit welfare benefits to US citizens only. Not too many Democrats will vote against that since not every Democrat is in a seat so safe as to be on record for voting to extend welfare for illegals.
John Henry and Gahrie: a simple thought experiment; children born of diplomats on US soil are not born US citizens so therefore grant every illegal a limited diplomatic status that confers them no diplomatic rights and privileges but which allows them to be expelled as personas non grata. A twofer is what that would produce. No birthright citizenship and as persons of no status the illegal is entitled to nothing in terms of benefits and is subject to immediate deportation upon apprehension.
David Begley,
I think Indians born after 1865, in the US as opposed to being born on the reservation, who "paid taxes" and did not claim exemption from US law, were always citizens.
John Henry
Thank you for bringing up Kim. That was the case I had in mind as being around 1875 but was drawing a blank last night. (1898 is "around" 1875, isn't it?")
The key finding in Kim was that his birth in the US, San Francisco, gave him birthright US citizenship. This in spite of the fact that he was also by birth, a subject of the Chinese emperor. In spite of the fact that his parents were not US citizens and could never be US citizens under the Chinese exclusionary laws in effect in the US at the time.
Mother and father, while residents at the time of Kim's birth were not "permanent" residents as evidenced by their return to China in 1890. This was the common pattern of Chinese in the US at the time. Sojourners, sometimes long-time sojourners, but not usually permanent residents.
The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/169/649.html#sthash.V2p4mYxR.dpuf
You might also want to refer to Nishikawa v Dulles. Nishakawa, was born in California in 1916 to Japanese citizen parents. I am not sure but I think the exclusion acts applied to them too, meaning they could never be US citizens. Nishakawa was a dual US/Japanese citizen.
He went to Japan to study in the 30's, was there when the war began, got conscripted and served in the Japanese Imperial Army. After the war, the govt tried to strip him of his citizenship.
There was never any question about his having birthright citizenship and there was no reference to his parents, other than to state that he had Japanese citizenship through them.
Perez v. Brownell 1958 was another case that recognized birthright citizenship. Perez as born in El Paso but moved to Mexico and voted in an election. This was used to strip him of his US citizenship. I don't know the parent's status
There is another case from the 60's, I thought the name was Perez but must be wrong as I can't find it at the moment, of a man born in the US to illegal Mexican parents. He renounced his US citizenship to qualify for university in Mexico. Later he said he'd made a mistake and asked for it back. He won the case.
All of the above are Supreme Court cases.
John Henry
John Henry and Gahrie: a simple thought experiment; children born of diplomats on US soil are not born US citizens so therefore grant every illegal a limited diplomatic status that confers them no diplomatic rights and privileges but which allows them to be expelled as personas non grata. A twofer is what that would produce. No birthright citizenship and as persons of no status the illegal is entitled to nothing in terms of benefits and is subject to immediate deportation upon apprehension.
My first question would be, under international law can someone be given diplomatic status without being accredited by their home country?
Let's say they could. How would "limited diplomatic status" work? I don't think the term even makes sense. You will have to clarify a bit more. As it stands, right now a diplomat can get away with murder with no punishment other than expulsion.
We can expel illegals right now without going through this convolution. Their children would not be citizens, but so what?
I keep asking what is the problem with children of illegals being birthright US citizens, nobody answers. There just are not that many of them to be a problem. If we enforce borders and deport illegals, there will be a lot fewer.
The problem is the law that allows immigration preference to parents of US citizens. What are called anchor babies. That is easy to fix, probably by executive order, though better by normal law.
David (I think) referenced the Chinese birth tourism. Again, that is not a big problem unless the parents use the child as an anchor baby. See above. We should do everything possible to stop it, of course but if a few still get through, where is the problem?
John Henry
Not as crazy as thinking that same political system will round up families, take away their homes, pull their citizen children out of school, forgive their debts, and deport them without an endless legal fight
What is so crazy about it? We have done it before....look up Trail of Tears, Japanese Internment and Operation Wetback. (The last was done at the request of the Mexican government)
The problem is the law that allows immigration preference to parents of US citizens. What are called anchor babies. That is easy to fix, probably by executive order, though better by normal law.
Seriously? We can't get the Democrats to enforce current immigration law, and you believe that we are going to be able to change the law to outlaw anchor babies? Good luck.
I'm almost 70, had to prove citizenship many times over the years to join the Navy, get a mortgage, driver's license, passport, voter ID card and so on.
As far as I can remember, the ONLY test has ever been where I was born. I do not recall ever being questioned about my parent's status, who they were or anything else.
My original birth certificate, that I used for many years, did not mention my parents at all. It merely certified I was born in Ticonderoga NY in 47. I have since obtained a photostat (remember those) of my original birth registration which does list mothers and fathers name and occupation and some other stuff. Nothing about citizenship.
Ditto when I registered my kids in the 70's. All they cared about was place of birth (Puerto Rico USA), nothing about parental status.
Doing away with birthright citizenship would have one big advantage. It would help the law schools and be a full employment for lawyers. If I am not a citizen by birth in NY, I would need to be a citizen because of my mother. How could I prove that she was a legal resident or citizen at the time of my birth. And if she was, what about my grandparents?
I can just see lawyers licking their chops.
(Yes, that is reductio ad absurdum)
The other thing is, what about all the birthright citizens in the US now? Perez, Nishikawa, the other "perez" case, Afroyim, perhaps Kim all found that US citizenship, however obtained, could not be revoked. It can be surrendered by the citizen, but the govt can never revoke it.
Exception for naturalized citizens who committed fraud in obtaining citizenship and 1-2 other things for naturalized citizens.
I suspect that there is nothing that can be done at this point about those citizens born to illegal aliens. We might be able to do something going forward but I think it would be a horrible, horrible, mistake.
John Henry
I meant that technically the anchor baby thing would be easy to fix. Politically, if it was done through Congress, much harder, maybe impossible.
Would it take a law though? I am not too clear on this but I think what allows the anchor baby parents to stay is executive order. Policy, not law.
All trump would have to do would be to rescind the Executive Order. He would not even have to make a new EO. Other than, perhaps, to say "Executive Order XXX-123" is hereby rescinded"
John Henry
Here is a graph of babies born to illegal aliens, 1980 to present.
It peaked at a bit over 300,000 a couple years back and is now declining. About 8% of all US births.
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/09/FT_15.09.10_BirthsToUnauthorizedImmigrants_LineChart310px.png
One thing interesting is that from 1980 to it was 30,000 in 1980 and then started rising slowly at first but then pretty dramatically.
I still don't think it is a problem. We need to reduce it by reducing illegal aliens, but even at this level I don't see it as a problem. Whether US citizens or not, those babies can't be denied resources.
John Henry
OK, if Trump is a Nazi may I start calling Hunny Bunny a Stalinist? And the Press, Walter Durantys?
The thing about Trump and illegals is that at his rally in Lowell, MA, he got a huge applause response to dealing with illegals and almost as big an applause response when he said yes to Legal Immigrants. The Walter Durantys of the Press are covering up (for Hillary).
Just for the completeness, the other case that I was thinking of, that I was thinking was also Perez, at Terrazas v Vance (They both have "z" in teh name, right? Easy mistake to make)
Laurence Terrazas was born in the United States in 1947.[3] Because Terrazas's father was Mexican and because Mexico's citizenship laws then followed the principle of ius sanguinis, Terrazas held Mexican citizenship at birth and because he was born in the United States, Terrazas also held US citizenship under the ius soli of the Fourteenth Amendment; therefore, Terrazas was a dual citizen of the United States and Mexico at birth.[3]
While enrolled at a Mexican university in 1970,[4] Terrazas applied for a certificate of Mexican nationality. As part of his application, Terrazas signed a statement renouncing "United States citizenship, as well as any submission, obedience and loyalty to any foreign government, especially to that of the United States of America."[5]
During subsequent discussions with a US consular official, Terrazas gave conflicting answers as to whether or not he had truly intended to abandon his rights as a US citizen when he applied for his certificate of Mexican nationality.[6] The State Department eventually concluded that he had lost his US citizenship,
I thought the father was an illegal alien at the time of Terrazas birth but Wikipedia does not say one way or the other and I don't feel like chasing it down. In any event, the Supremes accepted that Terrazas was born a US citizen though that was not really the main issue here.
John Henry
Never did get an answer on why Ann pointed to the guy's pic.
Post a Comment