३१ ऑक्टोबर, २०१८
"The first part of this statement was a Trump truth—that is, a blatant falsehood."
Writes John Cassidy in "Donald Trump Launches Operation Midterms Diversion" (The New Yorker), referring to Trump's statement: "We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for eighty-five years with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२७५ टिप्पण्या:
275 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for eighty-five years with all of those benefits.
In other words, 100% accurate.
( In what other country can someone come in, have a baby, and have that baby be a citizen of the United States? )
De minimius non curat lex.
BFD. Us and Canada and some obscure countries.
Get over it New Yorker. This is how Trump talks. Learn a lesson from Selena Zito. This type of nit picking is why America hates the MSM.
Best to read the whole thing.
""The first part of this statement was a Trump truth—that is, a blatant falsehood.""
IOW, what Trump said was true, and the Newy Orker is, basically, lying.
In which other countries does a baby become a citizen of the United States when it's born?
If you look at the Jus soli map on Wikipedia it pretty much is just us and South America and Canada. Since nobody is actually trying to get citizenship in South America and the hordes need to get through us to get to Canada - that really does just leave us. But like voter id this is an area where the left does not want to follow the worlds lead.
No, he is absolutely right. The Left is too stupid to parse a sentence.
Best to read the whole thing.
The first sentence is false. Pretty sure.
The United States, however, has retained its birthright citizenship laws, even as it admits around 1 million people every year through its legal immigration system. Canada, which also has a birthright citizenship law, still takes in around 250,000 legal immigrants a year.
Conversely, in Europe, many countries have modified their requirements for citizenship in recent years. Ireland got rid of its birthright citizenship law in 2005, and France did away with its own in 1993.
WE admit way to many people legally. The left want to increase that AND make sure illegal immigration is a constant flow.
The first part of Trump's statement is:
"We’re the only country in the world."
True or False?
I am so tired of these false reports. One quick google and I find a Univision reporter talking about Bangladeshis in the caravan - yet major news outlets keep insisting their is no evidence of anyone other than South American's in the caravan.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/22/univision-caravan-bangladesh/
I'm curious about the number 30. I'd like to see a list.
Conversely, in Europe, many countries have modified their requirements for citizenship in recent years. Ireland got rid of its birthright citizenship law in 2005, and France did away with its own in 1993
Why can't we be more like Europe?!?
Fernandistein is learning to parse like the DNC-Media now. Nicely done.
In what other country can someone come in, have a baby, and have that baby be a citizen of the United States?
I guess when a person speaks without periods, eventually they say something unfalsifiable.
"The first part of this statement was a Trump truth—that is, a blatant falsehood."
I have a hard time taking a culture that hates lies seriously, when it adored having Oprah on television for an hour a day, 5 days a week, for 30 years, sitting with killers and cultists (James Arthur Ray, Tom Cruise) telling whoppers people still believe (homeopathy, detoxing, etc.) and only now - when Donald trump has the stage - do they voice any opposition to a disdain for reality.
Sorry, GOOP Shoppers, but you made this world we live in - not The Donald - and now you have to deal with it like everyone else. These aren't lies, since "you can believe what you want to believe" - they're the honest truth - because, as you also know, "everything happens for a reason".
It's a deliberate mistake to get the statement broadcast by the enemy press.
The mistake is in the right direction, that is, the rest of the statement is correct and continues to work.
Trump would be wise to explain the history of the 14th amendment a little better.
He is 100% correct that we need to end birth-right citizenship. Other nations in Europe have done so. (Pussies like Paul Ryan who oppose, cannot retire fast enough)
The abuse of the 14th amendment is racist. How? - the original intent is trashed by modern abuse.
Birthright citizenship in the United States was first made law by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, primarily to grant legal status to emancipated slaves. The amendment stipulates that "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 Supreme Court solidified the Constitution’s authority on this issue in 1898 by ruling that citizenship is a right offered unconditionally to all born on U.S. soil.
But Crack - Oprah has a free gift for everyone under the audience seat.
*insert screaming females*
He’s only rephrasing that famous retired Republican senator Harry Reid.
One interesting thing is this -- almost all countries with birthright citizenship are in the Americas.
Countries uniquely populated by immigrants seem to have pro-immigrant laws.
How many to admit, how, and of what kinds is a matter for debate and legislation.
The progressive left refuses to submit to the bounds of a representative democracy.
Countries uniquely populated by immigrants seem to have pro-immigrant laws.
Now look at the footnotes. What are those exceptions?
No one seems to be discussing the actual issue. The problem here is birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. That may or may not be included in the language of the 14th Amendment, probably really is. But that is the issue, and that is probably what Trump meant.
So let me ask, How many countries in the world have that? It seems like a really dumb idea, mainly driven by poor wording in the amendment.
If the Left were honest -- and I consider the New Yorker and its Beta Male writers like John Cassidy to be part of the Left -- they would say something like this:
1. We don't really believe US citizenship is a big deal.
2. We think anyone should easily become a US citizen.
3. We don't really think borders are necessary.
4. We think anyone who crosses the border into the US should become a US citizen.
5. Most important to us is that we get more people on our side to vote against Trump and the Republicans. Period. Full stop.
I don't favor ending birthright citizenship by executive order or otherwise. Our birthrate has been below replacement for quite a while. If not for immigration, we'd be another graying, shrinking country like Japan and Italy.
But Trump's statement is not obviously false. Among developed countries, apparently only Canada has full birthright citizenship and it does not share a land border with a much poorer country where people are motivated to sneak across to obtain citizenship. The particular phenomenon that Trump is describing does appear to be unique to the U.S. Other countries like Australia, France, and Germany grant birthright citizenship only when at least one of the parents is a legal resident. Again, I don't favor the U.S. making that change, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.
The "85" years is funny. Not 84?
You know, if the Republican share of the Hispanic vote ever gets north of 60%, Democrats will be introducing bills demanding to build the Wall. Complete to land mines and machine guns.
It is ridiculous and it has to end.
@MarkW -- Unless my googling is wrong, many countries in the Americas have the birthright citizenship.
Mexico grants citizenship to "persons born in Mexican territory regardless of parents' nationality or immigration status in Mexico."
And like the U.S., Mexico does "share a land a land border with a much poorer country where people are motivated to sneak across to obtain citizenship": Guatemala.
The abuse of the 14th amendment is institutionalized now. We cannot possibly untangle the abuse because the abuse is part of the system and the pussy-crats of congress benefit from the abuse of the 14th amendment and we cannot possibly stop or end the abuse.
The caption contest sucks.
@MarkW -- on rereading I realize you qualified with "among developed countries"
Trump cares about the little guy.
The corrupt left and the good ol' boy right - they care about the elite.
The issue is not birthright citizenship, but the idea that the baby's citizenship confers automatic immigration rights to the whole family.
And there is a phalanx of law firms in D.C. making lots of money out of exploiting this idea. But an idea is all it is, and that a false one.
Australia and several other EU countries ended birthright citizenship either in the 90s or in the last decade.
So next time someone says that we should be more like them, tell them we should end birthright citizenship.
There is also the issue of the exploitation of surrogacy.
"Foreigners, particularly from China want American surrogates to carry their kids to reap the benefits of U.S. citizenship.
Illegal immigrants gave birth to 295,000 babies in the U.S. in 2013 according to Pew Research. Some prospective Chinese parents are attempting to use American surrogates to justify moving to the U.S. or getting cheaper college tuition.
A Chinese person wanted to hire five surrogates at once, an odd request which prompted New Jersey lawyer Melissa Brisman to turn down representing the would-be-parent according to The New York Times. Another foreigner that wanted to game the American surrogacy system, “wanted to keep two babies, and put the rest up for adoption,” according to surrogacy lawyer Andrew W. Vorzimer who spoke with The Times.
“He wanted to keep two babies, and put the rest up for adoption,” Vorzimer said of a client who requested a total of six embryos be put into American surrogates. “I said, ‘What, like the pick of the litter?,'” Vorzimer recalled asking his client while in shock at the request. “He said, ‘That’s right.’ I told him I wouldn’t work with him,” Vorzimer told The Times."
https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/07/american-surrogates-are-giving-birth-to-anchor-babies/
No; this is yet another case wherein Trump is trying to advance a policy that I would likely support (were it codified in sensible amendments to the U.S. Code via congressional legislation), but Trump is bungling it with his own lack of understanding and reckless rhetoric.
An article in The Atlantic points out that other countries do indeed have birthright citizenship:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-other-countries-trump/574453/
So yes; Trump's claim is wrong.
What is interesting about the article in The Atlantic is its pointing out other large Western nations with arguably more acute immigration problems than the U.S. has (France, New Zealand and Australia; while Ireland is another nation to do this) have done away with much of their past birthright citizenship legal frameworks. The U.S. could (and I would argue, should) do away with birthright citizenship as they have.
But Trump's toxicity, his radioactive Tweets and public statements, may scuttle the discussion.
Here's Trump: "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. [To end birthright citizenship, altering the term of the Fourteenth Amendment.] Guess what? You don't...You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
We have the Fourteenth Amendment, and a line of cases under that Amendment. And we have federal statutory law, particularly 8 USC Sec. 1401, that also addresses birthright citizenship. If Trump thinks an Executive Order can overcome all of that, it would be a very tricky, very advanced legal argument.* Trump hasn't done that; Trump couldn't possibly do that on his own.
No doubt the Althouse commentariat will go nuts, pointing out the media's excesses in trying to "other" and trying to obliterate any argument that birthright citizenship could be substantially altered via an act of Congress. I see the media doing that already. I strongly agree that there are credible legal arguments on both sides. This issue is not a slam-dunk, determined by a simple reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I like the issue; I just don't think that Trump is a competent advocate for it.
*On Laura Ingraham's Fox News Channel program last night, Andrew McCarthy (the subject of some recent favorable blogging by Ann Althouse on other matters related to Trumpism) made it clear that he thinks that if the President attempted to end birthright citizenship via an Executive Order, it would almost certainly be struck down by federal courts. But if it were done by an act of Congress, the revision "would have a chance."
I agree with Chuck to some extent. (some)
I don't think Trump is "toxic" - geeez - but Trump should do a much better job at articulating the problem and proposing the solution.
The fact that Trump is even bringing up the issue with the 14th amendment takes the kind of courage we don't see from the elite GOP leadership. Buncha spinless pussies.
I'm not so sure it would be struck down by federal courts.
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
having thought about this, for nearly a day and a half!
I've come to the firm conclusion that people DO NOT receive citizenship from being born in sanctuary cities (which have declared themselves NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States)
This might be the beginning of the end for Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjUvfZj-Fm0
via Lem's.
Mashup of beginning of the ends.
Shorter Chuck: "Trump has a great idea, but because it's Trump, I will reflexively oppose it and demand that the Democrats win, because how dare Trump get a victory on anything, ever! I don't care what happens to the country: as long as Trump loses, I'd surrender the whole place to China! Especially if the Chinese promised to execute Trump live on TV, they can put us all in chains! It's worth it!"
MikeR said...
No one seems to be discussing the actual issue. The problem here is birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. That may or may not be included in the language of the 14th Amendment, probably really is. But that is the issue, and that is probably what Trump meant.
So let me ask, How many countries in the world have that? It seems like a really dumb idea, mainly driven by poor wording in the amendment.
So you are making a good point.
Yes, I agree; as a nation, we need to address federal immigration law that confers citizenship on children born on U.S. soil, to illegal immigrants.
But there is also the issue of obstetrical tourism. Aliens who enter legally, on temporary visas, who are inside the borders of the U.S as legal aliens, who come to the U.S. to give birth and are essentially buying U.S. passports for those U.S. born children.
That too is an issue needing redress.
And so again I say that the purists' Fourteenth Amendment argument is insufficient, and we should look at Congressional legislation to cure it.
What the hell! Liberals are always saying (correctly) that the Second Amendment is not absolute. Some federal gun legislation is permitted by that Amendment. There are few if any absolute rights under the Constitution. There are certainly principles of personal rights and liberties; and the courts regularly uphold them.
But this really comes down to carefully-crafted federal legislation, and not some parlor-game absolutism.
rhhardin's video has CONVINCED me! This is the beginning of THE END!
{since history started at 12:00:01 this morning, this TRULY *IS* The beginning of the end! }
Vance said...
Shorter Chuck: "Trump has a great idea, but because it's Trump, I will reflexively oppose it and demand that the Democrats win, because how dare Trump get a victory on anything, ever! I don't care what happens to the country: as long as Trump loses, I'd surrender the whole place to China! Especially if the Chinese promised to execute Trump live on TV, they can put us all in chains! It's worth it!"
I just wrote that I DIDN'T oppose this idea. I LIKE THE IDEA.
Because I very much like the idea of amending birthright citizenship, I'd like to see competent advocates make the case. Trump is not a competent advocate.
Hold on. If it wasn't for Trump's radioactive Tweets and public statements, there wouldn't be any conversation about this issue. At least Trump is getting people to talk about it, and, let's not forget, most Democrats have been absolutely silent about this issue, knowing full well, most of their constituents probably back up ending this program.
The fools fall for it again and again. Trump adds a bit of hyperbole to a perfectly reasonable statement and the idiots in the print and electronic media repeat his statement endlessly, pointing out that in some particular it is wrong. But the normal people, the ones who are not viscerally anti-Trump because his election was akin to someone taking a whiz in their rice bowl, see the statement and say "You, know, Trump has a good point there."
Again. And again. And again.
AllenS, you and I seem to be thinking along similar lines.
Rh - Here is a link for everyone. Oh man, it's over. Bombshell. Turning point. Bombshell. Turning point. Bombshell. Turning point. It's over for Trump. The beginning of the end.
Big Mike, I think a whole lot of people are thinking along similar lines.
Here's some data to consider:
The number of illegal immigrants in the USA is around 11 Million and has essentially been level since 2007.
Everything that Trump is complaining about -- birthright citizenship, caravans from Guatemala -- is dwarfed by the reality that most illegal immigrants are long-term residents and border-crossings are net zero.
The point is not that we shouldn't have secure borders. The point is that all the shouting that supposedly makes illegal immigration a crisis that has to be solved with drastic measures, is complete invention.
It's not a crisis. It's a long term structural challenge. Long term structural challenges aren't solved with hysteria.
Right, Chuck. You like the idea in the abstract. But you will fight like Hell to prevent Trump from doing anything about it, because it's Trump. And under no circumstance ever will you let Trump do anything that might reflect well on him... he is the Great Satan, after all. As lots of NeverTrumper's have said lately, when you compare Trump and Hitler, we find that Hitler wasn't so bad--he was an artist and a book publisher, after all!
So yeah, you like the idea of ending birthright citizenship. But instead of cheering Trump on for bringing it up, you will side with the Democrats to kill it, bury it, and stick a stake through the heart, just to make sure Trump doesn't get a victory.
Because while the idea of ending birthright citizenship is attractive, it's less attractive to you than humiliating Trump and "beating him at any cost!"
Sure the sentence is literally true. But any fair reader would conclude that he meant to say the US is the only country that offers birthright citizenship. And if asked he would agree that is what he meant to be say.
AllenS said...
Hold on. If it wasn't for Trump's radioactive Tweets and public statements, there wouldn't be any conversation about this issue. At least Trump is getting people to talk about it, and, let's not forget, most Democrats have been absolutely silent about this issue, knowing full well, most of their constituents probably back up ending this program.
In that case, it would be a good thing for Republicans to make it an issue for major immigration reform. Press everyone in Congress to take a stand on it. Like health care reform or tax reform. Get some great, convincing, compelling national leadership talking about abuses of current immigration laws. If Democrats resist, make it an issue for 2020.
So one week before the election, Trump gets everyone talking and thinking about birthright citizenship. Now interesting facts are starting to be bandied about. Things like how some shockingly large percentage of births that have occurred in recent years on US soil are from illegal alien parents, what other countries actually have birthright citizenship and why, and what the 14th amendment actually says; it's history and the likely intent behind the words. People are learning things in order to make arguments one way or another. I think that's a good thing.
I don't know what will come of all this, but it's sure interesting. Will we end up with a 28th amendment that clarifies things? Most likley not, but it's not impossible.
"Trump is not a competent advocate."
Lulz. He's running circles around you and your fellow incompetent betas.
The 14th amendment is a loophole amendment.
It was written for a purpose that is no longer relevant in modern times and it is now a giant loophole for abuse. It is being abused but the elites in power are fine with that abuse.
Shame on them.
But this really comes down to carefully-crafted federal legislation, and not some parlor-game absolutism.
Liberals dismiss the intent of the 14th Amendment outright, calling it irrelevant. The text, the words, are all that matter. Language, words, are what we use to communicate meaning and intent. As we are all well aware, you can twist words, words meanings, to mean whatever you want...depending on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Intent and good faith interpretations mean something. Everything.
You want "carefully drafted legislation"? Lawyers/judges will drive a truck carrying anchor babies right through it, no matter how "carefully crafted".
Fuck Congress, Chuck. Trump needs to use that Executive Order, then tell the country: "Watch how your Representatives in Congress treat this issue".
Vance said...
Right, Chuck. You like the idea in the abstract. But you will fight like Hell to prevent Trump from doing anything about it, because it's Trump. And under no circumstance ever will you let Trump do anything that might reflect well on him... he is the Great Satan, after all. As lots of NeverTrumper's have said lately, when you compare Trump and Hitler, we find that Hitler wasn't so bad--he was an artist and a book publisher, after all!
So yeah, you like the idea of ending birthright citizenship. But instead of cheering Trump on for bringing it up, you will side with the Democrats to kill it, bury it, and stick a stake through the heart, just to make sure Trump doesn't get a victory.
Because while the idea of ending birthright citizenship is attractive, it's less attractive to you than humiliating Trump and "beating him at any cost!"
How much more clearly can I say it? I like the idea of amending birthright citizenship and I will support any serious idea to accomplish that.
An Executive Order, I submit, will not survive a federal court challenge. It is not a serious idea. Trump might think that the way to get the ball rolling, in terms of messaging and political momentum, is to talk about an Executive Order. But when Trump goes out and makes statements like he did, without running it by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and Chuck Grassley, then those guys are likely to react negatively and denounce it without having been made part of the thinking and the strategy. We saw that yesterday afternoon.
It is not a good way to get stuff done in terms of federal legislation. If Trump just wants to create stories where he is the center of attention, he can do that. If Trump wants to make lasting change in federal law, he needs to learn how to do that.
AllenS said...
Fuck Congress, Chuck. Trump needs to use that Executive Order, then tell the country: "Watch how your Representatives in Congress treat this issue".
And we conservatives protested, when Obama did the same thing with his own legal predilections on immigration. And tried to make law via Executive Order. Federal courts rightly slapped that down to a great extent.
You know, if the Republican share of the Hispanic vote ever gets north of 60%, Democrats will be introducing bills demanding to build the Wall. Complete to land mines and machine guns.
Nah; Democrats will just ridicule the Catholic religion to adopt abortion. It worked for other minorities.
Because there was no law behind his executive order
Trump is the best advocate there has ever been for ending birthright citizenship. Show me anyone else that can garner an immediate 35%+ support for it one day after bringing it up. No one else I've ever heard of.
As with most things Trump it forces a national conversation on things that need resolved. As he moves forward with it it will force national action. He is a leader. We are in a wilderness.
I consider him the best advocate the issue it has ever had.
In other words, 100% accurate.
God, I really should have expected this. You will excuse any blatant, nonsensical lie by Trump through any means necessary.
pacwest said...
Trump is the best advocate there has ever been for ending birthright citizenship. Show me anyone else that can garner an immediate 35%+ support for it one day after bringing it up. No one else I've ever heard of.
As with most things Trump it forces a national conversation on things that need resolved. As he moves forward with it it will force national action. He is a leader. We are in a wilderness.
I consider him the best advocate the issue it has ever had.
So will we see, with birthright citizenship, the same executive order success that Trump had in calling for a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"?
Will we see, with Congressional action on birthright citizenship, the same success that Trump had with health care reform? That old "replacement" for Obamacare? The one that Trump said would be "easy" because he is the great negotiator?
WE admit way to many people legally. The left want to increase that AND make sure illegal immigration is a constant flow.
Compared to which other country. From what you cited, Canada with a population less than a tenth of ours, admits a quarter of the immigrants we do. The numbers for Australia are probably similar to Canada.
Chuck, getting people to react negatively is part of "getting the ball rolling".
Thats what every political movement had done, ever. In the beginning there is always a solid wall, or at least a consensus, of opposition. But that is much better for the movement than indifference.
In opposing one has to commit to an argument of opposition. That is an opening for the initiator, as well as a commitment of interest by the opposition.
Henry said...
@MarkW -- Unless my googling is wrong, many countries in the Americas have the birthright citizenship.
Mexico grants citizenship to "persons born in Mexican territory regardless of parents' nationality or immigration status in Mexico."
In Mexico, like in many other countries, the law is just words, No one actually pays attention to what the law says. Like most other countries treat treaties. Take the climate treaties where everyone vows to reduce their CO2 emissions. Pretty much only the U.S. has done so, and we were never formal signatories. Lip service and virtue signaling for the rest of the world. And we've on'y done it due to fracking. Natural gas burns a lot cleaner than fuel oil.
Liberals dismiss the intent of the 14th Amendment outright, calling it irrelevant. The text, the words, are all that matter. Language, words, are what we use to communicate meaning and intent. As we are all well aware, you can twist words, words meanings, to mean whatever you want...depending on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Intent and good faith interpretations mean something. Everything.
This is precisely the judicial philosophy opposed by Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Roberts, all of whom are, to varying degrees, originalists. Originalists say that the right way to interpret the Constitution is to give the words of the text the public meaning they had at the time the provision was passed. That is, after all, what the States ratified.
On the one hand Trump puts originalists on the Court and touts his success at doing so. On the other hand he himself espouses the opposite school of Constitutional interpretation. This is incoherent, and it's the kind of thing that makes me wonder just how smart he is.
I suspect Trump understands he's being a hypocrite here, but he's trying to get his base to turn out for the election. He could accomplish the same purpose more directly, and without the hypocrisy, by immediately declassifying the FISA warrants. There's no question about his authority to do that. He doesn't even have to fire Mueller. Just proving that the whole Russiagate investigation was solely a product of a conspiracy between Clinton and her supporters at the FBI and in the Justice Department would be enough to discredit whatever Mueller comes up with. And it would fire up the Republican base.
Canada and Australia both have more rational immigration systems.
They select immigrants mainly on the basis of skills, plus an "investor" class.
They do also have refugee and family unification classes, but the proportions are much lower than those of the US.
Both also had (not so officially in Canadas case), "white" preference until very recently. About half our relatives migrated to Australia under that program, in the 1950s and 60s.
On the whole Canada and Australia get a higher category of immigrant than does the US. And the US gets a higher category than Europe does. If France could swap its Muslims and Africans for Mexicans, I think they would do so in a second.
It was written for a purpose that is no longer relevant in modern times and it is now a giant loophole for abuse. It is being abused but the elites in power are fine with that abuse.
One could make the same argument about the second amendment. That doesn't mean we can just ignore it.
And for the record, I have no problem amending the Constitution to modify birthright citizenship (my preference would be for possibly those on long term visas and definitely lawful permanent residents). But the way to fix it is with an amendment.
For a bunch of people who insist on strict original and textual interpretation of the Constitution, you sure are willing to throw out your principles when there is a clause in the Constitution you don't like.
Can Trump end birthright citizenship with an executive order?
Within the article is this:
You have to read the whole 14th Amendment. There’s a clause in the middle that people ignore or they misinterpret — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — ‘thereof’ meaning of the United States. What they’re saying is, if you’re born on US soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship. If you’re here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.
I read somewhere that birthright citizenship wasn't extended to illegal aliens until around the 1960's, and then by generous interpretation of the 14th amendment by various government agencies and not by any statute or judicial action.
I actually agree with Freder. An amendment is the way to go. I don't think it'd have much trouble passing with the required majorities among the people. The politicians is another story.
I wonder if Freder applies his strict textualist standards to the 10th or other amendments that would invalidate most of the leftist project of the last 100 years.
I kinda doubt it.
Unless at least the mother is a citizen (ideally, unambiguously the father, too), under the Twilight Amendment, the baby is under the jurisdiction of the mother, and could still be naturalized, if she chooses, at the age of majority.
generous interpretation of the 14th amendment
A liberal interpretation that deprecated the civil rights of Americans.
I wonder if Freder applies his strict textualist standards to the 10th or other amendments that would invalidate most of the leftist project of the last 100 years.
I kinda doubt it.
And you are right, I don't. But I never claimed to be a textualist or and originalist. But some times you can't escape the plain meaning and context of the text.
buwaya said...
Chuck, getting people to react negatively is part of "getting the ball rolling".
Thats what every political movement had done, ever. In the beginning there is always a solid wall, or at least a consensus, of opposition. But that is much better for the movement than indifference.
In opposing one has to commit to an argument of opposition. That is an opening for the initiator, as well as a commitment of interest by the opposition.
So, Step One is for the President of the United States to say something that is stupid and incorrect>?
@Freder:
I would recommend reading the link I posted or at least the excerpt which covers the "plain meaning and context of the text."
If the idea of birthright citizenship for the baby also conferring legal immigration rights to the parents and extended family is removed by simple legislation, there is no need to get into arguments about what the Constitution or the 14th Amendment does or does not say.
Heyboom. That is not what jurisdiction means. Ask any atty. There are two types of jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction -- does the court have jurisdiction over the person. The focus is on the ties between the person and the state where the court is located. Second there is subject matter jurisdiction. The question is whether the court has the authority to consider the matter at all. If there is not the court must dismiss the case. For example, fed courts typically cannot here cases brought under state law absent diversity - ie litigants are in different states. Citizenship is not a factor in the analysis.
The background to the enactment of the amendment is only relevant if the language is ambiguous. It is not. And of couse if the drafters wanted to limit its application to ex slaves they could and would have done so. They did not and the states ratified it as it is written.
The solution is an amendment to the constitution. The only solution.
Full article from which the excerpt was taken
It is written by Michael Anton, a lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College and a former national security official in the Trump administration.
"So will we see, with birthright citizenship, the same executive order success that Trump had in calling for a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"?"
Hopefully yes, although I doubt it will be that successful. I going to mangle the Reagan quote, but getting 70% is better than nothing.
Process, which seems to be your main bugaboo, broke down a while back. It's not a gentleman's game (if it ever was). I would prefer it to be different, but it's not.
I would recommend reading the link I posted or at least the excerpt which covers the "plain meaning and context of the text."
I don't put much stock in the musings of a person who was caught inserting a non-existent [or] into the official record and then tried to cover his ass.
I'd certainly be interested in a 28th Amendment that would clarify things. I could see something like a person only being a citizen if they were born of both parents being at least legal residents or at least one being a full citizen.
I wonder what most Americans would think of that. Is there a clear supermajority (like 67%) of Americans that think a child born of illegal aliens on US soil being a citizen is either a good or a bad idea?
Personally as time goes on I think our need for loads and loads of new low skilled or unskilled people is diminishing. Robotization is poised to drastically change the entire face of the labor market. And from what I understand, most Americans would like to keep our total immigration to below 1 million a year or so.
We're pretty much the only country in the world that has a bill of rights, so by deploralogic, it makes sense to shit-can that as well.
Chuck,
That is one way, isn't it?
And its worked. Now people are paying attention to something that has been, perhaps deliberately, ignored.
Part of why Trump does this sort of thing is that the US MSM is controlled and will not promote or investigate that which does not suit its agenda. Most of messaging control is suppression of that which does not suit the propaganda line. If the US MSM were something else then you would have something else, as you do in other countries where there is an ideological range in the MSM.
Trump is the principal way around the MSM block, on those matters that he chooses to raise anyway. Trump has a bully pulpit and uses it, quite often to create an echo like this, to raise howls of opposition - that still manage to get his points repeated. It is jui jitsu. If Trump said only carefully measured things the MSM would not get hysterical about, they would not repeat his message.
This is not new of course, as I mention above, this business of raising outrage in order to amplify the message is the very reason activists try to be outrageous. This is ancient.
The old right-wing, conservative press is largely a niche for hobbyists and in practical terms is entirely useless, and always has been.
heyboom said...
Full article from which the excerpt was taken
It is written by Michael Anton, a lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College and a former national security official in the Trump administration.
Everyone should thank you for that link.
Also: Anton was on NPR's "Morning Edition" program with host Steve Inskeep. And it wasn't so much of an interview as an argument, with Inskeep interrupting and simply disagreeing with Anton all the way. The intent became clear; Anton had been invited onto the program not to offer his viewpoint, but to be a punching bag for an NPR host.
It was one of the best examples yet of how a poised and articulate advocate for immigration reform can make the media look bad; not by bludgeoning them but by outthinking them.
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/662460141/former-trump-white-house-aide-on-ending-birthright-citizenship?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprprogramsmorningedition
n.n at 10:21 AM
the baby is under the jurisdiction of the mother
I think that this is a point that deserves more consideration.
An infant is not really "under the jurisdiction" of the state. An infant is not subjected to laws, taxation, conscription or other impositions of the state.
A day-old infant born of a foreign-tourist woman is not "under the jurisdiction" of the United States in a meaningful sense. The infant is under the jurisdiction of its mother.
@Freder:
"Covering his ass" or clearly stating his reason for doing so? IMO, his critics are deliberately twisting his intent.
Freder - the 2nd amendment is timeless and eternal.
Arguing on NPR is nice, but it doesn't get on the evening news, or repeated as an outrage on Facebook.
Chuck wrote:
"But Trump's toxicity, his radioactive Tweets and public statements, may scuttle the discussion."
What discussion was scuttled? No one was pushing this issue a year ago. Like it or not, we are talking about it today because Trump made it an issue.
I agree with McCarthy, chances are improved in the courts if it is Congress that acts, but you and I both know that isn't going to happen. As far as I can tell, Congress has been silent on this particular issue, illegal immigrants, all along, so it seems to me that it has always been the Executive Branch granting these citizenship rights and ancillary legal familial immigration rights since the 14th Amendment was passed. In such a state, the present Executive seems able to stop granting these rights until either Congress acts to reverse the EO, or the courts rule that the 14th Amendment says exactly what birthright citizenship proponents claims it says.
It is the adults that make the problem; not the babies.
Trump is getting shit done that the incompetent elites couldn't accomplish for forty years. Fuckers like Chuck should stick their heads in an oven. Gas, preferably, pilot off.
@steve uhr:
Here is how Senator Lyman Trumbull, a co-writer of the 14th amendment, explained the term "under the jurisdiction thereof":
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
old right-wing, conservative press is largely a niche for hobbyists and in practical terms is entirely useless
A known shortcoming of individual-oriented philosophies. However, it is a principle that mitigates progressive wickedness.
Like I wrote yesterday, the real issue is what does the 14th Amendment mean. Given the conditional nature of the granting of citizenship within the clauses, I think it almost 100% certain that the people writing the amendment did mean to exclude the children of people not within the countries borders legally, along with those children of people here legally, but not residents of the country- diplomats and people visiting, but planning to return to their own jurisdictions. It is possible that an EO would reach the Supreme Court so that we could get a decision as to the meaning of the 14th Amendment, right? This could mean several things- it could be that the decision is such that even Congress couldn't act to take away citizenship rights to the children of illegal immigrants, or it could say that the 14th Amendment doesn't deny Congress that power. This is an important question to have answered, I believe, and I also believe an EO might get the ball rolling
Chuck said: “So yes; Trump's claim is wrong.”
Please tell us which other country confers AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP to babies born in their country to non-US citizens.
Unless at least the mother is a citizen (ideally, unambiguously the father, too), under the Twilight Amendment, the baby is under the jurisdiction of the mother, and could still be naturalized, if she chooses, at the age of majority.
So in desperation, n.n. who would have children protected from the moment of conception, is arguing that children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. until the age of eighteen.
I guess even your pro-life convictions go out the window if it means denying dirty brown people citizenship.
buwaya said...
Arguing on NPR is nice, but it doesn't get on the evening news, or repeated as an outrage on Facebook.
So if it is sufficiently blunt, and attention-getting, no matter how dumb or how wrong, it is good for getting the attention of the masses..
Kevin said...
Chuck said: “So yes; Trump's claim is wrong.”
Please tell us which other country confers AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP to babies born in their country to non-US citizens.
WTF? Is this a trick question? No, I do not expect Brazil, or the United Kingdom or Switzerland to confer "American Citizenship" under any circumstances. Is that how TrumpWorld is making his statement something other than flatly incorrect?
The people who wrote the 14th Amendment were ensuring that the slaves brought here against their will and their children were properly recognized as citizens of the country in such a way that no state in the Union could deny them the rest of their rights as citizens. That was a worthy and practical goal, and the latter group, children born, could have been accomplished with the following phrase- "all people born within the borders of the United States are hereby citizens of the United States". They didn't write it that way- they were very careful exclude people and their children who were in the US, but were the subjects of another country. This surely includes people who are not in the country legally.
The slaves were brought here against their will.
The 14th amendment was written to protect them after emancipation.
How does that transfer into circa now - A woman from China wants her child to have dual US citizenship, so she uses the temporary visa loophole to give birth in America and *bingo lotto* her child has dual citizenship.
Yancey Ward said...
Like I wrote yesterday, the real issue is what does the 14th Amendment mean. Given the conditional nature of the granting of citizenship within the clauses, I think it almost 100% certain that the people writing the amendment did mean to exclude the children of people not within the countries borders legally, along with those children of people here legally, but not residents of the country- diplomats and people visiting, but planning to return to their own jurisdictions. It is possible that an EO would reach the Supreme Court so that we could get a decision as to the meaning of the 14th Amendment, right? This could mean several things- it could be that the decision is such that even Congress couldn't act to take away citizenship rights to the children of illegal immigrants, or it could say that the 14th Amendment doesn't deny Congress that power. This is an important question to have answered, I believe, and I also believe an EO might get the ball rolling
Then what about all of the federal statutory law concerning (the legally legitimized) birthright citizenship?
Start with 8 USC Sec 1401...
It's literally false but substantially true. We're the only country that's so attractive it's birthright citizenship law is likely/certain to be abused.
Heyboom. First of all the intent of one of the drafters is not relevant absent ambiguity. If he meant something other than what he wrote too bad. Second, it doesn't say complete jurisdiction. And Jurisdiction does not mean alligance. And why are you assuming the baby has alligance to some other country? He may not even be a citizen of any other country.
They didn't write it that way- they were very careful exclude people and their children who were in the US, but were the subjects of another country.
This is a nonsensical argument. A lot of people who are in the country legally, and even U.S. citizens, are also subjects of another country. Are you saying the amendment excludes from birthright citizenship the children of lawful permanent residents or those who carry dual (or even more) citizenship?
I myself am a naturalized U.S. citizen and birthright citizen of both the U.K. and Ireland. Would or should my children be denied U.S. citizenship?
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
The slaves were brought here against their will.
The 14th amendment was written to protect them after emancipation.
How does that transfer into circa now - A woman from China wants her child to have dual US citizenship, so she uses the temporary visa loophole to give birth in America and *bingo lotto* her child has dual citizenship.
I understand you point, but that is what the progressive left says about the Second Amendment. That it was enacted for purposes of satisfying the necessity of a "well-regulated militia."
What we are left with, is a general principle to guide the courts' interpretation of state and federal (federal, in the case of immigration) legislation.
I think it almost 100% certain that the people writing the amendment did mean to exclude the children of people not within the countries borders legally,
Except in 1869, the only people who were arguably in the country illegally, were those former slaves smuggled in after the U.S. banned international slave trade. And those persons were certainly covered by the amendment.
Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
The slaves were brought here against their will.
The 14th amendment was written to protect them after emancipation.
How does that transfer into circa now - A woman from China wants her child to have dual US citizenship, so she uses the temporary visa loophole to give birth in America and *bingo lotto* her child has dual citizenship.
This is identical logic train used by anti-2nd Amendment activists. The Flounders never imagined assault weapons, therefore, take away these rights with the stroke of a pen.
WTF? Is this a trick question? No, I do not expect Brazil, or the United Kingdom or Switzerland to confer "American Citizenship" under any circumstances. Is that how TrumpWorld is making his statement something other than flatly incorrect?
Then why don’t you read Trump’s statement again and tell us where it’s wrong:
"We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for eighty-five years with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end."
The first part of the statement is substantively true, subject to the ruling of the Supreme Court. No penumbras required to bypass Constitutional civil rights safeguards and progressive slopes.
Then why don’t you read Trump’s statement again and tell us where it’s wrong:
Okay, if you don't want to read it as wrong, then you must admit it is one of the stupidist statements made in the history of mankind.
Chuck,
Under modern circumstances, yes it is.
The alternative is for the right to purchase or start new MSM platforms.
Instapundit, for instance, long ago recommended that the Koch's money would be better spent by buying a few ladies magazines. Indeed, several large players have tried this, bidding for the LA Times for instance.
But that is financially a loser and the big money is on the liberal-left, and can always outbid the right. And since these MSM venues are losing enterprises they need a media entertainment business to make the cost bearable. And those are extremely expensive properties.
Political conflict is cultural conflict. And the law is ultimately just a cultural artifact.
Kevin said...
WTF? Is this a trick question? No, I do not expect Brazil, or the United Kingdom or Switzerland to confer "American Citizenship" under any circumstances. Is that how TrumpWorld is making his statement something other than flatly incorrect?
Then why don’t you read Trump’s statement again and tell us where it’s wrong:
"We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for eighty-five years with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end."
You are fucking kidding us, right?
Trump's statement is "true," because no other country in the world grants U.S. citizenship to babies born on their soil? No other country confers U.S. citizenhip for naturalized persons either. No other country confers U.S. citizenship at all; forget about it being birthright citizenship at all.
Is this going to be the next Sarah Huckabee Sanders presser? She's going to claim that Trump's statement was not wrong, because Trump was talking about other countries conferring U.S. citizenship?!?!?
Americans are expected to shoulder the burden for millions of legal immigrants, hundreds of thousands of illegal entrants, and 300,000+ a year of loophole immigrants.
Pay up, suckers, or the corruptocats will call you brown-skin hating racists.
Howard no - it's not the same argument at all.
The #2A covers arms. ALL ARMS. If the Founders had been referring to muskets they would have noted that somewhere. They didn’t.
Interesting thing is that this will also set off a national discussion of chain migration if Trump follows up as I expect him to.
The flood of people trying to cross our southern border we can expect in the near future that is caused in large part by the collapse of Venezuela is forcing this discussion as much as Trump. Like it or not, effective or not, the wall will get built. The optics of tens of thousands of refugees camped at the border will dictate it.
The Second Amendment is also a cultural artifact, and if enough people come to feel personally and culturally secure so as to lose interest in owning guns, then you could redefine it or do away with it.
Ultimately that is why Australia was able to confiscate most firearms. Australians trust Australians, mostly. Americans increasingly distrust Americans.
The left would love to repeal the 1st and 2nd amendments.
Normal people with thinking brains, want the 14th amendment altered to end loophole immigration.
Without public support there are any number of ways to rationalize laws to render the Second Amendment irrelevant.
It is largely irrelevant in California for instance.
"I'm not so sure it would be struck down by federal courts."
-- You don't think the same judges wouldn't like another smack at Trump? Pretty much anything Trump does that's controversial is probably going up the chain, because you'll find a sympathetic judge who hates Trump enough to not care (though in this case, I *do* think you need an amendment, not just a law.)
“In other words, 100% accurate.”
“God, I really should have expected this. You will excuse any blatant, nonsensical lie by Trump through any means necessary.”
Trump apologia.
And the First Amendment is irrelevant if a political side cannot obtain a "press" in any practical sense, through technological-business structures or regulation.
Matthew - I hear you. I guess I'm full of hope.
Okay, if you don't want to read it as wrong, then you must admit it is one of the stupidist statements made in the history of mankind.
Althouse’s post was about how the statement is true, yet proclaimed false by The New Yorker:
"The first part of this statement was a Trump truth—that is, a blatant falsehood."
Writes John Cassidy in "Donald Trump Launches Operation Midterms Diversion" (The New Yorker),
The blatant falsehood is that the statement isn’t true.
That people couldn’t wait to rush past that fact to throw down their links to predefined taking points says more about the country than it does Trump, particularly the media waving “truth dies in the darkness” at us.
Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
Howard no - it's not the same argument at all.
Of course it isn't, being female you are incapable of abstract thought.
Chuck,
I looked at that yesterday, none of that statute applies to the question at hand unless you accept that the 14th Amendment already grants the children of illegal immigrants citizenship rights- then in that case, the Amendment is enacted via Part (a) of that statute.
That is my point- the issue goes back to what is meant by "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Does this apply to illegal immigrants in the 14th Amendment, also, did Congress mean exactly what the 14th Amendment meant.
Again, I go to pains to point out the same thing- the statute uses basically the same language as the Amendment did in this regard- so what does it mean? The executives all along have been interpreting it one way, but was that correct?
"One could make the same argument about the second amendment."
-- In regards to the 14th amendment, I'm pretty sure there are no more slaves who need to be given citizenship today. In regards to the 2nd, I'm sure people still might need to defend themselves or others. So, one COULD make the same argument. It would just be a flawed one.
As fake as abortion barbie:
https://spectator.us/beto-orourkes-wife-billionaire/?fbclid=IwAR0lQtQF01KEbF26p7QtN-CraAxedRXgMfxokRJjdMIqWB5Vk-dYT4Bo394
Welcome to reality Chuck and Inga.
I will also point out the other examples in that statute that goes to great lengths to define the citizenship status based on the legal residency and/or citizenship status of at least one of the parents- none of which applies to the children of two illegal aliens.
I recall hearing the term “Imperial Presidency” during Obama’s terms. The Republican House even sued Obama in court over his immigration EO. Now Trumpists here applaud the blatant overreach of the Executive. What hypocrisy
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
The left would love to repeal the 1st and 2nd amendments.
Normal people with thinking brains, want the 14th amendment altered to end loophole immigration.
That was the argument that we conservatives made explicitly in the gay marriage fight. To wit: You all say that gay marriage is right, and is appropriate, and has broad popularity in the U.S. and around the world... Well, if that is so, then you should have no trouble I doing the hard work of Democracy which is to pass legislation, including a Constitutional amendment. So do it.
Personally, I am of the belief that the challengers of duly-enacted state laws defining marriage as one man and one woman needed to pass a U.S. Constitutional amendment if they wanted to strike down valid portions of states' constitutions. But I am not at all certain that we need a Constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. I think we could amend all of the relevant parts of the U.S. Code, and with a very careful record and a good legal team, we could prevail in the Supreme Court.
Welcome to reality Chuck and Inga.
They’re not going gently into that good night.
Hahaha, Trump just tweeted that Paul Ryan should (basically) keep his mouth shut regarding birthright citizenship.
It's not just Central Americans.
Last year a hospital in Secaucus was revealed to have been advertising maternity packages to women in Russia. In January, 20 "maternity hotels" catering to pregnant Chinese women were raided in Southern California.
Sleazy Americans institutions are effectively selling extra-legal citizenship to relatively wealthy people in countries where it's nice to have a second passport. I get why those people want this, but I don't get why we should let them have it.
Congress has avoided dealing with immigration for more than three decades. One result, noted a few weeks ago by Yale researchers, is that the number of undocumented US residents may be close to 22 million people, not 11 million as we have been told for 10 years or more. It's time to set a policy that we are willing to enforce. The policy terms are negotiable; the need is not.
If it takes a loudmouth like Donald Trump to start raising these matters at long long last, so be it.
Chuck:
"We have the Fourteenth Amendment, and a line of cases under that Amendment. And we have federal statutory law, particularly 8 USC Sec. 1401, that also addresses birthright citizenship. If Trump thinks an Executive Order can overcome all of that, it would be a very tricky, very advanced legal argument.* Trump hasn't done that; Trump couldn't possibly do that on his own."
***************
That "line of cases" you refer to does not include any HOLDING that points to birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. There are no cases "on point".
You ignore the planned colloquies by the framers of the 14th that specifically deny application of the birthright provision to foreigners and the children of diplomats, and who defined the meaning of "jurisdiction" under the amendment. (see heyboom above)
The statute you refer to simply repeats the language of the 14th:
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"
Whatever that statute purports to mean, it cannot conflict with or attempt to alter or supersede a Constitutional amendment.
You further ignore that the birthright has only been applied beginning in the 1960's, almost 100 years after adoption of the 14th. It was a policy decision made quietly and unilaterally by the Executive branch, not the result of legislation. Trump could unilaterally end that prior Executive branch policy.
And he goddamn well should.
Not to be lost in all of this are the costs, economic and social. Estimates are between 2 billion, and Trump's recently quoted 113 billion per year. From numbers I've been able to gather I'd put a conservative estimate at 50-70 billion. The civil costs are hard to estimate, but bringing in a large population of people with a 2nd grade education can't be good.
Birthright citizenship alone, when expanded to its maximum costs (to include the cost of parents and the cascade of chain migration) can be (highly imo) estimated to 50 billion.
"The browning of America". Can you guys argue anything without playing a race card?
Howard - nothing better than a progressive misogynist.
Bonus: See Matthew Salban's comment @ 11:46 for a complete take-down of your lame cliche'd argument about 2-A.
Still waiting for the local leftwing hivemind to explain to the class why it's a good idea to let women from around the world, who are pregnant, show up during the last trimester on a temporary visa in order for their children to gain US citizenship on our dime.
Yammering on about 2-A is a diversion from the topic.
I like those who purport to tell us about the plain text of the Constitution, yet cannot interpret the plain text of Trump’s statement.
Actually, there are a host of Republicans who are looking askance at Trump's thought he can do this via EO. Obama, received some pushback from the left-bloggingsphere, but the actual media and political left embraced the pen-and-phone method of presidenting.
Yancey Ward said...
Chuck,
I looked at that yesterday, none of that statute applies to the question at hand unless you accept that the 14th Amendment already grants the children of illegal immigrants citizenship rights- then in that case, the Amendment is enacted via Part (a) of that statute.
That is my point- the issue goes back to what is meant by "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Does this apply to illegal immigrants in the 14th Amendment, also, did Congress mean exactly what the 14th Amendment meant.
Again, I go to pains to point out the same thing- the statute uses basically the same language as the Amendment did in this regard- so what does it mean? The executives all along have been interpreting it one way, but was that correct?
So you are essentially arguing that 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 is and always was unconstitutional, and should now be ruled as such.
That is NEVER going to happen. Andy McCarthy knows it and has said so. It's a complete loser of an argument. It might get a lot of support on 4Chan, but it won't last a day in any federal court including the current US Supreme Court.
Kevin said...
I like those who purport to tell us about the plain text of the Constitution, yet cannot interpret the plain text of Trump’s statement.
So tell us what I got wrong, and what Trump really means.
oh noez. Paul Ryan, the left's new hero. Well, right after the leftwing lie-squad accused him of shoving granny over a cliff in a wheel chair.
K-street -to- Paul Ryan phone lines are rattling his desk.
I'm a libertarian entrepreneurial capitalist militarist gearhead. I just not afraid of people of color, the gay, the trans or women who want to work. However, it's not misogyny if it's true.
ooo now we are onto gay marriage. Keep changing the topic.
Extending citizen rights to non-citizens and non-permanent, legal residents, creates an incentive for immigration reform, and collateral damage at both ends of the bridge, in lieu of emigration reform.
I honestly think birthright citizenship wouldn't be bad, if the American government was willing to not do chain migration or to actually deport parents and have them bring their kids back with them. But, as usual, America's goodness is catching it in a problem between a noble belief ("anyone born here should have a chance to succeed!") against the harsh reality of finite resources and things like foreign pregnancy hotels (which I'd never heard of until this thread, so I doubt how widespread a problem they are).
It's a case, again, where we *should* be able to come to some reasonable middle ground, but I don't think we'll be able to do so.
"This is a nonsensical argument. A lot of people who are in the country legally, and even U.S. citizens, are also subjects of another country. Are you saying the amendment excludes from birthright citizenship the children of lawful permanent residents or those who carry dual (or even more) citizenship?
I myself am a naturalized U.S. citizen and birthright citizen of both the U.K. and Ireland. Would or should my children be denied U.S. citizenship?"
It is only nonsensical to the deliberately obtuse or ignoramuses, Freder. You are in the country legally, and have been granted naturalized citizenship, thus you children are also citizens. Literally nothing in my statement could rationally be read as denying that. In addition, legal permanent residents are also fully under the jurisdiction of the United States- it is a condition of getting a green card, so I would definitely agree that Congress could give birthright citizenship to the children of such people, but not necessarily required by the 14th Amendment- this is a question I consider to be open.
This is why I rarely address you- you are either too stupid or dishonest for actual engagement. That you could misread what I wrote that way is just mindboggling to me.
gay marriage
Civil unions for all consenting adults, not just transgender/homosexual couplets, or its political congruence ("=").
Jay Elink:
Then let's bet! Let's have a bet, that Trump cannot overturn birthright citizenship via Executive Order. (I expect that he won't even try, but I hope he does, so that I can win this bet.)
Here comes Inga to tearfully defend the rights of ISIS, MS-13, and every other lowlife scum to pour unchecked across the border to murder, rape, plunder and otherwise prey on Americans, unchecked and welcomed with open arms by the left, as long as these cretins vote Democrat.
That's all that matters to Inga and the rest. Unlimited immigration with a promise of unlimited benefits handed over to them, conditioned only on voting to keep Democrats in power!
What could possibly go wrong?
Trump's trial balloon to turn over the birthright citizenship helps to divert attention from the anti-Semitic talking points following the Tree of Life slaughter.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
ooo now we are onto gay marriage. Keep changing the topic.
The topic is amending the Constitution.
Democrat Senator Harry Reid in 1993: "No Sane Country" Would Permit Birthright Citizenship
Most anti-semitism in America flows from the left, not the right.
"So you are essentially arguing that 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 is and always was unconstitutional, and should now be ruled as such.
That is NEVER going to happen. Andy McCarthy knows it and has said so. It's a complete loser of an argument. It might get a lot of support on 4Chan, but it won't last a day in any federal court including the current US Supreme Court."
No, Chuck, I am not arguing that the statute is unconstitutional. What I am arguing is that the previous Executives' interpretation of it might be incorrect. Congress clearly wrote the statute to guide the Executive's enforcement of the Amendment. As such, I think Trump clearly has the power to issue an EO changing that interpretation, and that such an EO will force the other two branches to actually define the terms here in both the Amendment and the statute itself. I am arguing that, to date, no branch but the previous Executives have dealt with the question at hand.
Being in opposition to Israeli apartheid is not antisemitism. It is anti-Semitic to think so.
"The statement is completely wrong!!!!"
"Actually, the statement is true."
"Then the statement is tautological! It literally cant be wrong!!!! That's so dumb!!!!"
...why it's hard to argue politics with the emotionally-driven, exhibit 746.
"The topic is amending the Constitution"
Not advocating, or being snarky, but when did the topic of amending the Constitution last come up in any serious way? Are we having a serious discussion about it now? If so, what are the odds of that happening in today's political climate?
Not being a constitutional scholar I would like to know if a comprehensive immigration bill passed would it supercede the 14th if it did or didn't clarify the language?
Much of this is moot if the Dem's take the House imo. Trump will be neutered on domestic policy if that happens.
An interpretation of birthright citizenship that separates a baby from her ineligible mother and/or father.
We need to preserve American civil rights. We need to pursue a good neighbor policy that normalizes emigration reform, and qualifies the progress of immigration reform to mitigate the collateral damage at both ends of the bridge.
Immigration should not exceed the rate of assimilation and integration before Planned Parenthood (e.g. selective-child).
Yancey Ward said...
"So you are essentially arguing that 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 is and always was unconstitutional, and should now be ruled as such.
That is NEVER going to happen. Andy McCarthy knows it and has said so. It's a complete loser of an argument. It might get a lot of support on 4Chan, but it won't last a day in any federal court including the current US Supreme Court."
No, Chuck, I am not arguing that the statute is unconstitutional. What I am arguing is that the previous Executives' interpretation of it might be incorrect. Congress clearly wrote the statute to guide the Executive's enforcement of the Amendment. As such, I think Trump clearly has the power to issue an EO changing that interpretation, and that such an EO will force the other two branches to actually define the terms here in both the Amendment and the statute itself. I am arguing that, to date, no branch but the previous Executives have dealt with the question at hand.
Alright; having declared our terms, I must take you seriously and say that you are making an argument that is at least plausible. I think that when Trump was trying (and fumbling) to make the argument that you just made, it is an argument that was articulated to him by some advisors within the White House. Trump isn't a good choice to even try to repeat a legal argument that is spoon-fed to him, but at least I think that you are doing a much better job of articulating what a lawyer may have said to Trump.
And, I still think that it is a loser of an argument in reality. Time will tell. I am betting that no Trump EO will suffice.
And again for the umpteenth time; I like the basic issue and I don't think that a Constitutional amendment is needed. But meaningful Congressional legislation is needed.
“Trump's trial balloon to turn over the birthright citizenship helps to divert attention from the anti-Semitic talking points following the Tree of Life slaughter.”
Indeed it does. He is the master of diversion, not realizing that nobody but his followers are misdirected. No one on the left or middle will forget what/who prompted the shooter
"No one on the left or middle will forget what/who prompted the shooter"
-- Tell me who did; my understanding was he was racist.
Oh shut up.
The fucker who shot up the Jews hated Trump. He's one of yours, Inga.
Trump went to PA to show his respect and mourn those slain. and all he got was grief from the hate-filled D-press and the haters on the left.
Trump wasn't right-wing enough for Bowers, but he did at least provide Bowers with enough inflammatory rhetoric calling refugees violent rapist invaders to help him justify in his mind that the refugee aiding Tree of Life synagogue was guilty of a Capital crime.
LLR Chuck really misses his "magnificent" obama. He's like a sad puppy waiting by the door for his beloved possessor of a "phone and a pen" to return.
Alas.
Inga: I love it when you trigger the snowflake AKA Dickin bimbos in my dreams
Howard: "Trump wasn't right-wing enough for Bowers, but he did at least provide Bowers with enough inflammatory rhetoric calling refugees violent rapist invaders to help him justify in his mind that the
refugee aiding Tree of Life synagogue was guilty of a Capital crime."
Yes, I guess that really is all the left has left at this point.
#SadChuckFace
Howard - I love it when you inhale deeply.
Drago, I'm glad the kool-aide helps you sleep at night.
On the other hand, the Howards, Ingas and LLR Chucks are possibly the most potent campaign advantages the republicans have.
We wont know what LLR Chuck's "TruCon" Bill Kristol-type heroes think until after.they cash their checks from their big money democrat backers and receive todays left wing talking points.
“Trump wasn't right-wing enough for Bowers, but he did at least provide Bowers with enough inflammatory rhetoric calling refugees violent rapist invaders to help him justify in his mind that the refugee aiding Tree of Life synagogue was guilty of a Capital crime.”
That term “invaders” was being bandied about on rightist TV and rightist publications, aping Trump’s rhetoric for about a week before the shooter took action. Now Trump wants his followers to be distracted and energized by this birthright citizenship EO gambit. Chances are after the election the topic will be quietly dropped.
Howard: "Drago, I'm glad the kool-aide helps you sleep at night"
Actually, I picture you and Inga and LLR Chuck in front of your Maddow/Hodgkinson shrines and I always drift off peacefully.
Drago drowning in his own vomit, thinks it's Rocky Road Ice Cream
Inga is still reeling from having every single leader she described as the New Leader Of The Free World go immediately into tailspins!
LOL
“Trump went to PA to show his respect and mourn those slain. and all he got was grief from the hate-filled D-press and the haters on the left.”
He was requested not to come, yet he ignored the requests. Not one member of Congress went with him, good for them for respecting the wishes of the people of the city and Congregation.
Chuck,
If Trump issues the EO, it will be overturned within a week by a district court in the 9th Circuit. If the Administration then appeals, it will be upheld in sequence by the a panel in the 9th, the full 9th, and then by a panel of the DC Circuit and the full Circuit- that is me just recognizing the monolithic nature of the politics on the Left in this regard. Then it is up to SCOTUS. I can't predict what would happen then- it isn't clear to me that there is majority of the justices today that would uphold such an EO. The problem is that regardless of what the writers of the amendment meant to do with regards to illegal immigrants and their children, it has been interpreted one way for many decades, and the court may be justifiably unwilling to rule in such a way that changes that interpretation using its own authority. So, this is why I think McCarthy is correct- Congress acting to explicitly define the law in such a way that birthright citizenship of such people is eliminated is more likely to meet with SCOTUS approval, because then the court's conservatives could defer to the power of Congress.
Inga: "He was requested not to come, .."
By an Alexander Soros funded lefty group.
The Rabbi said Trump was always welcome, and he stated it quite forcefully and publicly.
Remember, lefty/LLR/feminist fav Linda Sarsour implores all of her fellow progressives to literally "not humanize" the jews.
Linda Sarsour.
Lefty heroine.
What do you get if you call the jews "termites"?
Lots of lefties taking smiling pics with you.
But in a "good way", no doubt.
Inga: "He was requested not to come, .."
By an Alexander Soros funded lefty group.
Which makes Inga a disingenuous pathetic partisan asshole dependent on a Media that withholds facts from the public. Like all Lefties. Trump has enough pro-Jewish credentials in his life to get him a giant statue in Jerusalem.
Thanks Chuck, Yancy, buwaya, and others for expanding the discussion. Interesting stuff. I see it is devolving into the poopy-head phase now. Thanks Inga.
"He was requited not to come?" Says who? Rachel maddow or Jimmjy Kimmel?
By whom? the lair-D press? Some radical leftists didn't want him to go? Oh and if he didn't go, you leftists would pound him for that. F off inga. You liar.
Pittsburgh Synagogue Rabbi: Donald Trump 'Certainly Welcome' Following Tree of Life Shooting
Trump says something.
The left runs around screaming and foaming at the mouth for days.
Trump says something else.
The left runs around screaming and foaming at the mouth for days.
Smart people would figure out they're being played.
The Rabbi said Trump was always welcome, and he stated it quite forcefully and publicly.
And is now receiving death threats for it from the loving and tolerant left.
On Trump's sentence- it is actually literally true. However, I think what Trump meant is partially false- the US isn't the only country that grants birthright citizenship. My main problem will calling the implied version totally false is this- do those other countries actually grant citizenship rights to the children of people who are in those countries illegally, or it is actually much more restricted to parents and children who are in those countries legally, for one purpose or another. In other words, I am questioning the actual nature of, for example, the birthright citizenship granted by Canada, for example- is it really the case that two people from Mexico could go to Canada illegally and have a Canadian citizen there? I haven't seen the argument supported one way or the other with actual citations from statutes.
I loved Trump borrowing the serpent staff from a little girl and pretending to put a hex on the Press at the White House Halloween over the weekend. The joy on her face was priceless.
Trump putting hexes on the press is a hate crime, Darrell. If Jake Tapper turns into a newt, expect an impeachment.
Yancey Ward said...
Chuck,
If Trump issues the EO, it will be overturned within a week by a district court in the 9th Circuit. If the Administration then appeals, it will be upheld in sequence by the a panel in the 9th, the full 9th, and then by a panel of the DC Circuit and the full Circuit- that is me just recognizing the monolithic nature of the politics on the Left in this regard. Then it is up to SCOTUS. I can't predict what would happen then- it isn't clear to me that there is majority of the justices today that would uphold such an EO. The problem is that regardless of what the writers of the amendment meant to do with regards to illegal immigrants and their children, it has been interpreted one way for many decades, and the court may be justifiably unwilling to rule in such a way that changes that interpretation using its own authority. So, this is why I think McCarthy is correct- Congress acting to explicitly define the law in such a way that birthright citizenship of such people is eliminated is more likely to meet with SCOTUS approval, because then the court's conservatives could defer to the power of Congress.
This is well-stated and I agree with it. None of us knows for sure, particularly when we are operating in the dark without an actual Order/Bill/Proposal to work off of. But this makes a lot of sense, and it is how I think about it.
That, and in the meantime there may be the matter of Trump's saying a lot of other dumb stuff of the kind that made the defense of his multiple travel ban re-writes so difficult for the administration's lawyers.
Over the years, living in leftwing lala land, I've experienced the leftwing Jew hate first hand.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा