The Hill writes:
Now, as the House majority appears to be slipping away from Republicans, Trump is suddenly lashing out at the Speaker.It's not as though the chance of winning has suddenly slipped away. We used to hear about the "Blue Wave," as if a big loss in the House were inevitable. The future is hazier now, the majority isn't "slipping away." The elections seem to be drifting toward something more like a tie, so I don't see the sense of saying Trump is "suddenly" reacting to a loss he sees coming. And Trump seems to be the last guy in the world to lurch into pessimism about an impending election.
Trump's political team has pointed to the high number of GOP retirements and poor fundraising totals among sleepy incumbents as the main source of the party’s troubles in the House. In the third quarter, 110 Democratic challengers outraised their Republican opponents.
GOP strategists said it was incredibly unhelpful to attack Ryan, which is further inflaming Republican tensions and knocking the party off message in the final stretch before the critical midterm elections.I don't know which Republicans talk to The Hill, but it looks like these are people who don't want the immigration issue at the forefront, which used to be just about all Republicans, didn't it? So their pitch to The Hill is that losing the House — which they are resigned about — will be Trump's fault, and his effort to push a big, powerful issue is only designed to shift the blame. I think it's more that he's built a big beautiful win-win for himself: Either his campaign choices worked or they failed because Republicans didn't align themselves strongly enough with him. And Republicans will be stuck with Trump's choice of issues whichever way the House goes. And we're already well into the 2020 campaign.
They also maintain it will be impossible for the president to escape blame, given that he has urged his supporters to envision him on the ballot this fall.
Posts
66 comments:
The Republicans will keep their House majority, and the elections will show that immigration issues are winning issues for Republicans.
The politicians, with the likely exception of Donald Trump, seem most guided by what their big money donors want. So in effect, we have an indirect oligarchy. The established big money is perfectly happy with the status quo, which is open borders to the south, for practical purposes. No surprise that the politicians of BOTH parties oppose Trump and normal Americans on immigration.
I see where Ann is now thinking like Scott Adams.
Ryan should have stayed quiet. Why pick a fight with POTUS unless his future employer told him to do so? I don’t think Paul will be living in Janesville - working at Lands End - in January.
This birthright citizenship issue needs to be resolved and here’s another way to bring it up to SCOTUS: find a birthright citizen in a state like Nebraska and charge him with the crime of voting illegally. Noncitizens can’t vote in federal elections. All but one of the federal judges in Nebraska are Republicans. My friend Judge Bob Rossiter, Jr. would issue a thoughtful opinion. Another advantage to this if that the president would be selecting the forum; not the ACLU. I’ve thought this should have been done years ago. In fact, the same method could be used in state court.
Panic time. The White men are coming...the White men are coming. It is as bad as when the Russians were coming.
The simple truth is, no other Republican President would have congress in position to hold the majority in both the House and the Senate. This mid-term will increase the Senate majority, and has turned the House race into a toss up. The only Republican that could have the Republican Party in this position, is President Donald, J. Trump. JEB! couldn't do it, Kaisch? hell no. Cruz? nope. Rubio? ha. Only President Trump. But make no mistake about it, every tweet the President puts out there is a mistake, as the professional politicians point out multiple times a day, or when ever a microphone gets within a hundred yards of them.
It's been about 3 years now, and the professional class has no clue as to what is happening and why. The infuriating part is, they have no desire to learn.
Paul Ryan should go home to Janesville and run for Parks Commissioner or something.
Nationally, though he is not a Republican, it is Donald J. Trump's Party.
"...in effect, we have an indirect oligarchy."
Gee...ya think?
This has obviously been the case for years.
If the house switches it will investigate Trimp's business interests around the world re conflicts of interest. Definitely not a win. Who is to blame is of no matter.
”If the house switches it will investigate Trimp's business interests around the world re conflicts of interest.”
Yeah, now there’s a winner for the country. {/sarc, in case you were wondering}
Brilliant "GOP strategists" keep telling us that illegal immigration is a dead loser for Republican presidential candidates, but it's the issue Prez Trump won on.
Historical comparison:
In 2010, after the Obamacare debacle, Obama got "shellacked" in the midterms, losing 63 seats in the House, although the Dems kept the Senate. (Eventually, the lost the Senate too in 2014)
This was significant because, in general, it it stopped all future legislation sponsored by Obama, and, in particular, thwarted various amnesty proposals by the Gang of 8 in the Senate. It did not however stop the appointment of judges to the federal bench. And it did not Obama from winning a 2nd term.
In 2018, if the House flips to the Dems, a similar dynamic will occur, with one exception. The tax cuts already passed will continue to fuel economic growth for Trump.
Robert Cook said...
"...in effect, we have an indirect oligarchy."
Gee...ya think?
This has obviously been the case for years.
Are you ready to fix it?
Very simple. Judges start nullifying federal actions they have to constitutional power to assert. Huge swaths of the Federal Govt violates the constitution. Return that power to the states, and K street starves. Leftist refuse to do the simple things. Easier to wail about dark money, than strip the power that attracts the money.
Paul Ryan, and a number of other Rinos, needs to be taken behind the woodshed and whipped thoroughly.
...and poor fundraising totals among sleepy incumbents as the main source of the party’s troubles in the House
If you used to be able to consider money as an indicator of interest in a politician, no more. Lefties have billions to blow by throwing money at the Betos of the world, to little effect.
I suspect this misunderstanding is why Nate et al could look stupid again come Wednesday.
Paul Ryan will work on K Street as a lobbyist, maybe as soon as January. He may go back to Jaynesville on the weekends.
The politicians, with the likely exception of Donald Trump, seem most guided by what their big money donors want. So in effect, we have an indirect oligarchy. The established big money is perfectly happy with the status quo, which is open borders to the south, for practical purposes. No surprise that the politicians of BOTH parties oppose Trump and normal Americans on immigration.
This is exactly right. And this is why Donald Trump got elected. The swamp still needs drained.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-and-horowitz-yes-trump-can-end-birthright-citizenship-for-children-of-illegal-immigrants-with-an-executive-order/
My method to bring this up is a harsh one and the Libs were really howl. The Meyers v. Nebraska case went up to SCOTUS based upon the crime of teaching German in a school near Hampton, Nebraska.
There are lots of raise to bring the birth-citizen issue to the courts. The most straight forward is to challenge the upcoming executive order. Wherever the case or cases are venued, the matter will wind its way to SCOTUS where the administration will be lucky if it gets two votes.
"Republicans will be stuck with Trump's choice of issues whichever way the House goes"
Right. Truism.
It would be bizarre if the Democrats didn’t take the House. And, as Steve Uhr points out, that victory will ensure Trump’s re-election. So, yeah, he’s in a solid win-win position.
Iowan2 observes: It's been about 3 years now, and the professional class has no clue as to what is happening and why. The infuriating part is, they have no desire to learn.
So true. Why would these GOP establishment types think Trump is less favored by the electorate than he was when elected? The GOPe has never wanted a big tent. They wanted the additional votes but not the additional agenda.
"Either his campaign choices worked or they failed because Republicans didn't align themselves strongly enough with him."
Correct.
David Begley said...
I see where Ann is now thinking like Scott Adams.
Ryan should have stayed quiet. Why pick a fight with POTUS unless his future employer told him to do so? I don’t think Paul will be living in Janesville - working at Lands End - in January.
This birthright citizenship issue needs to be resolved and here’s another way to bring it up to SCOTUS: find a birthright citizen in a state like Nebraska and charge him with the crime of voting illegally. Noncitizens can’t vote in federal elections. All but one of the federal judges in Nebraska are Republicans. My friend Judge Bob Rossiter, Jr. would issue a thoughtful opinion. Another advantage to this if that the president would be selecting the forum; not the ACLU. I’ve thought this should have been done years ago. In fact, the same method could be used in state court.
I cannot imagine a more sure-fire losing strategy. Even the smartest and best and most ardent proponents of ending birthright citizenship say that no serious person is proposing the retroactive revocation of legally-conferred U.S. citizenship.
Case in point; former Trump White House advisor on immigration Michael Anton, who faced a hostile interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep, who tried to attack Anton with the idea that many thousands of people could lose their citizenship under Anton's theories on reforming birthright citizenship. And Anton patiently explained that that is not a proposal and no one is seriously talking about it.
"Trump's attack on Ryan seen as advance scapegoating."
Doesn't Donald Trump know you need to take the prerequisite "Principles of Scapegoating" before "Advance Scapegoating"?
Dave Begley said...
My method to bring this up is a harsh one and the Libs were really howl. The Meyers v. Nebraska case went up to SCOTUS based upon the crime of teaching German in a school near Hampton, Nebraska.
You should lay off the Trump Koolaid for a while.
I truly don't know how you might think that Meyer [no "s"] v Nebraska would help the cause of sustaining a Trump executive order on birthright citizenship. Meyer was a 14th amendment case alright, but it was one of the cases that gave rise to the rapid growth of "substantive due process." I'd expect that aggrieved applicants and holders of birthright U.S. citizenship would cite Meyer v Nebraska for their side!
Is Meyer v Nebraska the one Nebraska 14th Amendment case that you knew? Is that why you mentioned it?
"seen as"
Any trope can be turned into news if the news is whatever someone else is seeing.
It's like buying advertising on the lowest-rated cable network and then touting your product "As seen on TV!"
find a birthright citizen in a state like Nebraska and charge him with the crime of voting illegally.
The media would love to run with another headline that Trump is trying to depress the non-white vote.
The professional (political) class certainly does have a clue.
They have been trying very hard to paddle against the populist current not because they don't understand it, but because they are opposed to it.
They have few options here, and they have used most of them. The total hostility of the MSM, the personalization of hatred on Trump, sabotage of Trump (through blackballing threats against potential appointees and political allies), made up investigations, investigation threats against administration personnel, and the Kavanaugh debacle, etc. and etc. Its been a novel spectacle, this state of total political war.
I suspect some cabal has even been working at manipulating the stock market, timed for the election.
The Hill writes:
Now, as the House majority appears to be slipping away from Republicans, Trump is suddenly lashing out at the Speaker.
The House majority slipped away this summer with the blue wave.
I suspect some cabal has even been working at manipulating the stock market, timed for the election.
'They' are going to have to get after it. Three trading days left, and what? More than half the votes have been cast? Even a big cabal, selling off trying to gain some media attention, seems like a loser on all fronts. Most voters don't follow the news, much, the Dow, less. Most of the votes already cast. Of the ones left to vote on election day, 47% of those are Republicans 49% dem and the rest independents. The traders not in on the conspiracy, keep their powder dry, buy on Tuesday late, and ride the rebound.
Ryan is owned by globalists and believes in globalism over nationalism. He has done little to try to save the House for Republicans and has only provided token support to Trump. Now that his days are short and he has no political clout, Trump was free to take him out.
Lifelong Cuck said "I cannot imagine a more sure-fire losing strategy."
If we listened to cunts like you, President Clinton would have rammed through her second Supreme Court nominee, taxes would be higher, and the deep state corruption and graft would be in overdrive.
Nobody gives a fuck about your incel pretend Republican opinion, and Trump and the real conservatives are going to keep winning. You will keep whining.
Chuck:
No, I cited Myers for the procedure of how the case got to SCOTUS, that is, a criminal case prosecuted in state court. The criminal case could be in federal court too. (I was also just miles from the site of the school and didn't visit it. Big mistake by me!)
The difficult issue would be whether a ruling holding that birthright citizenship extends to the children of illegals is prospective or retrospective. I think any holding should be prospective only. And for that reason the smarter way to go would be a case revoking the passport of an anchor baby.
The best test case would be to file a civil action testing a statute (rather than EO) clarifying what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.
Trump loves to stir the pot. A criminal case would do it.
And I laugh when the MSM says there is "no evidence of illegals voting." That's because no one really looks. There is no real data. I've seen the voter registration form and it is purely the "honor system." If I'm an illegal, I already don't care about the law. I would just falsely state on the form that I am a citizen and get registered. There is a big criminal case in NC prosecuting Dems for doing just that.
One of the reasons I left the Dem party is that it is just lawless. Totally lawless. It is all about power and identity politics. Shameful.
I think it's more that he's built a big beautiful win-win for himself …
I don’t think so. The Dems have gotten themselves, with help from the eGOP NeverTrumpers like Ryan, into a position where Trump wins no matter what. Trump had little to do with it other than now taking advantage of the Dems/eGOP NeverTrumpers’ own politically blind anti-Trump stumbling in the past 2 years since Trump’s victory.
By the way, readers, have you ever noticed that the MSM (including FoxNews) ALWAYS characterize Trump’s responses to attacks as an “attack” by Trump? Trump isn’t “lashing out” at Ryan … Trump is responding to an attack FROM Ryan. And giving Ryan some good advice as a bonus.
Finally, I predict the polls this election will be found to be as off as they were in 2016.
"I don't know which Republicans talk to The Hill,"
I don't know either but suspect it is the ones that don't like Trump (Sasse, et al).
Ryan never cared if the Republicans won or not. He did everything he could to sabotage Trump in 2016, and he's refused to do anything on Immigration or border security.
He constant talk about cutting social security and medicare didn't help either.
No, in 2018, he steps on Trump's message by issuing an ignorant opinion on Birthright Citizenship.
This will win him points with future Boss at Goldman Sachs and/o K street.
Trump claims Ryan knows nothing on an issue yet adopts his position on the issue.
Flake is attacking Trump on Birthright Citizenship and Corker is doing the same.
That's always been the trouble with the R's. No party discipline.
Name ONE D Senator that has acted like Flake, Corker, or Murokowski?
Only the R's have "Mavericks"
Remember Cantor? He didn't even serve out his term.
Boom, directly to Wall Street for the pay-off.
"Trump's attack on Ryan seen as advance scapegoating."
I see it as well deserved and long overdue. Ryan needs to be gone.
Yeah, he can go get rich now given he's already sold his soul.
So their pitch to The Hill is that losing the House — which they are resigned about — will be Trump's fault, and his effort to push a big, powerful issue is only designed to shift the blame.
But will they lose the House? Open borders may be popular with the sort of country club Republicans who want cheap, undocumented labor to mow their lawns and provide maid service. The working class men and women who came out to vote for Trump two years ago know why it is that they didn’t see real wage growth during eight years of Obama and why their kids can’t get summer jobs.
The last gasps of the uniparty.
Immigration was destined to destroy them. All the money in the world can buy traitors like Paul Ryan.
But it can’t overcome the fact that wages are growing faster than inflation for the first time in decades.
They failed when Trump won the primary and gave voters a real choice.
GOP strategists said it was incredibly unhelpful to attack Ryan, which is further inflaming Republican tensions and knocking the party off message in the final stretch before the critical midterm elections.
Unfair to attack Ryan?! Ryan is useless & has been for a long time.
I don't think Ryan has "sold out". I don't think Ryan is "set against Trump". I think Ryan is a perhaps a man who got in way over his head, or is suffering from depression, or maybe a substance abuse problem. Compare the Ryan of today with the Veep candidate he was with Romney, & even in that short time, the energy level has dropped considerably.
Ryan is, for whatever reason, a broken man. I wish him & his family only the best, but he needs to be somewhere other than wielding the Speaker's gavel in the House, both for the sake of his Party & his Country.
Paul Ryan was the Beto O’Rourke of the GOP for a long time.
Like Beto, he married a woman from a wealthy family. Like Beto, he’ll be out of office in a few months.
Beto and Ryan should form a lobbying firm together. They would do well.
They can call it Kept Men Consultants.
Time for Ryan to cash in from all the guys whose water he carried the last 20 years. Trump is Ryan’s legacy as much as he is Obama’s and W’s legacy. Trump is all of their legacies.
Dave Begley said...
Chuck:
No, I cited Myers for the procedure of how the case got to SCOTUS, that is, a criminal case prosecuted in state court. The criminal case could be in federal court too. (I was also just miles from the site of the school and didn't visit it. Big mistake by me!)
The difficult issue would be whether a ruling holding that birthright citizenship extends to the children of illegals is prospective or retrospective. I think any holding should be prospective only. And for that reason the smarter way to go would be a case revoking the passport of an anchor baby.
The best test case would be to file a civil action testing a statute (rather than EO) clarifying what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.
Trump loves to stir the pot. A criminal case would do it.
And I laugh when the MSM says there is "no evidence of illegals voting." That's because no one really looks. There is no real data. I've seen the voter registration form and it is purely the "honor system." If I'm an illegal, I already don't care about the law. I would just falsely state on the form that I am a citizen and get registered. There is a big criminal case in NC prosecuting Dems for doing just that.
One of the reasons I left the Dem party is that it is just lawless. Totally lawless. It is all about power and identity politics. Shameful.
So this process you are talking about; "What should we do about immigration and birthright citizenship? Should we make changes prospectively only? Or should we make it retrospective? What is the best mix of policies?
We have a name for that process. It is called legislation. Federal courts make rulings on whether laws or executive actions are unconstitutional or are in conflict with other federal laws. And since there are a whole flock of federal laws in the United States Code that deal with immigration under the broad presumption that birthright citizenship exists (rightly or wrongly), it is not at all likely that any federal court will summarily reverse the entire concept of birthright citizenship based on a new and different interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
As for the media's take on voting fraud, their usual nonsense is that there is virtually no in-person voter fraud. That is to say, people trying to impersonate others or vote twice. Which, as we agree, is an uninformative stat for a couple of reasons. One is that nobody gets prosecuted, because nobody is really policing it and when they are, there aren't a lot of prosecutions. Another is that we aren't even really looking at the issue of voter registration, and the issue of whether non-citizens or other ineligible persons are registering and not getting caught.
I'd have liked it if we had continued with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, but the White House shelved it for no reason that I understood. Still, the Commission was ridiculed in the press because it was reported to be in furtherance of Trump's own nutball claims that he would have won the popular vote but for widespread voter fraud, and that there were "millions" of fraudulent votes. That was a Trumpesque butchery of our legitimate concerns.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
Lifelong Cuck said "I cannot imagine a more sure-fire losing strategy."
If we listened to cunts like you, President Clinton would have rammed through her second Supreme Court nominee, taxes would be higher, and the deep state corruption and graft would be in overdrive.
Nobody gives a fuck about your incel pretend Republican opinion, and Trump and the real conservatives are going to keep winning. You will keep whining.
******************
I'm with Chuck on this one.
If the US government has *treated* "anchor babies" as citizens for the past fifty years, then that's a problem for the US government; when such people grow to voting age they are doing NOTHING wrong by voting. If they apply for a driver's license, passport or Social Security number, they can do so by offering utterly truthful information. So David Begley should also advise us what statutes those "anchor babies" violated by voting.
Suddenly treating a couple of million people as non-citizens would be a political disaster, and would likely violate prohibition of "ex post facto" laws. Begley's scheme, which predicts that Republican judges would ensure a result favorable to the POTUS, would only increase American cynicism regarding a hyper-politicized judiciary.
As Mark Levin has said, it is laughable to claim that the POTUS cannot countermand a policy decision made by the Executive branch bureaucracy. But it would likely take legislation to ensure that "anchor babies" born before the order are "grandfathered in" as citizens, while those born after it are not.
And btw: I can't remember where I saw it reported, but our crack State Department has for some time been issuing US passports to the American-born children of British diplomats, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment. The passport application form does not require parents to provide evidence of "their* American citizenship, only a US government-issued ID, such as a driver's license, when requesting a passport for their child (who needs only a birth certificate).
Clearly, our somnolent bureaucrats don't give a crap about actually enforcing the law, which is how we got into this situation in the first place.
The top echelons of both parties answer to small groups of the big donors and the employers of their families in D.C., and who are also the ones that will employ Paul Ryan after January. These groups of big donors/employers are far more aligned politically with each other than with the base voters of either party. This is why the Republican Party has, for years, given lip service to more strict border control, for example, while doing everything in their power to ensure that the border control never really changes.
Paul Ryan was simply doing what his future employers want him to do when he criticized the proposed change in birthright citizenship- he is in no danger of losing an election any longer, but is in danger of losing millions of dollars as a lobbyist/consultant. Trump is pointing that out to the discomfort of pundits in D.C.
If the house switches it will investigate Trimp's business interests around the world re conflicts of interest.
Gee. And here I thought the House was supposed to propose legislation and pass a budget and stuff.
Republicans are going to win both the house and the senate, remember 2016.
dreams said...
Republicans are going to win both the house and the senate, remember 2016.
Hey, I remember 2016! Right after 2015, and immediately before 2017.
The RCP final average for polls in 2016 predicted the national vote for Hillary as approximately a +3.2% spread for Clinton. And the final result was a +2.1% spread for Clinton.
Before the 2016 general election, Republicans held a 54-seat majority in the Senate and a 59-seat majority in the House. The 2016 election saw the Trump-led Republicans lose 6 seats of that majority. In the Senate, the Trump-led Republicans lost 2 seats from the 54-seat majority they enjoyed in the 114th Congress.
Now, what were you meaning to tell us about 2016?
"...Republicans held a 54-seat majority in the Senate and a 59-seat majority in the House...."
Sorry, that's awkward Congress-speak on my part.
The House Republicans' majority was +59 seats. (246 to 187.)
The Senate Republicans' majority was a total of 54 seats. (54 to 44 with 2 independents on the Dems' side.)
Chuck said...
Now, what were you meaning to tell us about 2016?
I said Republicans would win the Presidency and the House.
You said democrats were going to win.
I was right. You were wrong.
In a few days Republicans are going to hold the house.
I will be right again. You will be wrong again.
And Republicans will be around 60 seats in the senate.
Both Cantwell and Hutchinson are running ads in Washington State. The Washington State Senate race is close. Much closer than people think.
rcocean said...
Flake is attacking Trump on Birthright Citizenship and Corker is doing the same.
That's always been the trouble with the R's. No party discipline.
Name ONE D Senator that has acted like Flake, Corker, or Murokowski?
Only the R's have "Mavericks"
There is no reason for the democrats to "Go Maverick." They get elected and are paid to do their part.
The Republicans are paid big money to "Go Maverick." The globalists reward their little traitor lick spittles like Paul Ryan and Jim Corker well. Jeff Flake and his friends are out for one reason. They were going to lose their primaries.
Badly.
We are casting the traitors out. It is a fair trade losing the 20 or so neocons and picking up the working class and a fair fraction of black and hispanic voters.
Achilles, these are the facts.
~ The national polls weren't wrong in 2016. They predicted a narrow majority for Clinton, and that is what she got. What caught everyone by surprise was the way that Donald Trump's election campaign pulled off a kind of electoral college "inside straight," with ultra-narrow wins in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
~ The Republicans already held the House in 2016. They LOST House seats in the November 2016 election, with Trump at the top of the ticket. They lost 6 seats, from their big majority. Now, after two years of Trump, the entire large House majority looks to be lost. With a booming economy, having passed a big tax cut, and with no great international crises, the Republicans still look to be facing a big loss of seats.
~ The Republicans also held the Senate in 2016. With 54 seats. They lost 2 seats in the 2016 election, with Trump at the top of the ticket. 2018 is a very favorable map for Republicans. They might pick up a couple of seats, or they might lose a couple of seats. Getting to 60 seats is something that no serious person would predict.
Because, you see, Trump is so toxic. Americans in swing districts and suburbs that are so critical to narrowly-drawn House districts are fearful of Trump's excesses, and disgusted by Trump's base, which is typified by you.
You are telling us all that (1) Republicans will hold the House, and (2) Republicans will get to 60 seats in the Senate. Fine. Wonderful. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's have two bets. One bet on whether the Republicans hold the house. If the Republicans hold the house, I'll owe you a $100 bottle of whatever you want. If the Republicans lose the House, you will owe me a $100 bottle of whatever I want.
Same terms as to a bet on the Senate. If the Republicans win 60 or more seats in the 116th Congress, I will owe you a $100 bottle of whatever you want. And if the Republicans win 59 or fewer seats, you will owe me a $100 bottle of whatever I want. (Both bets can be settled with me just as Yancey Ward did, via a purchase at a secured-site market in the Detroit suburb of Royal Oak.)
Think of what fun election night will be, when you and I have a couple of good bets riding on the outcome.
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck,
National polls are meaningless when national popular vote is not determinate.
The House is 435 individual races.
Republicans could win 218 individual races with 51% each, and the Democrats could win 217 individual races with 99% each.
Guess what. Republicans would still control the House.
Donald Trump is not the devil.
He is...
The devil's advocate.
And a very good devil's advocate is he.
He specializes in coming out in favor of positions that nobdy else will (because they are largely WRONG, morally, legally or factually, that, however, nobody is willing and able to argue against, but, at the same time. none of his oppoents are willing to endorse, because they are, again, WRONG, morally, legally or factually.
David Begley said
The difficult issue would be whether a ruling holding that birthright citizenship extends to the children of illegals is prospective or retrospective. I think any holding should be prospective only. And for that reason the smarter way to go would be a case revoking the passport of an anchor baby.
You are the lawyer but doesn't the baby of illegals become a natural born citizen simply because of precedent and lack of objection? There is currently nothing forbidding that baby from being a natural born citizen.
So, I think what you want to do is remove the baby's citizenship though perhaps you are arguing that they never actually had it.
I looked really deeply into this but it has been about 20 years so I may be missing something or there may be new case law. It is my understanding that there are no circumstances under which a citizen by birth can have their citizenship revoked. No circumstances whatever.
Where citizens have lost their US citizenship it has been because they surrendered it voluntarily. Two case on point are:
Afroyim v Rusk (Rusk was Sec State). Afroyim was born in Poland, emigrated to the US in the 1906 and became a naturalized US citizen. In 1949 he emigrated to Israel.
When he tried to come back to the US, he was denied entry, being told his citizenship was revoked because he had voted in an Israeli election.
The Supremes held that there was nothing in the Constitution permitting the govt to remove citizenship legally acquired.
Nishakawa, born in the US of Japanese parents served in the Japanese army during WWII and had his citizenship revoked for doing so. Again, the Supremes found that the govt had no authority to remove his citizenship
There was also a case in the 60s, name I forget, of a man born in the US (Legally, I think but I also don't think it mattered) who also had Mexican citizenship because of his father. He wanted to go to school in Mexico but had to renounce his US citizenship to do so. I forget exactly why. He followed all the steps required by US law then some years later realized he had made a mistake and tried to get back his US citizenship. The State dept fought him and lost. They recognized his US citizenship and allowed him in.
All the cases I am aware of involved naturalized citizens who committed fraud to enter the US or gain citizenship. Like National Socialist prison guards. Even then I think there is generally a 5 yr (?) statute of limitations in most cases.
It may have been a mistake to grant those children of illegals birthright citizenship but there was certainly nothing illegal or unconstitutional about doing so.
So David, are you aware of any precedent to allow revocation of citizenship?
Any cases where citizenship was revoked?
John Henry
This birthright citizenship strikes particularly close to home for me. My wife, children and grandchildren were all born in Puerto Rico. By statute, "the United States" is defined for citizenship purposes as the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI and northern Marianas. (But not Swain Islanders or Samoans who are "nationals but not citizens" of the US)
Thus anyone born in PR has the same citizenship as anyone born in Nebraska, Wisconsin, NY etc.
Congress could change the law tomorrow but it could not affect anyone currently a citizen.
The open question is what happens under independence. Congress could not revoke our citizenship. But if we stayed, becoming citizens of Puerto Rico, would we be considered to have renounced our US citizenship? If we stayed and voted? If we stayed and got elected to office?
Nobody knows but that has not stopped billions of words of blather from being pontificated by politicians.
John Henry
And for that reason the smarter way to go would be a case revoking the passport of an anchor baby.
David,
Are you conflating passports with citizenship? We have plenty of citizens without passports. We don't need one if we stay in the US.
We have non-citizens, principally Samoans and Swain Islanders (how many of you have ever heard of Swain's Island before?) who hold US passports.
So they don't necessarily go together.
That baby is unlikely to have a passport anyway to be revoked.
I suspect you are talking about citizenship but it is not clear.
Also, in order to revoke the baby's citizenship, would not one have to first admit that the baby IS a citizen?
John Henry
We agree that the mother who is here illegally has committed a crime.
Has the baby?
If not, what possible grounds could there be for revoking their citizenship?
John Henry
I think it's possible that the conventional wisdom that a President loses seats in Congress in the next election will prove to be wrong. The President loses seats because he doesn't carry out his promises. But Trump has kept many, many of his promises, especially those on the Supreme Court and on the economy. He promised to get manufacturing jobs back; he promised a tax cut; he promised to end unfair trade deals; he promised to crush ISIS; he promised to approve the pipelines; he promised to leave the climate treaty. Most Presidents wouldn't promise anything that bold - not even one of them. But he promised and did them. Also North Korea is negotiating and end to the war and NATO is paying.
He lost a few rounds to the swamp critters. That shows he needs supporters in Congress. The caravan is supposed to make him look bad but it will show that we need a wall.
To me it seems that the attitude is the same among the mediacrats in 2018 as it was among Hillary supporters in 2016 - namely, it is enough to say Trump is everything bad, in order to win. That did not work for Hillary. Why would it work now? And now people are better off. Do you think they attribute that to the Democrats? To the people who made Resist (giving the people jobs, tax cuts) their slogan? The tax cuts are supposedly crumbs - but the Democrats are going to repeal the tax cuts and snatch away those crumbs. In Wisconsin property taxes have stayed law, no gas tax, no tuition increases, jobs, jobs, jobs, $1000 bonuses for signing up for job, $1000 bonuses from corporations, extremely good jobs down at Foxconn and the Federal tax cuts. All these "crumbs" add up to a nice little loaf and the SnatchingDems will snatch it all and send it to #GobbleItGovernment. Who wants that?
One further clarification on Puerto Rico:
Prior to 1898 Puerto Ricans were citizens of Spain. In 1917, the US naturalized all Puerto Ricans unless they opted out. My father in law became a citizen this way, without even knowing it living back up in the hills as he did.
In 1942 the law was changed making PR "the United States" for citizenship purposes. So anyone born after that has the same status as someone born in Wisconsin as I explained above.
The status of those born between 1917 and 1942 is up in the air. Are they natural born citizens or naturalized citizens. Not many of them left and, unless they decide to run for the presidency it is meaningless. Still an interesting question to ponder on those nights when I lie awake trying to sleep.
John Henry
LLR Chuck: "Now, what were you meaning to tell us about 2016?"
That you and all your dem-funded "TruCons" and your lefty allies were wrong.
Obviously.
And it caused you to expose your inner racist and willingness to attack children.
Or, as I like to call it, another day ending in "y".
Most actual voters who vote Rep are Tea Party and/or Trump voters, NOT GOPe (establishment elites) voters. Those Reps who are campaigning with highlights on immigration and the GREAT economy, are most likely to win.
I'm pretty sure the non-winners who don't highlight immigration will be called losers.
Unfortunately for those who want immigration reform to hugely reduce the illegals, many (most?) incumbents will be re-elected without much immigration basis.
The Rep pro-life, pro-capitalism, pro-growth, pro-America (First!) Party is soon to be dominated by Trump Reps. Which is not as nice for me as Tea Party folks, but more likely to win. And even GOPe winners remain much less bad than Dem winners.
Post a Comment