Key sentence: "The precariousness of the Democrats’ position in the coming decade hit home for me after reading 'The 2026 Midterms Are Critical. But 2032 Could Be Existential,' a March 24 essay that Steve Schale, a Democratic strategist based in Florida posted on The Bulwark."
I have no gift links left to give on this, the last day of the month, but even if I did, I wouldn't use one for this. Just go read Schale's piece at The Bulwark. It's not paywalled. Or don't even do that. The big point is just that the 2030 census is going to be very tough on the Democrats. Secondary point that you can sketch out for yourself: The Democrats haven't found a way to make themselves appealing to the American voters Trump figured out how to reach. And the one thing they do know, they can't get it together to do: Just be normal.
I have no gift links left to give on this, the last day of the month, but even if I did, I wouldn't use one for this. Just go read Schale's piece at The Bulwark. It's not paywalled. Or don't even do that. The big point is just that the 2030 census is going to be very tough on the Democrats. Secondary point that you can sketch out for yourself: The Democrats haven't found a way to make themselves appealing to the American voters Trump figured out how to reach. And the one thing they do know, they can't get it together to do: Just be normal.
Hey, I already had a tag for "2032 elections." It had one other post, from last August. And it made the same point Thomas Edsall was harping on today: The 2030 census will hit the Dems badly. Here's my old post: "Wait, people are leaving blue democrat-run states, and moving to republican-run red states? Perhaps the Democratic Party needs to look at the reasons why."
Posts
121 comments:
What will they do when Trump's stature, like Truman's, grows over time so that in 10-20 years he's remembered as one of American's greatest presidents? If they remain true to form, they will pretend they were pro-Trump all along.
Just be normal.
Are you claiming that Trump is "normal", and that accounts for his appeal?
Are you claiming that Trump is "normal", and that accounts for his appeal?
I think it means normal policies, not people.
Isn't there a chance that blue-state residents flooding red states will start to turn red states blue?
"Wait, people are leaving blue democrat-run states, and moving to republican-run red states?"
The locusts hath eaten their harvest. Verily, be warned they shall feast on thine.
The Democrats haven't found a way to make themselves appealing to the American voters Trump figured out how to reach.
All they have to do is read Butler by Salena Zito (use Althouse’s Amazon Portal).
I think it means normal policies, not people.
Are you claiming that his policies "normal"?
CJinPA said...Isn't there a chance that blue-state residents flooding red states will start to turn red states blue?
That's what happened to CO, and it will happen in other states if they don't wise up and teach these newcomers a thing or two. (Remember Glenn Reynold's Welcome Wagon idea--that still needs to be implemented.
Freder, are you this clueless or do you just pretend to be on Althouse? Are you really a righty just having fun at lefties' expense?
Democrats still haven’t internalized the fact that Donald Trump will never run for public office again; so they need something else to run on besides “Orange Man Bad”. If Vance becomes president, then by the time he leaves office Democrat revenge and retribution themes will be old hat.
Freder Frederson said...Are you claiming that his policies "normal"?
Yes.
test
Frederson says. "Are you claiming that Trump is "normal", and that accounts for his appeal?"
A surprising number of Trump's positions strike a majority of Americans as common sense. It might be a useful exercise to consider which those are, rather than rail against the man.
“What will they do when Trump's stature, like Truman's, grows over time so that in 10-20 years he's remembered as one of American's greatest presidents?”
They’ll say he was a Democrat:
https://www.thecollegefix.com/public-universitys-plaque-labels-president-lincoln-a-democrat/
Normal, as in not marrying your brother, getting a NAZI death’s head tattoo, sleeping with Chinese intelligence agents, hanging out with P Diddy, getting offended by the words “swinging dick” but not the act of putting swinging dicks in front of women, complaining about the exposure of medicaid fraud, or blaming the victim of a gang initiation shooting for being in the wrong place and scaring the shooter.
The left win with hate mongering and cheating.
De-coded: MOR Illegals!
The 2020 census would have been very hard on Democrats and resulted in a stronger red majority. The convenient COVID-19 lockdowns resulted in weak field work, unchanging estimates, and a blue state boost.
The 2020 election...sigh...
@Fredo Frederson, Trump is not normal — no one who purdues the Presidency is. But he gets normals in way that way too few politicians do. For instance he gets why normal people don’t want perverts like you entering their teenaged daughters’ locker rooms and waving your submicroscopic dick in their daughters’ faces.
They gamed the census that year
Freder ignores that Trump's policies are basically Mainstream D policies from the Bill Clinton era, way back in the 1990's. Pretty normal policies to most people, even those who did not vote for Clinton for other reasons.
Tomorrow, Trump's executive order changing the normal (at least as it has been understood for the last 150 years) definition of birthright citizenship will be argued at the Supreme Court. Trump has started a law completely without any consultation with Congress, and continues to claim that making war is his prerogative and his alone.
I could go on if you like.
"started a war" Oops.
tim maguire said...
I guess there's a period in which blue-state transplants boost a red state's population/clout/electoral votes without tipping it purple/blue. A sweet spot.
Not sure how to prevent an inevitable change. The Welcome Wagon idea, essentially explaining to newcomers why the place they’re moving to is doing better than the place they left, is better than silence. But probably wouldn't have much impact.
Must be hard to be so wrong about everything Freder. You don’t even know what the SCOTUS agreed to hear regarding “birthright citizenship.” You just know if Trump is fer it then yer agin it.
Trump offers us the best opportunity to abort the war with Iraq... sequester an even longer conflict with Iran. Progress or improvement? Time will tell.
To start, the modern practice and term were birthed in the Immigration Act of 1965, not even close to 150 years ago.
It's incorrect to assume the Progressive Democrats don't have any faith just because they're mostly atheists. They have a lot of faith. They have faith in their message, their platform. But underpinning all of these, in times of political adversity such as these, at times when it seems difficult to hope, they still have a great deal of faith, a lake full to the brim, faith that through whatever adversity presents itself, there's a way to cheat their way to victory, and then, domination. When it comes to winning, Democrats will find a way to cheat that makes it a sure thing.
I would like to nominate the word “existential” to the 2026 Banished Words List.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
So what did Wong Kim Ark establish 100+ years ago Freder?
Whiskeybum: How about “literally existential”?
Many blue staters who leave vote red.
To start, the modern practice and term were birthed in the Immigration Act of 1965, not even close to 150 years ago.
You start with a completely untrue statement. The 1965 immigration law had absolutely nothing to do with birthright citizenship.
it's funny to conceptualize it as "the 2030 census will be very tough" when really (assuming the census is accurate) the problem is that America is tough for Democrats--that it looks like Dems will be out of step with what the American people want. That's not a problem with the census, nor of Americans!
Surely Democrats believe in the democratic principle that the people ought to determine how they are governed--if so then being "tough on Dems" in that sense is a marker of democratic strength!
“ "started a war" Oops.”
That is fairly ignorant. You defined starting a war however you wanted, then accuse Trump of violating your leftist defined norms. We aren’t at war, because Congress didn’t declare war. He is merely exercising his Article II CinC powers to use the military forces that he commands. A practice 225 years old, practiced by probably a majority of Presidents, including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Barack Hussein Obama II. This is somehow (D)ifferent. It’s not. He didn’t start your “war”. The Iranians did 49 years ago. And he did consult with Congress, in accordance with the (probably unconstitutional for overreach) War Powers Resolution/Act.
Next?
Regarding birthright citizenship and “normal”, here too, Democrats aren’t. The Democrats position isn’t that we should keep doing what has been in the past. Democrats want to normalize anyone crossing our border. Step foot in the country and you will be given a CDL and voter registration, unless your a kid from Cuba. Sure, they don’t want to necessarily give everyone “citizenship”, because then they would demand hire wages. But Democrats want foreigners anchored to the United States, so they can vote in the next election, no ID required.
Democrats want to normalize anyone crossing our border. Step foot in the country and you will be given a CDL and voter registration, unless your a kid from Cuba.
A bullshit strawman. Name one Democrat who thinks undocumented immigrants should be allowed to vote. That is just a lie perpetrated by the right.
And again, your argument has absolutely zero to do with whether or not someone born in this country (with very limited exceptions like the children of diplomats) is a citizen.
Relatives of mine came back from touring western Washington and Oregon. Raved about this wonderful small city they'd found. Lots of traditional architecture and businesses and parks, etc.
Then one said "If we move there, we can help push them to be more progressive!"
I had no words.
Since we don't know what the world will be like 4.5 years from now. Or who will be running for POTUS, I'll skip the victory celebration over the D's defeat.
The D's on winning on open borders because the R's wont get outraged and fight. And primary the DC Senate Republican traitors. But then they can't get upset about anything other guns and the stock market.
@Freder: A bullshit strawman. Name one Democrat who thinks undocumented immigrants should be allowed to vote. That is just a lie perpetrated by the right.
A 10-second search and I found this. Expand the "supporters" section. Two academics and one commentator support it.
https://ballotpedia.org/Arguments_for_and_against_laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States
"Just go read Schale's piece at The Bulwark."
Ummm. How about if I just slam a car door on my left hand?
That is fairly ignorant. You defined starting a war however you wanted, then accuse Trump of violating your leftist defined norms.
So we are only at war when the president says we at war and Congress formally declares war? Reread the Declaration. One of the grievances is that "He [George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
A 10-second search and I found this. Expand the "supporters" section. Two academics and one commentator support it.
Bullshit again. You are equating legal, documented immigrants with undocumented immigrants.
Name one Democrat who thinks undocumented immigrants should be allowed to vote.
How about three states that allow them to vote? California, Maryland, and Vermont.
Trump is certainly unique, but his policies are ProAmerican and normal and just about everyone knows it. That’s why Democrats, Communists, etc., spend all their time and energy ranting about Trump. It’s the “Orange Man Bad” strategy because defending their own policies is a tough sell: the USA sucks and should be like Europe, criminals and illegal aliens come first, dicks should be swinging in women’s sports and changing/rest rooms, no proof of citizenship and ID needed to vote, we want to take from those who earned it to give to those who didn’t, but to whom we prefer. When the Orange Man is gone, it's going to be really tough using that same playbook against Rubio or Vance. “Weird” fizzled out.
@Freder -- You continue to miss the point about legal vs. illegal immigration. See the numerous left references to "There are no illegal people."
Those who believe in global citizenship do not accept any restrictive immigration law at all. Per logical coherence, everyone in a given location can vote.
Here's my old post: "Wait, people are leaving blue democrat-run states, and moving to republican-run red states? Perhaps the Democratic Party needs to look at the reasons why."
The reason why is because Democrat policies aren't designed to benefit normal Americans. And this is because the people running the Party hate normal Americans. And they're not going to hide that hatred until they get thumped a couple more times
“ We aren’t at war, because Congress didn’t declare war. He is merely exercising his Article II CinC powers to use the military forces that he commands.“
What does “Declaring War” mean? A Declaration of War is a joint resolution of Congress. A piece of paper. Nothing more. It does have some external ramifications, such as making us subject to the Geneva Convention. We Declared War for WW II, because we wanted our military personnel captured on the battlefield treated humanely (Germany and Italy most did, but Japan often did not). And in return, we treated theirs humanely (we, of course, almost always did). In Vietnam, etc, they weren’t going to do so. They also often didn’t wear appropriate uniforms to identify them. Ditto with Iran, from past experience. Civil warfare, by European rules, doesn’t work when non-European powers are fighting each other.
Yes, Trump is splitting legal hairs here. He is doing what his attorneys tell him to do. But the Constitution is a legal document, since Marbury v Madison, interpreted by the.Supreme Court, composed entirely of lawyers, in recent centuries. Limiting the President’s Article II CinC power, as the Dems insist here, by Congress’ Article I Declaring War power would be a Separation of Powers issue. Longstanding precedent says that SCOTUS should interpret the Constitution to avoid that sort of issue. That means that Trump would very likely win this in the Supreme Court, by at least a 6-3 margin. Possibly even 9-0, though I think 7-2 is more likely.
"and continues to claim that making war is his prerogative and his alone."
To act as if precedent by other Presidents hasn't been set is to be purposefully ignorant.
Even Ruy Teixeira has given up.
Democrats can't BE normal because they are NOT normal. They are all (D)eviants of one sort or another. Deviancy from the norm defines their identities. They can no more become normal than a fish could decide to start breathing air instead of water. They are who they are.
Those who believe in global citizenship do not accept any restrictive immigration law at all. Per logical coherence, everyone in a given location can vote.
Nice strawman there. The number of people in the U.S. who hold this opinion is vanishingly small.
And you, probably deliberately, misunderstand what people mean when they say "there are no illegal people".
The 2032 census will hit the Dems badly.
Just look at the old white people making up the No Kings rally. They already have one foot in the grave.
We know the parties are swapping voters, with blue-collar voters moving right and white-collar moving left. But what's been lost in the media's reporting is the Dems are losing the youth vote in exchange for the support of elderly Boomers.
The Democrats are building a coalition of the dying.
“ How about three states that allow them to vote? California, Maryland, and Vermont.”
In state level elections. But not in federal level elections.
Freder Frederson said...
I think it means normal policies, not people.
Are you claiming that his policies "normal"?
Yes, Freder
1: Stop Iran from getting nukes
2: Don't pander to terrorists
3: Deport illegals
4: Don't let illegals in
5: Oppose DEI
6: Drill baby drill
7: Require photo ID in order to vote
8: Stop foreigners from robbing Americans
Are all Trump policies, and they are all "normal", in that there's a majority / strong plurality of Americans who support every single one of those policies.
And the Democrat politicians, not the voters, the politicians, are opposed to every single one of them.
JD Vance or Ron DeSantis could happily support all those policies, and push them. The Democrat core would react to them the exact same way they react to Trump, because for them it's about policies.
But people who are simply repulsed by Trump's style aren't going to react the same way when someone else is pushing the policies.
The only outstanding question is where the people who love Trump's style will still get out and vote for his policies when he isn't on the ballot
How about three states that allow them to vote? California, Maryland, and Vermont.
Who do you mean by "them". If you are referring to undocumented immigrants, well then, you are simply lying. And even those states that do allow noncitizens to vote, the right is restricted to very limited elections (mostly local elections for things like school board).
Freder Frederson said...
And you, probably deliberately, misunderstand what people mean when they say "there are no illegal people".
Then tell us exactly and precisely what you lunatics mean when you babble that bullshit.
Because for those of us who do not believe in "one global society", it appears to be a clear rejection of the very concept of US citizenship being a meaningful thing that grants rights and privileges to its holders that those who do not hold it do not get, and do not deserve
“ And you, probably deliberately, misunderstand what people mean when they say "there are no illegal people".”
They are trying to split hairs, and are losing. “Illegal Aliens” is a legal term of art. They are aliens who are here illegally. They don’t have legal visas. They aren’t “Undocumented Workers”, or in some other category TDS addled Dems make up. They are Illegal Aliens, which many here just abbreviate to “Illegals”.
CJinPA said...
Isn't there a chance that blue-state residents flooding red states will start to turn red states blue?
People who are leaving for a lower cost of living, but who are too stupid to figure out that the policies they've been voting for are the cause of the higher cost of living they're fleeing, also appear to be going to States like WA, OR, CO, that are hospitable to their current beliefs.
The ones going to TX & FL, unless moved there by their jobs, appear to be going to those states because they want to the right wing politics along with the cost of living.
The old definition was "a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested." Most of the movers to GOP States were "mugged"
Freder Frederson said...
Tomorrow, Trump's executive order changing the normal (at least as it has been understood for the last 150 years) definition of birthright citizenship will be argued at the Supreme Court
1: Wong Kim Ark was written by the Plessey Court, and voted for by the Plessey Majority. That's the "separate but equal" ruling, for you ignorant lefties
2: It was decided in 1898, which means it was less than 130 years ago, not 150
3: The Indian Citizenship Act wasn't passed into the 1920s. it's been barely 100 years since Indians born on a Reservation, or born off the Reservation to parents who were part of a tribe, got US Citizenship at birth
4: The rule in the 25 years following the ratification of the 14th Amendment was that children of tourists in the. US did NOT get US citizenship. The people pushing birthright citizenship have not provided even a single example of such a person getting US citizenship.
Trump's position here is both normal, and correct
The big point is just that the 2030 census is going to be very tough on the Democrats
Does this analysis account for the illegals Democrats hoped to foster in blue districts until then?
Freder Frederson said...
"started a war" Oops.
No, Iran started the war when they invaded the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
--- Isn't there a chance that blue-state residents flooding red states will start to turn red states blue?
That's what happened to CO, and it will happen in other states if they don't wise up and teach these newcomers a thing or two.
It's a different dynamic altogether.
Colorado was among the most libertarian states before the government-worshipping authoritarian left-wing locusts took it over. It therefore had legal marijuana a decade before the rest of the country, which was wildly attractive to the more lazy and worthless (i.e. leftist) sort of youth. Plus it has a lot of outdoor recreational opportunities and natural beauty, and a well-developed culture of music festivals and such. Young liberal people migrated there in vast numbers, including many from places that were previously swing states (Ohio, Florida, Missouri, etc.) and are now firmly conservative.
I think the opposite is more likely to be true when we are speaking of what is now happening in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada. A great assortment is taking place, and the refugees fleeing from Democrat squalor and misrule tend to be in the more conservative and prosperous demographics of their left-wing shitholes. They will leave the dying left-wing shitholes even more left-wing and even more apt to collapse altogether, while making their new homes in the Sun Belt even more conservative and wealthy.
The Dems' dream of turning Texas into a liberal stronghold is gone for a generation, even if this gay pseudo-Christian ekes out a narrow victory for one term in the Senate on the back of Trump fatigue. Florida will never vote Democrat again, and Nevada and Arizona are well on the way from purple to pink.
Together with the reapportionment coming with the 2030 Census, and the collapsing birth rate that is hitting leftist households far harder than right-wing families, the Democrats are going to be utterly destroyed in the 2030s and 2040s. This is why they flung open our borders to any Third World flotsam and jetsam who could find their way here, and now openly admit that they care far more about the well-being of illegal aliens and other criminals than they do about law-abiding tax-paying American citizens.
That's going to accelerate their death spiral, though, as even pious leftists tire of the squalor, disorder, extortionate taxes, and outright thievery that characterizes government under the Democrats.
And once Republicans have a solid majority in Congress in 2031, and hopefully a stout Republican president like Vance, there will be electoral reform that will kick the Democrats even harder while they're down. Everyone knows full well that 10-20% of their vote totals in the swing states are fraudulent, and when that goes away, they will be a regional rump party of no more consequence than the Libertarians.
It will be glorious.
The 1965 immigration law had absolutely nothing to do with birthright citizenship. FF
Except for the tiny detail that it never applied to aliens here illegally until after 1965. If you make the extraordinary claim it was recognized and accepted prior to the '65 Immigration Act then you should offer proof. I'll just tuck Ted Kennedy's statements to that effect in my pocket until they are needed, say, to reel you back in.
“And you, probably deliberately, misunderstand what people mean when they say "there are no illegal people".“
It means: “no human is illegal” which means Democrats, Progressives and Socialists like Freder believe in neither law nor order (save for orders handed down to them from the Central Committee).
Freder Frederson said...
A bullshit strawman. Name one Democrat who thinks undocumented immigrants should be allowed to vote. That is just a lie perpetrated by the right.
Every single Democrat complaining about the possibility of ICE showing up at polling locations is demanding that illegals be allowed to vote.
Because otherwise there's not reason to be bothered by ICE showing up at polling places.
MN Democrats back when they had the trifecta voted to give illegals drivers licenses, voted down the amendment that would have required that non-US Citizen drivers licenses would contain the words "not to be used for voting", and then voted to automatically register to vote EVERYONE who got a driver's license.
The only lie is the lie that Democrats do not want illegal voting by non-US citizens
Eight million illegal aliens, non-citizens, voted in California's election in 2020. Everyone who gets a drivers license in CA also is registered to vote. There is no verification. CA state law prohibits voting site volunteers from asking about citizenship.
All these rules exist so that FF can use them as a claim that the honor system is working just fine. No new laws needed.
Pretending to not understand common terms is one way FF uses to avoid the actual facts at discussion. It's a common leftist technique to sabotage debate.
Wong was the son of legal residents, green card holders, in CA. An inconvenient fact for Freder. Greg the Traitor provided much needed context too.
Folks, you don’t argue with Fredo — you laugh at him.
But for the record, every politician who does not support the SAVE act is supporting voting by illegal immigrants.
Oh, bullshit. Democrats are unscrupulous criminals.They will cheat their way back in starting with obstructing deportation.
Eight million illegal aliens, non-citizens, voted in California's election in 2020.
Complete and utter bullshit. There are about 11 million foreign born residents of California. From your telling, 75% are there illegally, and in addition, they all voted (even the children) in the 2020 election, which would be one hell of a turnout.
The 2032 census is the real reason for Democrat’s lust for open borders. Any resulting illegal votes are just an added benefit.
Sympathetic as I am to the Democrats’ desire to impeach and remove Trump, Democrats are doing the best they can to drive me away by pretty much approving of this war and the constant appeasement of Netanyahu. They are still focused on pushing through the same agenda that lost them the election.
Pretending to not understand common terms is one way FF uses to avoid the actual facts at discussion.
Sorry but when it comes to birthright citizenship, Trump is the one who is torturing common terms:
"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."
Trump is arguing that somehow illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.". Again utter bullshit. Non-citizens, whether they are here legally or not, are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Unlike diplomats, they can be deported, arrested and convicted for crimes, and be sentenced by U.S. and local courts.
The rule in the 25 years following the ratification of the 14th Amendment was that children of tourists in the. US did NOT get US citizenship.
I don't know whether this is true or not, and really don't have the time to carefully research it (because I am certain if I Google it I will get a lot of results of questionable provenance). But really, how many foreign "tourists" were there who gave birth while they were visiting the U.S. Other than Mexico and Canada, almost everyone rich enough to visit the U.S. would have spent at least a month just to get here (and home again). I doubt many pregnant women made that grueling journey unless they had no intention of returning to their country of origin. And of course, the only hurdle to immigration (until the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed) was a cursory examination to weed out the mentally defective and those with contagious diseases.
I really don't care either way if we end birthright citizenship. But if you want to get rid of it, it should be by amending the Constitution, not Executive Order.
“Are you claiming that Trump is "normal", and that accounts for his appeal?”
How could you possibly think that? Do I need to spell out why being normal could be a way to reach the people who were attracted by the unusual phenomenon that was Trump? I’m not going to bother with that. Figure it out for yourself.
"there are no illegal people".
Well, Freder. What do they mean?
Sanctuary policies are an assertion that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction. If a state cooperates with Federal enforcement in every instance except illegal immigration, they have carved out a class of people who they think are not subject to US laws.
Who do you mean by "them".
Well, I quoted you, so you provided the term: "Name one Democrat who thinks undocumented immigrants should be allowed to vote."
Those states are Democrat run, so many of them voted in the laws. In California, it is illegal to ask for documentation of the person voting, thus everyone voting may be undocumented. Trump and most Republicans want to change that law, but Democrats oppose it with the argument that it is too difficult to get documentation. In other words, Democrats seem to consider most people undocumented and that becoming documented is an excessive burden to apply for voting.
I really don't care either way if we end birthright citizenship.
Sure you don't loser.
"CJinPA said...
Isn't there a chance that blue-state residents flooding red states will start to turn red states blue?"
That's what happened to Oregon.
That's what happened to Oregon, Maine, Washington, Virginia, Arizona, etc etc
Its a risk so far it hasnt manifested here the saner sort has settled here
Do I need to spell out why being normal could be a way to reach the people who were attracted by the unusual phenomenon that was Trump?
Yes, you do. Trump has violated every political norm there is (or was). Yet, you somehow believe that the way that Democrats can win some of their appeal back is to be more normal.
Are you referring to transgender athletes or transgender people using the "wrong" bathroom? Or maybe that Democrats shouldn't advocate for illegals to vote or be allowed due process. The first is just a "problem" that has been blown way out of proportion by the right (we are talking about less, probably a lot less, than 1% of the entire population). The second is just bullshit made up by the right to vilify people they consider evil and un-American. If you believe that then you are not reading the comments in your very own blog.
Heck, you've got Mike in this very thread claiming that 8 million illegals voted in California in 2020. That ridiculous statement is laughable in its stupidity, as I pointed out.
Freder Frederson said...
Me: The rule in the 25 years following the ratification of the 14th Amendment was that children of tourists in the. US did NOT get US citizenship.
I don't know whether this is true or not, and really don't have the time to carefully research it (because I am certain if I Google it I will get a lot of results of questionable provenance).
You don't have to carefully google it, you could just look for it in the filings for the case with SCOTUS. Spoiler: you won't find any
But really, how many foreign "tourists" were there who gave birth while they were visiting the U.S. Other than Mexico and Canada, almost everyone rich enough to visit the U.S. would have spent at least a month just to get here (and home again). I doubt many pregnant women made that grueling journey unless they had no intention of returning to their country of origin.
So close, and yet so far.
Yep, long travel times from Europe mean that if they came to the US, they stayed a long time. For example, Charles Dickens visited the US twice:
1842, with his wife, for ~5 months
~1867, for ~6 months
If his wife had been 2 months pregnant before they climbed on the boat for the 1 month trip to the US (IOW, may not have even known for sure she was pregnant), she'd have been at 8 months by the time they were planning on going back.
In which case, they would have stayed, and had the kid here, rather than have it on the boat going back.
Probably less than 100 such babies over the 25 years after the 14th was ratified.
But NONE of them became US citizens. because mommy and daddy were NOT "under the jurisdiction of the US".
Which is also why children of Indian tribe members who were born off the Reservation did not become US citizens until the Indian Citizenship Act was passed in the 1920s.
Because Trump is right, and you're full of shit.
Every single Democrat complaining about the possibility of ICE showing up at polling locations is demanding that illegals be allowed to vote.
So you are dismissing the possibility that legitimate citizens may be concerned, and intimidated by the possibility, that they will be singled out by ICE just because they don't look like "real" Americans? DHS has already stated that they consider racial profiling appropriate when they are deciding who to ask for papers, and at least one Supreme Court justice has no problem with that.
Probably less than 100 such babies over the 25 years after the 14th was ratified.
And pointing out that rich European tourists weren't interested in American citizenship for their children helps your argument how?
Which is also why children of Indian tribe members who were born off the Reservation did not become US citizens until the Indian Citizenship Act was passed in the 1920s.
Again, how Indians were considered subhuman savages (just like enslaved Blacks before the Civil War) not worthy of American citizenship (unless they were "tamed") hardly advances your argument either.
a "problem" that has been blown way out of proportion by the right
Out of proportion? A few years ago, it seemed that every elite female athlete competing in every high-level women's sporting event (or at least those that depend on a stopwatch or scoreboard rather than a panel of judges) was likely to be shoved off the podium by a mentally-ill man.
There's still a non-zero likelihood that the deranged Democrats will get back in power and force this lunacy down everyone's throats again.
LOL Spicy comments today....congrats to *most* of you keeping your punches above the belt.
A few years ago, it seemed that every elite female athlete competing in every high-level women's sporting event (or at least those that depend on a stopwatch or scoreboard rather than a panel of judges) was likely to be shoved off the podium by a mentally-ill man.
Provide me with half a dozen names and the sports the competed in. You are simply making shit up From the link: " NCAA President Charlie Baker testified in December 2024 that he knows of fewer than ten transgender college student-athletes among 510,000 athletes total."
Sorry about that
Freder Frederson said...
Me: Every single Democrat complaining about the possibility of ICE showing up at polling locations is demanding that illegals be allowed to vote.
So you are dismissing the possibility that legitimate citizens may be concerned, and intimidated by the possibility, that they will be singled out by ICE just because they don't look like "real" Americans?
Yes, I'm dismissing it, because only a mentally ill person would actually worry about that.
Freder: “Name one Democrat who thinks undocumented immigrants should be allowed to vote. That is just a lie perpetrated by the right.” Oh get serious! How about every Democrat voting against voter ID. Democrat are all for it as long as the votes are for Democrats. We don’t believe you are stupid enough to think otherwise. Neither are we. It’s no longer surprising that the few Democrats choosing to engage are all bullshit all the time.
Freder Frederson said...
Me: Probably less than 100 such babies over the 25 years after the 14th was ratified.
And pointing out that rich European tourists weren't interested in American citizenship for their children helps your argument how?
Well agreeing that it's not just "subhuman savage" Chinese / Indian babies that were denied US citizenship, but also the kids of rich Europeans, pretty much completely blows up your argument.
Not ONE of those rich Europeans managed to score US citizenship for their kids (in addition to their own country's citizenship).
And the reason why not one got it was because NO ONE thought that "under the jurisdiction of the US" applied to them, even though they were legally in the US for months.
Me: Which is also why children of Indian tribe members who were born off the Reservation did not become US citizens until the Indian Citizenship Act was passed in the 1920s.
Again, how Indians were considered subhuman savages (just like enslaved Blacks before the Civil War) not worthy of American citizenship (unless they were "tamed") hardly advances your argument either.
Poor Freder. First it was "Trump's denying what's been true for the last 150 years!!11!"
Then it's, "well, ok, almost 100 years."
Except Trump isn't denying that American Indian children are American citizens, even thought Wong Kim Ark didn't claim the 14th extended that status to them, because there's a law that does extend that status.
Being Left: it means never caring about reality
remember when they did a whole theatre kids routine about mail boxes, because they knew they would cheat in the fall of 2020
even thought Wong Kim Ark didn't claim the 14th extended that status to them, because there's a law that does extend that status.
Wong Kim Ark didn't cite the law, because it hadn't been passed (or even considered) when his case was heard. And remember, Wong Kim Ark's parents, even though they were legal immigrants, were ineligible to become U.S. citizens simply because they immigrated from China.
Freder said: "Again, how Indians were considered subhuman savages (just like enslaved Blacks before the Civil War) not worthy of American citizenship (unless they were "tamed") hardly advances your argument either." While I'm sure you could find plenty of people in the 1890s that thought indians were somehow subhuman, I doubt that was the majority view (and sub-human is not the same as uncivilized). But, that is irrelevant. They weren't considered "unworthy" of American citizenship, they were considered citizens of a separate political entity. The relationship between the US government and the Indian tribes since the closing of the frontier has always been ambiguous and legally confusing. because the tribes are treated as if they are separate (at times) and as if they aren't (at times). It still is.
Well agreeing that it's not just "subhuman savage" Chinese / Indian babies that were denied US citizenship, but also the kids of rich Europeans, pretty much completely blows up your argument.
Not ONE of those rich Europeans managed to score US citizenship for their kids (in addition to their own country's citizenship).
Can you provide any instances where European tourists (or tourists from any other country) actually tried to get U.S. citizenship for their children but were denied? If you can, I will be very interested in the link you provide.
Prior to the 1924, there were basically two classes of immigrants, the Chinese, who were banned and were ineligible for citizenship, and those admitted to the U.S. which involved merely screening out diseased and mental defects at the border. Everyone else was considered a legal immigrant who could eventually gain U.S. citizenship. Their children (even the children of Irish immigrants who gave birth the day after they were permitted to enter the U.S.) were automatically U.S. citizens. There was no such thing as temporary work visas or student visas, or the myriad other legal ways that you can be admitted to the U.S. currently.
While I'm sure you could find plenty of people in the 1890s that thought indians were somehow subhuman, I doubt that was the majority view (and sub-human is not the same as uncivilized).
Actually, like the inherent inferiority of non-whites (or even the Irish), I am fairly certain it was the view of the majority of Americans. By the turn of the twentieth century, the Indian population of the continental U.S. had been reduced to about 250,000 (from a population of at least 9 million, maybe as high as 30 million, at the beginning of the 16th century). The U.S. spent the next 75 years intentionally trying to "civilize" those that were left.
You don't research any further than reading the Laura Ingalls Wilder "Little House" series (still considered a classic of American children's literature) to glean the average American's opinion of Indians.
The Bulwark article should be titled or subtitled "How We Democrats Can Avoid the Walloping We Really Deserve."
The Democrats have found their new base and the base demands what it demands and falls for the lies and misrepresentations that it falls for. The base will fight against attempts to reach out beyond the base. The base became Democrats to get away from "those people," to feel better than them, and to fight against them." The Democrats great hope is that Republicans will horribly fumble or that some disaster will shake things up so much that people's minds are radically transformed.
If as Freder says, illegals don't vote. Then why invite them here in the first place?
"Then why invite them here in the first place?"
It creates bullshit jobs for Democrat bureaucrats who take the money you work to earn and give it to the illegals. Because equality.
I've read plenty of history and first hand accounts of US - Indian relations. That Indians were generally considered "savages" and "uncivilized" and because of that, not equal to the "white" man is true. But again, that is not the same as actually considering them as sub-human. And my point is that that opinion of the Indians is not why they were not considered citizens. They weren't considered US citizens because they were legally classed as citizens of a different polity than the US.
Typical Freder. We point out all the insane positions publicly held by the left and their leaders, and either we're making it up or blowing it out of proportion.
Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to see what your party is actually doing, you would haven't spend your day arguing with those more observant than you.
Then why invite them here in the first place?
Who is inviting them here, other than Trump inviting white South Africans?
Typical Freder. We point out all the insane positions publicly held by the left and their leaders, and either we're making it up or blowing it out of proportion.
And just maybe, rather than just insult me, if you could actually provide some concrete examples of why I had my head up my ass.
That Indians were generally considered "savages" and "uncivilized" and because of that, not equal to the "white" man is true. But again, that is not the same as actually considering them as sub-human.
So what exactly does it mean? Especially, since white Europeans spent about four centuries bent on destroying their race. And once they had gotten pretty damn close to complete and total genocide, relented a little and said, "well there are not many left, rather than completely exterminate them, we will just destroy what little is left of their culture and turn them into to lesser versions of white men".
If as Freder says, illegals don't vote. Then why invite them here in the first place?
…to count them in the census as people in blue states…
10-20 million were let in
Freder Frederson said...
Can you provide any instances where European tourists (or tourists from any other country) actually tried to get U.S. citizenship for their children but were denied? If you can, I will be very interested in the link you provide.
No, I can not find any such event recorded. If I could, I'd have mentioned it, and all honest argument on the subject would be over.
Just like if the pro BC side could provide even a single one who was granted it, the argument would be over in their favor.
But lacking ANY such case, you are completely lacking ANY proof that the people who passed the 14th thought that it granted birthright citizenship to foreign citizens children just because they were born in the US.
Esp since it was widely agreed that the 14th did NOT grant citizenship to the children of Native Americans, who were FAR more "under the sovereignty" of the US than was a foreign tourist
Prior to the 1924, there were basically two classes of immigrants
Tourists were not "immigrants", they were "temporary sojourners".
Freder: “Name one Democrat who thinks undocumented immigrants should be allowed to vote. That is just a lie perpetrated by the right.”
You cannot be that naive. Seriously, I don't believe are.
I don't believe you are.
Democrats are rigging the mid term election by gerrymandering. Hello.
They see this as their last, best chance to have the power to pass NO VOTER ID, legalize ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION by AMNESTY, and expand the Supreme Court (stacked with progressives). If Trump makes you cry, stiffen up and vote Republican anyway, like your future depends on it, because it does. Democrats have made no secret on what they intend to do. And you will not like it.
LOL bookmark this Freder. You’ll learn a lot more about that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” clause if you actually listen to the actual arguments instead of parroting lefty talking points. Even every legal scholar quoted by the NYT says this is the first time the Supreme Court has heard arguments on this subject.
Context matters. Precedent matters. Buckle up.
And just maybe, rather than just insult me, if you could actually provide some concrete examples of why I had my head up my ass.
I gave you a concrete example and your response was to call me a liar. Most of the ad hominem responses in this comment thread are yours. It is an example of that “tough talk” Democrats strategists think will attract normal people.
"Yes, you do. Trump has violated every political norm there is (or was). "
This is Freder speak for ,Trump isn't doing what we want!"
Speaking of "norms". Lessee shall we.
Prior to the Great Reset one waited in line to cross the boarder into the United States. That was the norm.
Freder Frederson said...
That Indians were generally considered "savages" and "uncivilized" and because of that, not equal to the "white" man is true. But again, that is not the same as actually considering them as sub-human.
So what exactly does it mean? Especially, since white Europeans spent about four centuries bent on destroying their race. And once they had gotten pretty damn close to complete and total genocide, relented a little and said, "well there are not many left, rather than completely exterminate them, we will just destroy what little is left of their culture and turn them into to lesser versions of white men".
Nothing could be further from the truth.
One incident is telling. A catholic brother on mission in Mexico tells of riding his horse down the avenue to the Temple of the sun and on both sides were huge cribs woven of wood and reeds. These cribs were taller than a man on horseback and hundreds of meters long. All filled with human skulls. That was the noble savage.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.