ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Ending "birthright citizenship"

Let's hope that the God-Emperor follows through on this planned executive order as soon as possible:
President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.
  • "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.
  • When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "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'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 ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." (More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)
  • "It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."
The President is absolutely correct. He has the legal authority to do it. The problem is that he has set a disturbing precedent of making statements like these, then backing down. He absolutely has to stop doing that, and start firing any bureaucrat or Cabinet member who attempts to derail his objectives.

It's not that hard. Build the Wall, Drain the Swamp, Start the Trumpslide.

Labels: ,

248 Comments:

1 – 200 of 248 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Rory October 30, 2018 11:04 AM  

This is very interesting. With the elections coming up, they're holding his feet to the fire and pulling out all the stops (and flags...)

With anyone else, you'd expect them to play it safe and avoid kicking up a fuss, and just try to stage manage things towards an acceptable outcome. Trump leans into the danger and goes for even more controversy. Which, as you say, if he actually sticks with this, suggests he's learning to double-down on what he was elected on, rather than listening to the voices demanding he "play it safe".

Blogger Desdichado October 30, 2018 11:09 AM  

Next step; eliminate dual citizenship.

Of course, that'll have the salubrious side effect of making, what forty some odd Congress-people ineligible to serve as they'll revert to being Israeli citizens and not American citizens.

Blogger James Dixon October 30, 2018 11:11 AM  

Merely the threat of this will fire up the base for the midterms. He's pulling out all the stops.

Blogger Eagle Elk October 30, 2018 11:15 AM  

(More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)

Hard to believe that the other 29 countries have our illegal population popping out burritos.....

Blogger Jacob October 30, 2018 11:19 AM  

This news should help demotivate the caravans from coming here.

Blogger David Ray Milton October 30, 2018 11:19 AM  

As I said in the previous post today, I fully support this move of Trump and hope it goes well, but it’s going to be a battle with the courts. Let’s hope it provides ample controversy to sway the judicial momentum in the Right’s direction, but I really think for sustainable change we’ll have to go through Congress. Otherwise, whatever Dem dipshit takes the Presidency back in 24 or 28 will simply rescind this Executive Order.

Blogger Harambe October 30, 2018 11:21 AM  

There are only two countries in the entire Western Hemisphere worth living in. The one is the USA, the other is Canada. But Canada, interestingly, does not have the "anchor-baby" system. So that basically leaves 29 shithole countries and the USA. And what the Shithole countries do should NOT be a model for the USA.

Blogger OGRE October 30, 2018 11:23 AM  

Lets hope he follows through. It would be an interesting legal battle. The open borders people are claiming that US v Wong has settled the issue such that all children born on US soil are US citizens pursuant to the 14th Amm. But that was never understood to apply to children born to enemy or hostile occupants.

An EO excluding citizenship to children born to legal aliens whether residents or not would be almost certainly unconstitutional. But an EO excluding citizenship only to children born to ILLEGAL aliens could be constitutional. It'll be hashed out in court regardless, but the argument would be that illegal aliens are more akin to hostile occupiers or invaders rather than lawful aliens, and that citizenship was never intended or understood to apply to the children of such any more than it would be applied to children born to an invading army. The two conditions listed in the 14th for birthright citizenship are a) "born...in the United States" and b) "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and there is a strong argument that children of parents who are in the US in violation of US law are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the sense that phrase is used in terms of citizenship. (For instance, children born to parents belonging to an Indian tribe are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US in terms of citizenship.)

Whether Trump goes through with this or not, or whether it stands up in court or not, its a brilliant political move to announce this a week before the midterms while migrant hordes in Mexico are dominating the news.

Blogger Out of Nod October 30, 2018 11:23 AM  

I'm all for this. However, I'm seeing arguments online stating that the 14th Ammendment wouldn't allow for curtailing birthright citizenships. Some think that it is a right enshrined in the constitution.

Thoughts?



Blogger seeingsights October 30, 2018 11:25 AM  

This also shows that timing is important. If Trump tried to do this soon after entering office, I would say there was a 50-50 chance that it would be struck down by SCOTUS.
Now, Trump has put two judges on SCOTUS.

Blogger Astrosmith October 30, 2018 11:29 AM  

14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If you are not a U.S. citizen, and you give birth on U.S. soil, then your child is not a citizen of the U.S., because you are subject to the jurisdiction of whatever other country you came from and are a citizen of. Just about everyone is a citizen of some country or another.

This text was intended to rightfully give citizenship to the freed slaves after the WONA, it was not intended to give citizenship to anyone whose mother happened to be on U.S. soil when she gave birth to them.

Blogger S1AL October 30, 2018 11:30 AM  

(More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)

Hard to believe that the other 29 countries have our illegal population popping out burritos.....

It's actually just not true at all. Other countries extend it only to legal residents. And most of them have significant restrictions, usually regarding place of origin.

Blogger OGRE October 30, 2018 11:35 AM  

@9 Out of Nod

Applying it to children born to legal aliens would be unconstitutional and would require an amendment to change. But if its limited just to children born to illegal aliens then its not at all a settled question. The children of enemies and hostile occupiers are not granted birthright citizenship. Compare a child born to an officer in an invading army vs a child born to parents here on a travel visa. Both are born to non-resident parents, but the first is not granted citizenship while the second is. Also compare a child born to parents belonging to an Indian tribe within the territory of the US; such children aren't granted citizenship either as they are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. So if Trump were to issue an EO prohibiting granting citizenship to illegal aliens--who are here only because they violated US law in the first place--then its more a clarification of existing law than a change in the law. It'll be immediately challenged nonetheless, but theres a good chance it would be upheld in the end.

Blogger Out of Nod October 30, 2018 11:36 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Looking Glass October 30, 2018 11:37 AM  

Out of Nod wrote:I'm all for this. However, I'm seeing arguments online stating that the 14th Ammendment wouldn't allow for curtailing birthright citizenships. Some think that it is a right enshrined in the constitution.

Thoughts?



Because they're NPCs. Further, they already exclude the children of foreign diplomats. There's actually no legal leg to stand on for anyone illegally in the USA.

Blogger Tom Rogers October 30, 2018 11:38 AM  

@10

Point taken, but looking at a list of the current Justices, I can see only three who would conceivably side with an attack on jus soli, and one of them is black.

Maybe Trump should emulate FDR and threaten to pack the Court?

Blogger Looking Glass October 30, 2018 11:39 AM  

As I also noted in the other thread, Trump could declare all illegals are "illegal enemy combatants". That would be fun, but he doesn't have the Media crushed enough to get there. Yet.

Blogger Warunicorn October 30, 2018 11:40 AM  

Astrosmith wrote:14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If you are not a U.S. citizen, and you give birth on U.S. soil, then your child is not a citizen of the U.S., because you are subject to the jurisdiction of whatever other country you came from and are a citizen of. Just about everyone is a citizen of some country or another.

This text was intended to rightfully give citizenship to the freed slaves after the WONA, it was not intended to give citizenship to anyone whose mother happened to be on U.S. soil when she gave birth to them.


B-b-but, Astro! It's right there in Duh Constitution, alongside gay "marriage" and abortion. It's as plain as day, you Nazi!

Blogger Looking Glass October 30, 2018 11:42 AM  

Tom Rogers wrote:@10

Point taken, but looking at a list of the current Justices, I can see only three who would conceivably side with an attack on jus soli, and one of them is black.

Maybe Trump should emulate FDR and threaten to pack the Court?


Craft the EO properly and they pretty much would have to rule the Presidency unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit will do that, but all Trump would be doing is clarifying jurisdiction of Foreign Nationals within the USA. He actually isn't changing "birthright citizenship".

Never give into the Gaslighting. Also, wait for the actual text. But I also agree with Vox, he's gotta follow through on this.

Blogger Looking Glass October 30, 2018 11:45 AM  

While we're on the Judge issue, do remember, since the Left insists on it, that it's really only 5 SCOTUS Justices that make something "Law". Don't assume that SCOTUS will be the same by the time it gets there. Further, assume SCOTUS will be noting the way the wind is blowing and want to avoid significant problems for themselves.

But, and most importantly, don't assume the Left won't do everything in their power to screw up at every step of the way. Driving them into their own insanity causes them to make a lot of mistakes. The Left is quite bad at follow through when they're emotional. Funny, that.

Blogger VFM #7634 October 30, 2018 11:55 AM  

@Astrosmith

Let's hope PDJT makes that argument, that the baby of an illegal Squatemalan is subject to Squatemalan jurisdiction.

Blogger Jack Aubrey October 30, 2018 12:00 PM  

Can we please make it retroactive to 1789?

Blogger The Remnant October 30, 2018 12:01 PM  

Amen. Automatic birthright citizenship is not required by the Fourteenth Amendment, and in fact contradicts it. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was specifically designed to avoid bestowing automatic citizenship on the children of visiting foreigners. At most, the Supreme Court has held that the children of a LEGAL immigrant are automatically citizens, but even that decision was a serious deviation from prior precedent and the Amendment's design. This policy of handing out citizenship like candy is just that -- a policy, not a law, and it needs to end now.

Blogger Sheila4g October 30, 2018 12:07 PM  

We were clearly taught, in our consular course, that the author of the amendment was challenged at the time and accused of the preposterous notion of granting citizenship to the children of foreign ambassadors. He dismissed such claims as equally preposterous, and then compromised by agreeing to language specifically excluding them from citizenship by birth on our magic dirt. Of course, since the language specified diplomats and not their servants, the kids popped out by his chauffeur or gardener get citizenship.

Of course, it seems no one in the courts ever considered the original intent, or perhaps the story I clearly recall (admittedly from the mid 1980s) was apocryphal, incorrect, or totally fallacious.

Either way, this is long overdue. IF Trump actually follows through on this, I will make penance for every negative thought or word about him on my part.

Blogger Tom Rogers October 30, 2018 12:11 PM  

@13

I agree that it's legal alien cases where the difficulty will arise, but disagree that it would be unconstitutional or require any constitutional innovation to alter the position.

Couldn't Trump go to Congress on that point and have them pass a new federal statute that overturns SCOTUS case law on the basis that it is expected to be constitutional? GOP have the House - one of the biggest majorities ever - and they have a clear majority in the Senate (four is a good majority by Senatorial standards). What's the problem? Or is the Republican Party in the thrall of big business?

Going back to Calvin's Case, it seems clear that the 'subject to jurisdiction' caveat has always been intended to mean that children whose parents owe no allegiance to the United States should not automatically obtain citizenship. (Which is not to say they ought not to be citizens and should not have the privilege to apply, merely that jus soli is not automatic).

Blogger Jourdan October 30, 2018 12:12 PM  

No, he doesn't have the legal authority to do this. It'll get struck down within 24 hours of being written, and when it is reviewed any U.S. appellate court, including a very conservative U.S. Supreme Court, would uphold that, as the Const if very, very clear that all questions of citizenship and naturalization are strictly a power of the Congress.

Congress needs to do this.

Blogger pyrrhus October 30, 2018 12:15 PM  

@26 So Obama's DACA amnesty, and other Executive Orders that usurped Congressional powers, must have been struck down within 24 hours by our hyper vigilant judiciary.....Oh wait, they weren't...

Blogger pyrrhus October 30, 2018 12:16 PM  

The Court has acknowledged that Congress has the power to limit birthright citizenship, so it's not a Constitutional right.

Blogger Long Live The West October 30, 2018 12:19 PM  

People know that electing Republicans will help Trump enact his agenda. That means the best way to get republicans elected is to get people excited about Trumps agenda.

A major factor in Trump being elected was immigration. That means the more Trump pushes on immigration, the better Republicans will do.

If he signs this executive order into being before the election, I don't believe there'd be much doubt about who will control the House at the end of this.

Blogger Looking Glass October 30, 2018 12:20 PM  

@24 Sheila4g

It's in the actual Congressional Record.

@26 Jourdan

Trump's EO will likely be a clarification on existing Act of Congress which simply defines things properly. A Hawaiian Judge will rule against it instantly, but we already know that's going to happen. We might also get the removal of the "nationwide injunction" nonsense as well, in the process.

There's a reason he mentioned, in the interview, about possibly needing a new piece of legislation, but they're now telling him they don't need to. There's also going to be the issue of Standing. Especially if the EO is set to take effect on, say, January 1, 2019. The Left will likely screw up their first cases because of that little issue.

Blogger Long Live The West October 30, 2018 12:21 PM  

Doesn't matter if it gets struck down by the court. It will engage republican voters and put pressure on Congress to pass more legislature regarding immigration.

Signing this order would be a win no matter what.

Blogger Tom Rogers October 30, 2018 12:23 PM  

@19

Thanks. I must admit I don't quite see the distinction you are making there. Trump is proposing an EO that would end automatic jus soli for both non-citizens and illegal immigrants, so he is proposing to change the policy on birthright citizenship. But if I have misunderstood, I apologise.

@20

I don't like to be morbid, but you need another three deaths. You can't rely on Clarence Thomas, as he's black - sorry to be brutally blunt about it.

President Boyfriends got four appointments in, which must be close to a record. President Boomer needs to appoint five altogether. Very possible Ginsburg and Breyer will go, but that makes only four. Really Thomas needs to go too, otherwise what you'll have in effect is a notional conservative majority, but with Thomas as the swing vote on anything 14/88. Possibly also Brett Cuckvanaugh may turn out to be another Anthony Kennedy.

Blogger Damelon Brinn October 30, 2018 12:24 PM  

However, I'm seeing arguments online stating that the 14th Ammendment wouldn't allow for curtailing birthright citizenships.

I haven't really seen arguments like that, but I have seen many assertions, passed around by the likes of Shapiro. As far as I can tell, the 14th simply doesn't say, and if you dig into it, that's because the framers never thought to specifically rule out anything so ridiculous. So it became precedent not by legislation or judicial ruling, but on the "possession is 9/10ths of the law" principle: it's been done that way all these years, so it can't stop.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey October 30, 2018 12:25 PM  

What's written in the Constitution absolutely does not matter one bit anymore. Where have many of you people been? The US Constitution is a dead letter and it has been so for a while.

The Constitution means whatever SCOTUS wants it to mean. It is entirely arbitrary at this point. They can conjure whatever they want to out of it, they can ignore whatever they want, they can contradict the words, the precedents, they can do whatever they damn well please according to whatever fancy strikes them. It is entirely political at this point.


If it gets to the courts, and it is guaranteed to get to the courts, it will become like everything else. A crapshoot.

Blogger pyrrhus October 30, 2018 12:31 PM  

Rush did a number on the whole bogus theory here...https://thepoliticalinsider.com/rush-limbaugh-birthright-citizenship/

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey October 30, 2018 12:34 PM  

@8
Yeah, it's pretty clear that the authors of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to grant US citizenship to the children of illegal invaders.

For instance, children born to parents belonging to an Indian tribe are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US in terms of citizenship.)

The Indian Citizenship Act wasn't passed until 1924 -- 56 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Indian_Citizenship_Act

@27 pyrrhus
So Obama's DACA amnesty, and other Executive Orders that usurped Congressional powers, must have been struck down within 24 hours by our hyper vigilant judiciary.....Oh wait, they weren't

That's covered under the "Who; whom" clause of the Constitution, I believe.

Blogger pyrrhus October 30, 2018 12:34 PM  

Ann Coulter dissects the whole development of birthright citizenship in one of her books. But there is nothing in the 14th Amendment remotely suggesting that the children of tourists, illegals, or temporary workers should be awarded citizenship.

Blogger Jeffrey Johnson October 30, 2018 12:41 PM  

I think that President Trump is going to sign this executive order on birthright citizenship sometime this weekend. President Trump has spent the last 2 years trying to work with the Republicucks in congress to get funding for The Wall and they have refused. The fact that the Republicucks didn't give him funding for The Wall in September, 2 months before an election shows that they will never give him funding for The Wall.

President Trump has threatened to use military funding to build The Wall if congress won't give him the cash. This migrant caravan is the Cassus Belli that President Trump has been praying for. These Honduran pieces of garbage have the worst optics I have ever seen. They are coming to America, burning the American flag, breaking into Mexico like storming a castle in some Medieval period movie or TV show, their photos show them marching in a column like an invading army, they are waving the Honduran flag, etc. They are trashing every single Mexican town and village they pass through and it's gotten so bad that the Mexican people want these guys dealt with. From President Trump's perspective this Honduran caravan is the gift that keeps on giving.

President Trump has already sent 5,000 troops to the border and I'm sure that more will be announced soon. President Trump has already Tweeted that this caravan is a national emergency.

This weekend, probably after football ends Sunday evening, President Trump will announce a series of Executive Orders. The first will declare the border area a national emergency due to the Honduran caravan invasion. Second will be to announce a change to refugee law and say that you can no longer arrive at the American border and demand asylum. Third will be a declaration that he will use military funding to build The Wall. And fourth will be something about birthright citizenship.

The media will be up in arms about the birthright citizenship action. The Democrats will rush to condemn it and the Hawaiian judge will declare it unconstitutional 15 minutes later. But nobody will care because President Trump will have rammed his immigration agenda through, which is the last part of his agenda that he has gotten through. Then on Tuesday it won't matter who takes the House because his agenda will already be passed and all he needs are Senators to confirm his judges.

Blogger John Calla October 30, 2018 12:45 PM  

@26 Congress needs to do this.

Here you go: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1057286251517116416

Blogger James Dixon October 30, 2018 12:45 PM  

> If it gets to the courts, and it is guaranteed to get to the courts, it will become like everything else. A crapshoot.

Of course. So take the offensive and dictate the terms of the argument. Make them overrule you, not the other way around.

Blogger Looking Glass October 30, 2018 12:52 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> If it gets to the courts, and it is guaranteed to get to the courts, it will become like everything else. A crapshoot.

Of course. So take the offensive and dictate the terms of the argument. Make them overrule you, not the other way around.


Tailor it so they have to burn down the entire Court to try to prevent the action. That's a really win-win scenario.

Though I do find it funny that citizenship directly granted to Indians, by Congressional Act, dictates necessities with regard to citizenship. Hopefully Vox gets a chuckle while polishing a skull.

Blogger OGRE October 30, 2018 12:56 PM  

Tom Rogers wrote:@13

I agree that it's legal alien cases where the difficulty will arise, but disagree that it would be unconstitutional or require any constitutional innovation to alter the position.

Couldn't Trump go to Congress on that point and have them pass a new federal statute that overturns SCOTUS case law on the basis that it is expected to be constitutional?.


It'd be unconstitutional to the extent the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 14th extends citizenship to children born to legal aliens. Congress can't change that by legislation; only another Supreme Court case overturning the precedent or an amendment to the Const. itself could undo that. Congress can't overturn SCOTUS case law on matters hinging on interpretation of the Constitution, only on interpretations of acts of Congress. (e.g. Congress passes a law, SCOTUS says the law means X, Congress modifies the law to explicitly say that it does not mean X)

Birthright citizenship for the children of illegal alien has not been explicitly ruled on by SCOTUS however. And the cases have already recognized exceptions that would counter any claims that the language in the 14th is to be applied universally in all situations. This leaves it open for Trump, being responsible for border enforcement, to say that his administration interprets it as not applying to children born to illegal aliens. And it leaves it open for Congress being able to define under federal law such children as not being citizens, making it stated public policy. Bills have been proposed in Congress to this effect before, but its never been passed. Either way, it would all still be subject to judicial review. The only way to take it out of the hands of the courts would be via an amendment, but even then the courts get to interpret any such amendments as well.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 12:56 PM  

The other thing to do is enforce immigration law REGARDLESS of "anchor baby"

Immigration: Maria, you WILL go back.

Maria: But my baby is a U.S. citizen!

Immigration: Your baby can stay. You can say goodbye to your baby, or you can take your baby with you. Either way, YOU are going back.

Blogger Ken Prescott October 30, 2018 12:58 PM  

If both parents are married, permanently resident, and in the process of naturalization, that IMNHO demonstrates intent to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 1:00 PM  

@9

"I'm all for this. However, I'm seeing arguments online stating that the 14th Ammendment wouldn't allow for curtailing birthright citizenships. Some think that it is a right enshrined in the constitution.

Thoughts?"

Those arguments are logically bogus, but I wouldn't put it past RBG to accept them as true and pure as the drive snow.

Blogger eclecticme October 30, 2018 1:03 PM  

"37. pyrrhus October 30, 2018 12:34 PM
Ann Coulter dissects the whole development of birthright citizenship in one of her books."

Yes. But, SCOTUS can create rights out of thin air (abortion, fudge packing, gay marriage) so it does not matter much what is in the text of the constitution. I wish the costs of all these SCOTUS created rights were taken out of their budget.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 1:04 PM  

@13

"Applying it to children born to legal aliens would be unconstitutional and would require an amendment to change."

Not at all. Diplomat's babies born here aren't given U.S. citizenship, and they are legal aliens. Same with people here on tourist, business, and student visas.

If some other country can prosecute you for treason, then you're not under the "proper jurisdiction" of the U.S., only under de soli jurisdiction.

Blogger James Dixon October 30, 2018 1:04 PM  

> Immigration: Your baby can stay. You can say goodbye to your baby, or you can take your baby with you. Either way, YOU are going back.

That's always the way it should be, yes. Either they find guardians for the baby here or it goes back with them and can claim its citizenship when it reaches adulthood. And that's with the current interpretation.

Blogger eclecticme October 30, 2018 1:06 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Damelon Brinn October 30, 2018 1:07 PM  

So take the offensive and dictate the terms of the argument.

Right. Sign it now, let a court overrule it if they will, reap the additional R votes in the midterms, and then push for legislation with a better Congress.

This is one of those things that was always a no-brainer, but Republican presidents were too cowed or too globalist to do it. It's overwhelmingly a winning issue with Americans. The globalists will come up with some nonsense about babies being left without a home country, but those lies are easily dispensed with in a minute. Just do it.

Blogger eclecticme October 30, 2018 1:08 PM  

Canada used to grant birthright citizenship. Then they noticed the number of very pregnant Asians flying in to Canada to give birth so they ended it. Now Asians just buy condos in Vancouver and leave.

Blogger Duke Norfolk October 30, 2018 1:08 PM  

John Calla wrote:

Here you go: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1057286251517116416


God help me, I'm beginning to really like this guy.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 1:12 PM  

@32

"I don't like to be morbid, but you need another three deaths. You can't rely on Clarence Thomas, as he's black - sorry to be brutally blunt about it. "

But he thinks like a white Virginian, and that's what matters. He absolutely abhors the Democrat's black plantation, and never misses and opportunity to do whatever damage he can to the mansion.

Blogger Lance E October 30, 2018 1:16 PM  

Nice spin on "30 countries" in the "western hemisphere". They include the glorious nations of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Paraguay. How could America not want to follow in their footsteps!

The lies are becoming more and more appalling.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella October 30, 2018 1:17 PM  

Hospitals in Texas require bi-lingual clerks. The administrators are usually older, white, women. They think they know Spanish, but they only know Spanish spoken very slowly, with hand gestures. The clerks are younger, poorer, Hispanic.

The clerks bring birth registration documents to the new mothers. In English, they get everything registered. In Spanish, right in front of the supervisors, they tell them how to apply for benefits- food, housing, diapers. They speak quickly, they are smiling. They do it slower if the supervisor is not right there. The illegal immigrant mother leaves with housing, food, diapers, all of it, set up when she leaves the hospital. Oh, her hospital fees, too. They don't pay for this. They also tend to bring guns into the hospital, to threaten the nurses.

It's very obviously invasion,fraud, and I don't know what else.

We lived next to a clerk who told me all about how she did this. In return, the illegal immigrants would come to her rental house, mow the lawn, scrub the house, repair the fence, decorate for holidays, bring food, pay for luxuries.

The house was owned by a woman who lived in China, and rented it out, without consideration of who would move in. It was a lower income neighborhood with 'poor but clean' diversity- black school admins, Hispanic car repairmen, white house building workers. The rental families were nearly uniformly atrocious people.

Americans can live at peace with each other, but the invaders really do not even try.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 1:22 PM  

@39

"
Here you go: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1057286251517116416"

Looks like Graham has decided to step up to the big leagues and play hardball -- any sitting Senator who obstructs will lose more votes than gained, and many of the votes lost by Democrats will likewise go into their opponent's column.

This is really going to put a hammer down on the Dems.

Blogger Silly but True October 30, 2018 1:22 PM  

There seems to be three broad classes of attack:

1. Indian precedent: when 14th Amdt. passed, Congress didn’t view it having jurisdiction over them ( or them falling under it), so individual deals on citizenship was made between US and each tribe up through 1920s. This can then be used to observe there may be other people who likewise don’t fall under its jurisdiction.

2. Lawlessness: Illegals have violated sovereignty and do shoukd reap no reward.

3. SCOTUS review & pray: Prior 1800s chinaman anchor baby SCOTUS ruling gets tossed by differently minded SCOTUS who then mints it’s own new Constitutionality out of judicial whole cloth.

Blogger Tom Rogers October 30, 2018 1:23 PM  

@53

There's also the small matter of that High-Tech Lynchin', which he will not have forgotten.

But will he really go the distance? That has to be doubtful. More likely that when it comes to the really tough calls, he will rest on a classical liberal position and not embrace white-centric identitarianism. There's enough fat in the Constitution to allow it.

I even wonder if the High-Tech Lynchin' was an elaborate charade and Clarence is a long-gamer positioned to tip the balance as and when needed: ((("for equality under the law, goyim"))) and ((("it was the original intention of the framers, goyim - see?"))).

Blogger haus frau October 30, 2018 1:26 PM  

Lindsey Graham.... confuses the hell out of. Who had dirt on him before? McCain? Who has it now? Trump i guess? And yet Graham really appears to be enjoying the hell out of his new found balls, like a burden has been lifted.

Blogger Looking Glass October 30, 2018 1:27 PM  

@52 Duke Norfolk

The thought he wants to be President makes a lot of sense, though how much the entire Senate changed the instant McCain died should be really, really telling. McCain must have controlled dirt on everyone.

Blogger Cecil Henry October 30, 2018 1:28 PM  



End Birthright Citizenship: it can be done.

https://twitter.com/amfirstmedia/status/1057301580905570304

Blogger Looking Glass October 30, 2018 1:29 PM  

haus frau wrote:Lindsey Graham.... confuses the hell out of. Who had dirt on him before? McCain? Who has it now? Trump i guess? And yet Graham really appears to be enjoying the hell out of his new found balls, like a burden has been lifted.

I was more impressed to find out he wasn't gay. That might have been the most shocking part of the Kavanaugh confirmation.

Blogger pyrrhus October 30, 2018 1:30 PM  

@42 No, the Court has specifically held that Congress can change the rules for birthright citizenship any time it wants to do so...There is no Constitutional right here.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 1:31 PM  

@61

"
The thought he wants to be President makes a lot of sense, though how much the entire Senate changed the instant McCain died should be really, really telling. McCain must have controlled dirt on everyone."

Best budddies with the Clintons. That means McCain had access to all of those stolen FBI files on political candidates and officeholders acrosss the nation which suddenly reappeared outside Hillary's bedroom door the day after the Statute of Limitations on the crime expired.

For that alone, she should be sentenced to death by being buried alive.

Blogger Franz Lyonheart October 30, 2018 1:33 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger dienw October 30, 2018 1:40 PM  

Desdichado wrote:Next step; eliminate dual citizenship.

Of course, that'll have the salubrious side effect of making, what forty some odd Congress-people ineligible to serve as they'll revert to being Israeli citizens and not American citizens.

It was (((Abe Fortas))shortly after being appointed by LBJ who provided the swing vote to allow dual citizenship to a Jew who had renounced his US citizen ; but, then, a few years later decided he wanted it back but to be able to keep his Israeli citizenship; Fortas should have recused himself.

Blogger Looking Glass October 30, 2018 1:43 PM  

@64 Dirk Manly

It's probably the other way around. McCain comes from a family with connections & power long before the Clintons were anything. Actually, McCain survived the Keating 5 scandal when Bill was still Governor of AR. So it's probably a given that McCain sat a top a network setup by his father.

On the upcoming EO, thinking about it a tad more, there's a lot of angles they can run with something that curtains the 14th Amendment. Giving SCOTUS a chance to "tee off" on the entire Warren Court era might be interesting. Remember, "Judicial Activism" can run both ways. We'll know a lot more when the EO comes out and what the SG does.

Blogger Roy Stalin October 30, 2018 1:43 PM  

Illegals getting automatic citizenship is bad enough but these birthing hotels for foreign tourists is downright infuriating. If tourists are not subject to a foreign jurisdiction then no one is.

This does seem to follow a Trumpian pattern though. Make a seemingly outrageous statement that draws the spotlight, then walk it back just a bit to appear reasonable. In the meantime you get the leftists to start flinging poo and force elected Democrats to defend something that a lot of people already dislike.

Blogger Franz Lyonheart October 30, 2018 1:43 PM  

(More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)

Remarkable how they add an explanatory remark in brackets which can be interpreted to immediately contradict President Trump's statement, without actually contradicting him directly. I find this passive-aggressive manner of reporting highly unpleasant. Gamma alert? For sure.

And in any case it's a half-truth at best. The two worst offending countries are probably Britain and France, but it's simply a lie to claim they have automatic birthright citizenship. Children born there obtain citizenship if their parents are full (legal) residents in the country.

Not even in cucky UK are "anchor babies" recognised. (Obstetric birthing services for rich foreigners from shithole countries, e.g. Saudi-Arabia, are a big branch of Londons private healthcare industry. An Arab sheikh will fly his pregnant wives to London for giving birth to his offspring; he doesn't want them to endure his mismanagement of his own underlings back home ; and none of these Arabs become magically "British" that way.)

Both my daughters are born in England, and actually I tried to avoid British citizenship when the older one was born (impossible - it's a legal automatism for tax-paying residents). That's beside the point anyway, because no amount of "paper" citizenship makes me or my family, or any other foreigner, nationals here. There's actually a subtle distinction between "British" and "English" - the former is de jure (by virtue of the state), the latter is de facto (by virtue of the people).

Blogger OneWingedShark October 30, 2018 1:45 PM  

OGRE wrote:Tom Rogers wrote:@13

I agree that it's legal alien cases where the difficulty will arise, but disagree that it would be unconstitutional or require any constitutional innovation to alter the position.

Couldn't Trump go to Congress on that point and have them pass a new federal statute that overturns SCOTUS case law on the basis that it is expected to be constitutional?.


It'd be unconstitutional to the extent the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 14th extends citizenship to children born to legal aliens. Congress can't change that by legislation; only another Supreme Court case overturning the precedent or an amendment to the Const. itself could undo that.

What!?
No, you are blatantly, and explicitly, wrong.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


So, as you can see, the Congress can say "here's the law, USSC, and here's the clause saying you have no appellate jurisdiction for cases arising under it."

Blogger haus frau October 30, 2018 1:48 PM  

"I was more impressed to find out he wasn't gay. That might have been the most shocking part of the Kavanaugh confirmation."

Hmm jury is still out on that even if we cN stop calling him Grahamnesty now.

Blogger Tom Rogers October 30, 2018 1:49 PM  

@42

[quote]"Congress can't overturn SCOTUS case law on matters hinging on interpretation of the Constitution, only on interpretations of acts of Congress."[unquote]

Yes, but don't forget that Congress is only precluded from overruling SCOTUS interpretations. Congress can still modify and amend laws, especially when it comes to practicalities of implementation, and SCOTUS could be impotent in the face of well-crafted statutory interventions. I still maintain that the right legal and administrative minds could help this president both use his own inherent unilateral executive authority - which is very extensive - and also promote bills in Congress that would actuate a radical conservative agenda. Maybe the problem here is that Trump handed over the DoJ to Sessions and he is being threatened with incipient impeachment for obstruction lest he intervene? I still think Congress could amend SCOTUS law at the implementation level by tweaking with the relevant legislative interpretation provisions.

Also, if we're referring to the decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, then surely at this point that decision can be considered as no more than judicial dogma, and given the right set of cases to consider, SCOTUS could handily overturn its own law. Therefore, I'm not sure even the children of legal aliens would be safely jus soli in the face of a contravening Executive Order.

Blogger OGRE October 30, 2018 1:49 PM  

@63 Can you provide a citation for that? Congress has a great deal of power in that department, but its limited by the 14th and the Court has been pretty clear on that. The Wong case in particular was decided in spite of an act of congress that would have controlled, but SCOTUS found it to be subordinate to the 14th.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 1:53 PM  

@66

"It was (((Abe Fortas))shortly after being appointed by LBJ who provided the swing vote to allow dual citizenship to a Jew who had renounced his US citizen ; but, then, a few years later decided he wanted it back but to be able to keep his Israeli citizenship; Fortas should have recused himself. "

Rules are for you, not for (((me))). -- thought by Abe Fortas

Blogger David Ray Milton October 30, 2018 1:55 PM  

For those who seem to be getting tripped on the question of the 14th Amendment: The issue is not whether the language in the 14th Am. grants citizenship to invaders. It seems fairly obvious from the language that it does not. (And as many have pointed out already, in light of the last century, it doesn't really matter what the language is but how our justices interpret it).

Rather, what is of importance is in the case of US vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, SCOTUS ruled 6-2 in favor of Wong that children born in the states were granted citizenship. Of course, this is ridiculous, however, it is the PRECEDENT set by SCOTUS and precedents carry tremendous power in future cases.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 1:55 PM  

@68

"This does seem to follow a Trumpian pattern though. Make a seemingly outrageous statement that draws the spotlight, then walk it back just a bit to appear reasonable. In the meantime you get the leftists to start flinging poo and force elected Democrats to defend something that a lot of people already dislike."

How do you think he almost single-handedly revived the real-estate market in Manhattan?

Blogger Franz Lyonheart October 30, 2018 1:56 PM  

If you are not a U.S. citizen, and you give birth on U.S. soil, then your child is not a citizen of the U.S., because you are subject to the jurisdiction of whatever other country you came from and are a citizen of.

At least arguably, a foreigner who is legal resident in the country could be considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". But there's simply no way that illegals can be considered that way.

But that's just a "paper" argument. I very much agree with Vox's point that the legalistic subtleties about legal or illegal are paling in front of the reality that migration has taken an unprecedented, and unmanageable, magnitude that can, regrettably, only be resolved through violence. Enoch Powell was right, he's already being proven right in today's England.

Blogger Looking Glass October 30, 2018 1:57 PM  

@75 David Ray Milton

To legal US Residents subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. This isn't hard, it's just been allowed because it was useful to the Elites.

Blogger Tom Rogers October 30, 2018 1:57 PM  

@75

But is it a precedent now, or just dogma? To reiterate the obvious: the national situation for America is considerably different to the late 19th. century.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 1:59 PM  

@69

"
Remarkable how they add an explanatory remark in brackets which can be interpreted to immediately contradict President Trump's statement, without actually contradicting him directly. I find this passive-aggressive manner of reporting highly unpleasant. Gamma alert? For sure."

Well, of course, the (((media hacks))) are only writing for publications because they couldn't get into medical school or law school.

In the Jewish Mother's totem-pole of bragging rights about their kids, it's like this:


Doctor
Lawyer
Nationally recognized writer
Large Retailer OR Jeweller
Entertainment Industry
Everybody else.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 2:03 PM  

@69

"There's actually a subtle distinction between "British" and "English" - the former is de jure (by virtue of the state), the latter is de facto (by virtue of the people)."

The Britons are the original, pre-Roman Invasion inhabitants.
The Angles, as well as the Jutes and Saxons, are invading tribes.

The Britons consists of the Picts (i.e. the Scots), Welsh, Manx, Devonians, Cumbrians, Cornish, etc.

Blogger DonReynolds October 30, 2018 2:04 PM  

The 13th amendment ended slavery and the 14th amendment made them citizens of the United States.

The 14th amendment does not make US citizens of the "anchor babies" of foreigners. Not merely my opinion, I can prove it with two words...."American Indians".

The American Indians have been born on US soil for centuries, but they were not considered US citizens, nor did the 14th amendment make them citizens, nor did the Supreme Court make them citizens by a twisted interpretation of the 14th amendment.

American Indians were made citizens of the US by Act of Congress in 1925, meaning the 14th amendment did not make anyone a citizen except the slaves freed by the 13th amendment.

Blogger tuberman October 30, 2018 2:07 PM  

Alt-Retard shows up with tons of Gamma snark. But bad research.

Blogger OGRE October 30, 2018 2:08 PM  

Whats with the overreaching here guys? The precedent is already set; the Wong decision is--right or wrong--constitutional law. The only options to undo it are overturning the precedent or amending the constitution. But as it is now any act in contravention of that precedent is presumptively unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't.

And really, why get worked up over this right now, when the very real and achievable goal of ending anchor babies is right in front of us? Try to end all birthright citizenship right now, by executive order, and it would be a spectacular political implosion. But the primary goal should be ending the anchor baby phenomenon right here right now...not wishful thinking about Trump doing an Andrew Jackson and defying SCOTUS.

(There may be merit in signaling a desire to end all birthright citizenship, but then walking it back to just anchor babies.)

Blogger John Russo October 30, 2018 2:16 PM  

This is awesome to witness, as Donald Trump is using the left's tactics against them; doubling and in some instances tripling down. It is so inspirational and motivating to see this.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 2:17 PM  

@75

"Rather, what is of importance is in the case of US vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, SCOTUS ruled 6-2 in favor of Wong that children born in the states were granted citizenship. Of course, this is ridiculous, however, it is the PRECEDENT set by SCOTUS and precedents carry tremendous power in future cases."

However, Ark was not a child of illegal immigrants. ALL decisions have contexts, and the context of that decision is within a case being filed by the son of a married couple, who, at the time OF HIS BIRTH, were already legal, Permanent Residents.

This placed them securely within the "Proper Jurisdiction" clause.

The test for Proper Jurisdiction with regards to an individual is simple.

In a case of espionage during a war, do you charge that person with Treason, or do you charge them for being an Enemy Spy operating without a proper uniform.

If the first, then they are under your Proper Jurisdiction. If the second, then they are NOT under Proper Jurisdiction.

Some yahoo midnight border jumper who flies a foreign flag, runs whenever s/he hears someone yell "Immigration!," only watches TV channels which originate where s/he came from, thinks learning English is "optional," and makes biweekly trips to the Western Union office to send money to relatives.... IS NOT AND NEVER WAS under Proper Jurisdiction of the United States. Other than the midnight border jumping and running from immmigration, they are literally no different from a back-office embassy clerk.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 2:20 PM  

@79

"But is it a precedent now, or just dogma? To reiterate the obvious: the national situation for America is considerably different to the late 19th. century."

It's just dogma. Ark was NOT the child of illegal immigrants. His parents presented themselves at at U.S. port of entry. They filed paperwork with immigration to become Permanent Residents (When the borders, or even a single border crossing, are closed, the ONLY people let in are citizens and Permanent Residents.)

Blogger David Ray Milton October 30, 2018 2:22 PM  

To clarify, I think the Wong decision was terrible then just as i think it is being upheld now is terrible.

But, I was pointing out that the concept of judicial precedent is extremely important in the judicial community and particularly at SCOTUS. While not impossible theoretically, I think it’s unlikely the courts side with Trump given that there is a precedent set. I think this is a good move by Trump, but we need to be prepared for the long-haul and in all likelihood, Congress is going to have to get involved. Let’s just hope Congress follows Trump’s lead, but we should know by now that is uncertain.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 2:23 PM  

@84

"Whats with the overreaching here guys? The precedent is already set; the Wong decision is--right or wrong--constitutional law."

The Wong Ark decision does NOT set the precedent that you think it set.

Wong Ark was NOT the son of illegal immigrants. His parents were here legally, and had done EVERYTHING by the book, and put themselves under the Proper Jurisdiction of the United States.

That has absolutely nothing to do with midnight border jumpers squatting out babies.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 2:24 PM  

@88

"To clarify, I think the Wong decision was terrible then just as i think it is being upheld now is terrible."

It's not being upheld. It's being upheld, and unlawfully extended to include people who were never considered in that case.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 2:27 PM  

As far as precedent, Trump should counter it by just asking, "So, you're saying that every decision which didn't uphold the Dred Scott and "seperate but equal" precedents was wrong? Why do you SJWs hate black people?"

Blogger Tom Rogers October 30, 2018 2:32 PM  

@79

I may have been misunderstood. It's clear to me that Trump is on reasonably solid ground for an EO in relation to illegals. The controversy is regarding legal aliens. I agree with you about what Wong Ark decided, but I am not convinced its constitutionality can be upheld any longer given the new circumstances. That's why I wonder whether Wong Ark should now be viewed as little more than judicial dogma.

But you are without a conservative majority on the Court.

Blogger Gregory the Great October 30, 2018 2:33 PM  

OT: The gatewaypundit just published a report about upcoming rape accusations against Robert Mueller. #hetoo

Blogger OGRE October 30, 2018 2:48 PM  

Dirk Manly

Thats not what I said. I explicitly limited everything to children of illegal aliens, because Wong was the child of legal residents and thats how the case was applied. And I explicitly said Trump could do an EO that doesn't recognize anchor babies as citizens and have a firm constitutional basis for doing so.

And Wong is precedent whether you want it to be or not. Wheres this "dogma" stuff coming from? There is no classification of appellate decisions as dogma that can be ignored. The language in the cases are either controlling or dicta, but the actual holdings of a case are always binding and never dicta.

Some of you guys are sperging out hard here. One whiff of a strong stance on immigration and you blow your loads like some incel who gets a smile from a pretty girl and jizzes in his pants.

Blogger Desdichado October 30, 2018 2:53 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:@69

"There's actually a subtle distinction between "British" and "English" - the former is de jure (by virtue of the state), the latter is de facto (by virtue of the people)."

The Britons are the original, pre-Roman Invasion inhabitants.

The Angles, as well as the Jutes and Saxons, are invading tribes.

The Britons consists of the Picts (i.e. the Scots), Welsh, Manx, Devonians, Cumbrians, Cornish, etc.

If you're going to try and be pedantic, at least get it right. The Scots are Gaelic, not Britannic in the sense that you're trying to use. And for many years now, the word Briton has meant "someone from the British Isles" and the English certainly quality as a subset of the British.

Blogger David Ray Milton October 30, 2018 3:12 PM  

I don’t disagree with you and you have brought to light aspects to the case that I was unaware of. Your illustration was insightful as well. Nevertheless, I think in 2018 USA, with specific regards to how our law schools teach about the decision and how it has been applied unilaterally since then to justify anchor babies and the like, that there will be significant resistance to the EO even at the SCOTUS level. There’s simply too much momentum in the misapplication of a bad decision. I hope you’re right and I hope I’m wrong.

Blogger Franz Lyonheart October 30, 2018 3:30 PM  

The Britons are the original, pre-Roman Invasion inhabitants.
The Angles, as well as the Jutes and Saxons, are invading tribes.


Obviously. And historically, the English (Angles, Saxons, Jutes) have since then taken possession of England by right of conquest.

Now today's usage of the term "British" vastly differs from your definition, colloquially it's being extended to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indians, Africans ; effectively everybody from the British Commonwealth / remnant of Empire. Would that people obeyed your historically much more accurate usage of the word! Sadly, they're not listening to you.

My point still stands - unfortunately so!

Actually it's even worse - the BBC noticed the distinction common people make between "British" (basically everybody who's brown or black) and "English, Scots, Irish etc" (the actual nationals). Therefore the BBC News has started to sneak in (in their usual passive-aggressive manner) to call foreigners with a British passport "the young Scottish woman" etc., just because she happens to reside in Scotland. It's a very conscious dilution of language.

The BBC takes Orwell as an instruction, not as a warning.

Blogger R.G. Camara October 30, 2018 3:38 PM  

I find the fact that the closeted Lindsey Graham is on board with this to be a very good sign.

Non-militant gays have a preternatural sense about where the wind is shifting. It likely comes from the same over-sensitive place where they can recognize another homosexual from across the room. Thus why gays tend to be quite good in show business and fashion, two areas where fickleness reigns. Call them Zeitgeist-anticipators. It's likely a survival mechanism; unless they are ahead of the curve on where the culture is going, they will be exposed and potentially harmed.

Such gays will even jump on board seemingly anti-gay agendas if that's where the culture is headed. Ernest Rohm was a notorious homosexual who linked up with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis to become their chief street brawler, likely because Rohm had the sense that the Weimar decadence was ending and that a purifying streak was going to come through; better to be one of the pets than one of the slaughtered cattle, or so Rohm's instinct went. Of course, we know it didn't work out that way, but this was Rohm's instinct.

So cucky Lindsey suddenly finding his manhood and supporting Kavanaugh and trying to ban birthright citizenship means he feels the wind has shifted in this direction. Lindsey's an old school closeted Southern homosexual, where his predilections were winked at by those in power so long as he kept them quiet and supported the culture; he knows how to put his finger in the air. He's instinctively knows that Trump's election wasn't just a "black swan" event, but has grown in momentum as the times change. So he's jumping on board, trying to pretend he's always been here. It's a good sign for Trump.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 3:39 PM  

The It wasn't called England until after it was, for a while, called "Angleland", which occurred after the invasion of the east coast by the Angles.

The first Angles came by invitation, to bolster the number of men under arms as a show of force by those who invited them.
Eventually, the Angles started importing girlfriends, and bringing along friends from the Saxons and the Jutes. Eventually, they covered a HUGE swath of land... basically from York all the way down to the Thames estuary. Look up Danelaw, and you'll see the progression of territorial encroachment by the Angles and their friends vs. the native Britons.

As late as 1900, Devon, Cornwall, most of Wales, and nearby environs to all three still didn't generally speak English.

None of the Brittanic langauges are Germanic. English is. That's why so many of the old place-names in the British Isles seem so non-sensical to people who are native English speakers, especially so in the ANZAC countries. Most of those place names are modern corruptions of previous English corruptions of original names which were spoken in some Brittanic-family language or another.

The English are not a subset of the British. They are another set altogether (although by now, there has been much intermarriage -- not so with the Normans. The designated themselves as an Aristocracy (following their successful invasion in 1066), and have looked down on marriage to "commoners" (Britons of any stripe, Angles, Saxons and Jutes). Basically for lack of being Norwegian Viking by way of a French coastal province which they captured from the Bourbons.

Blogger DonReynolds October 30, 2018 3:43 PM  

The Welsh do not know themselves as Welsh. That is the name given them by the invading Germanic Anglo-Saxons, who pushed many of the natives into the western side of the island, which is now called Wales.

Welsh is the Anglo-Saxon word for "foreigner". Welsh is an entirely separate language.

Blogger CM October 30, 2018 3:47 PM  

The Welsh do not know themselves as Welsh.

They are Cymry :) I hear they refer to themselves as that in Wales to this day.

Blogger pyrrhus October 30, 2018 3:48 PM  

Rather, what is of importance is in the case of US vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, SCOTUS ruled 6-2 in favor of Wong that children born in the states were granted citizenship. Of course, this is ridiculous, however, it is the PRECEDENT set by SCOTUS and precedents carry tremendous power in future cases.

Not really...Consider Plessey v Ferguson and Brown vs Board, and the dozens of Commerce Clause cases that were overruled in the 5-4 recent decision allowing States to enforce tax collection on other States...

Blogger DonReynolds October 30, 2018 3:51 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Longtime Lurker October 30, 2018 3:52 PM  

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Would this law have been necessary if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to everyone born in the United States regardless of parental immigration status?

Methinks not, which strongly suggests that SCOTUS has some basis for ruling that children of illegals born in the USA are not citizens.

Blogger DonReynolds October 30, 2018 3:52 PM  

Very good, Dirk.
My family is from Devon, Somerset, and the immediate vicinity. They were not British when they arrived in the country, nor were they Norman.

Not all of William the Conqueror's army were Normans, about a third were Swiss and Lombard. My family were Swiss, by the name of Regenwald, which was Anglicized as Reynolds after the Conquest. They were posted at Devon by King William on the frontier with Wales. The Normans were not entirely stupid. Now every Reynolds in the world can know that they came from Devon, because the name never existed before 1066 AD.

Blogger tuberman October 30, 2018 3:54 PM  

98. R.G. Camara

This is quite good, and likely correct.

Blogger weka October 30, 2018 4:02 PM  

Canada ain't worth it with the current Trudeau doubling down.

Blogger Mr. Bee October 30, 2018 4:08 PM  

Trump just knocked off a number of Republican congress critters and probably cost himself a Republican congress. He could have done this after the election, but no. There are millions of sons and daughters of illegal aliens in the country vote, a meaningful percentage of them voted for Republicans. Not now. Good bye Republican super majority. Dumb, just dumb.

Blogger R.G. Camara October 30, 2018 4:08 PM  

Separately, it seems Trump's strategy at this point is to force the courts to make their decisions quickly. That's a far cry from how these cases usually work.

Trump's executive orders immediately give standing for various groups to challenge the orders, and the importance of them makes the courts act quickly in ruling or reversing rulings. Think about how in less than two years his travel ban order got to the Supreme Court and out. That's lightning speed in court time.

Trump isn't just using the executive order to get what he wants without Congress--as Obama did--but is also using them to force the Third Branch to deal with them while Trump is still in office. Then either Trump gets what he wants with the Supreme Court seal of approval, or he can go out and show that the Supreme Court is opposing his agenda, they need to be replaced, he needs to be re-elected, etc. In other words, by doing it with the guarantee that the courts will get involved right away, he's taking care of the downside---that his order might get reversed on legal grounds---before he leaves office, so he can rejigger it to comply with the Coourt's ruling (as he did with the travel ban cases).

This strikes me as very Trumpian. When he gets a bee in his bonnet about a project, it gets done quickly. See the Wollman Rink chapter in The Art of the Deal. But he also wants to take care of the downside---which is one of his principles. And Trump loves having a public battle, as opposed to backroom skullduggery.

This makes me think the Wall will be up before his re-election in 2020. He knows its part of his promise, its a big building project, etc. He's biding his time so he can build momentum. Right now, I trust in Trump.

Blogger Unknown October 30, 2018 4:10 PM  

This is not difficult. Illegals do not have permission to be in the country, and have no official Federal government papers, therefore they are not under US jurisdiction. Resident aliens do have permission, and do have papers, ergo they do fall under US jurisdiction. The Wongs had Federal government papers, ergo they were under US jurisdiction, and that means their case precedent does not apply WRT illegals.

Even if it did, it has been well over a hundred years, it is worth challenging it to try and get it overturned. The present situation of border hoppers popping out kids is intolerable, and needs to be changed.

Now, we all know that some judge in the 9th circuit will stay the order, but that is a fight worth having.

All of you preemptively throwing up your hands in surrender better get with the program. You are being replaced, and the time to act is now.

--Unknownsailor--

Blogger Crew October 30, 2018 4:12 PM  

There are millions of sons and daughters of illegal aliens in the country vote, a meaningful percentage of them voted for Republicans. Not now. Good bye Republican super majority. Dumb, just dumb.

You don't know what you are talking about. Just fucking pathetic.

I have access to the views of kids of illegals who are getting the message from their parents that they simply don't want more illegals, especially this new crop, coming here.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener October 30, 2018 4:20 PM  

I agree that Trump can do this with an EO. The biggest issue is the fact that there are millions of people who were born here to illegal alien parents who have been treated like they are citizens when in fact they are not and never have been.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 4:21 PM  

@98

"Ernest Rohm was a notorious homosexual who linked up with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis to become their chief street brawler, likely because Rohm had the sense that the Weimar decadence was ending and that a purifying streak was going to come through;"

There are written, eyewitness accounts of Hitler engaging in homosexual sex in barns and the like during his duty on the Western Front during WW1. The overwhelming majority of the early Nazi party were gays. The famous film clip taken one night of a "Nazi book burning" was on the grounds of a (Jewish-run) institute for sex research. What is being burned in that bonfire are all of the institute's records and files on THOUSANDS of Nazi party members who were compelled by the (((Weimar government))) to attend analysis and counseling sessions at the institute. Yes, the books from the institute's library were burned, too, but the primary goal was to destroy those records.

Homosexuality was widespread in Germany starting sometime in the mid-1800's if not earlier. By the late 1800's, as known throughout Europe as "The German disease." It was primarily spread through the "wandervoegel" (wanderer/hiker) movement. From the Apprentice/JOURNEYman/Master progression, young German men were EXPECTED to wander from town to town as part of professional development. For the gays, this was like fresh, agar-filled petri dishes.


This lead to the suicide of one of the owners of the Krupp steel-making empire, which was a family business (sole proprietorship) passed down from generation to generation, to commit suicide after it was discovered WHY he hired a couple dozen teenage boys to be his personal staff every time he went down to the Italian island of Capri for what were typically 3-month vacations. [See The Arms of Krupp, and the often reviled, but never debunked The Pink Swastika, now in at least the 4th edition.]

Blogger MrNiceguy October 30, 2018 4:21 PM  

Don't assume that SCOTUS will be the same by the time it gets there.
Hey, The Notorious RBG isn't going anywhere! I've seen her workout videos! And, at her last checkup, her doctor said she was, and I quote, "remarkable lifelike."

Blogger tublecane October 30, 2018 4:23 PM  

It is fun to watch the left actually care about words in the Constitution and interpretation thereof from over a century ago.

Blogger MrNiceguy October 30, 2018 4:24 PM  

Dangit, blew the punchline. "remarkably lifelike"

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 4:27 PM  

@108

"Trump just knocked off a number of Republican congress critters and probably cost himself a Republican congress. He could have done this after the election, but no. There are millions of sons and daughters of illegal aliens in the country vote, a meaningful percentage of them voted for Republicans. Not now. Good bye Republican super majority. Dumb, just dumb."

Don't be stupid.

For every illegal voting Republican, there's 50 voting Democrat.

And expect the voting by illegals to be Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay down this year. DHS is actually cracking down on it... in the same way that the Federal Election Commission NEVER DID.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother October 30, 2018 4:27 PM  

To echo what Dirk said, Abrams and Lively used Samuel Igra's "Germany's National Vice" extensively as source material.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener October 30, 2018 4:29 PM  

I would also think that talk of deportation would make illegals want to lay low and avoid trying to vote.

Blogger S1AL October 30, 2018 4:29 PM  

'The Welsh do not know themselves as Welsh. That is the name given them by the invading Germanic Anglo-Saxons, who pushed many of the natives into the western side of the island, which is now called Wales.

Welsh is the Anglo-Saxon word for "foreigner". Welsh is an entirely separate language.'

The Welsh do call themselves 'Welsh', at least when speaking English. The vast of them are bilingual from an early age. They consider the English to be British, but also a separate country (and that's how it's enshrined in the legal system). The native Britons displaced by the Angles (not very many - the Romans built London from scratch) were mostly pushed to what is now Western England, not Wales.

Blogger Looking Glass October 30, 2018 4:30 PM  

Crew wrote:There are millions of sons and daughters of illegal aliens in the country vote, a meaningful percentage of them voted for Republicans. Not now. Good bye Republican super majority. Dumb, just dumb.

You don't know what you are talking about. Just fucking pathetic.

I have access to the views of kids of illegals who are getting the message from their parents that they simply don't want more illegals, especially this new crop, coming here.


I'm still amazed people don't understand the Drawbridge Effect. Practically everyone does it. Plus, it's pretty insulting to call a Mexican, say, a Peruvian and vice versa.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora October 30, 2018 4:32 PM  

It's too bad so many judges tend to subscribe to the evil genie school of legal interpretation. The 14th Amendment is one incredible skeleton key to the constitution. It would be a miracle if even a right wing court sided with Trump on this.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 4:33 PM  

@111

"I have access to the views of kids of illegals who are getting the message from their parents that they simply don't want more illegals, especially this new crop, coming here."

The illegals who are here DON'T WANT PROBLEMS. This swarm of new illegals is terrifying for them -- it could lead to a crack down. And crack-downs as THEY know it means roving death squads shooting anybody in the street who looks the slightest bit suspicious. The Aztecs and Indios and Mestizos know that if it gets to that point, they can't show their face in public, and neither can their kids. Not even the pregnant 14-year old.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 4:36 PM  

@112

"I agree that Trump can do this with an EO. The biggest issue is the fact that there are millions of people who were born here to illegal alien parents who have been treated like they are citizens when in fact they are not and never have been."

Sucks to be them, but WE didn't create this problem, their parents did.

And for all those who are goign on about "my husband/wife is an illegal..." the only reply is: And you CHOSE to marry someone who is here illegally, why?

Blogger tublecane October 30, 2018 4:36 PM  

@11- There's a flaw in that argument, in that we allow dual citizenship. It would be nice to eliminate both at the same time, however.

Blogger Damelon Brinn October 30, 2018 4:39 PM  

Speaking of optics, some armed members of the Horde attacked their police escorts in Mexico yesterday. There has been much worry that the globalists and media would make sure they are portrayed as helpless angelic refugees all the way to the US border for maximum sympathy, but that may be easier said than done.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener October 30, 2018 4:41 PM  

"Sucks to be them, but WE didn't create this problem, their parents did."

Exactly. Along with the politicians of the past who refused to stop illegal immigration.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 4:41 PM  

@114

> Hey, The Notorious RBG isn't going anywhere! I've seen her workout videos! And, at her last checkup, her doctor said she was, and I quote, "remarkably lifelike."

Does anybody know if there's anything actually operating other than her pacemaker? Has anyone hooked her up to an EEG to see if her brain has flatlined? I'm betting the opinions written under her name are actually being composed and signed by her SJW law clerks.

Blogger Roy Stalin October 30, 2018 4:43 PM  

Given Trump's previous tactics, I assume that in a day or two, after a serious degree of left wing media freakouts, Trump will come out and say that he loves legal immigrants and that his EO has only ever been about illegals. He may even state that the 14th Amendment was only meant for freed slaves and their descendants and that it's terrible that we're being ripped off by a bunch of lawbreakers, the point of which would be to try to drive another wedge between Democrats and the black vote.

The purpose of his previous statement has been to lay down a marker and control the terms of the debate. Classic Trump, and his enemies still don't get it.

Make no mistake, the Establishment will fight this tooth and nail. Unlimited, uncontrolled immigration is essential to their vision of the country and they cannot afford to lose it.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 4:44 PM  

@115

"It is fun to watch the left actually care about words in the Constitution and interpretation thereof from over a century ago."

Kind of like puppies when mommy dog decides she's tired of being randomly chewed on her tail, feet, ears, and suddenly disover that mom has teeth, too.

Blogger R.G. Camara October 30, 2018 4:47 PM  

@128:

I'm betting the opinions written under her name are actually being composed and signed by her SJW law clerks.

That, sadly, would not be the first time that happened. Thurgood Marshall and the post-Roe Harry Blackmun both did almost no work, and had their clerks write the opinions that they signed; Blackmun would occasionally add very emotional outbursts to the opinions, in fitting with his detached personality as time went on (most famously, "Poor Joshua!"), but otherwise his clerks wrote 99% of everything. Marshall didn't even bother adding anything, preferring to spend his days lazily watching soap operas on TV.

Blogger tublecane October 30, 2018 4:48 PM  

@42- "Congress can't overturn SCOTUS case law"

Well, no. But they can ignore it. That has happened before.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 4:49 PM  

@122

"It's too bad so many judges tend to subscribe to the evil genie school of legal interpretation. The 14th Amendment is one incredible skeleton key to the constitution. It would be a miracle if even a right wing court sided with Trump on this. "

Only if the justices are willing to go against a logically flawless argument that can be stated in 2 minutes, vs entertaining yet another "emanations and penumbras" excuse, which, by this point, they HAVE to know would throw the country into civil war, if not outright rebellion.

Blogger Cleveland Screamer October 30, 2018 4:49 PM  

Agree Wong deals with children of legal immigrants, but what about Plyler v Doe?

Texas officials had argued that unauthorized immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." The dissenting opinion also rejected this claim, agreeing with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state." The dissent simply concluded that the distinction the statute drew should survive an equal protection attack.

Blogger R.G. Camara October 30, 2018 4:52 PM  

@129

Make no mistake, the Establishment will fight this tooth and nail.

That's exactly what Trump wants them to do. He wants them to immediately launch court cases so they can be fast tracked to the S.C.. He basically wants this issue--whether birthright citizenship holds to everyone--decided before 2020. Since he can't certify a question to the Supreme Court---unlike most state courts, the U.S. Supreme Court won't answer a legal question in the abstract---Trump is doing it this way: make a bold executive order enticing immediate lawsuits from the Left, then get it appealed to the 9 justices. Trump is using his enemies' predictable actions to get what he wants, in this case a clear answer on a legal question from the judiciary.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 4:53 PM  

@126

"...some armed members of the Horde attacked their police escorts in Mexico yesterday. There has been much worry that the globalists and media would make sure they are portrayed as helpless angelic refugees all the way to the US border for maximum sympathy, but that may be easier said than done."

Mexican police already killed one at the southern border. He died of an unspecified head wound. This probably has the crowd all wound up. Let's just hope that's the fuse which blows up THAT particular powder keg around the time it gets near Mexico City.

Unlike our pansy politicians, the Mexican politicos don't care if there's front page pictures of the cops beating up a bunch of foreigners. In fact, most will take credit for it.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener October 30, 2018 4:57 PM  

Plyler v. Doe has nothing to do with the issue of citizenship. If illegals were deported then the issues raised by the State of Texas in Plyler would be moot.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 4:58 PM  

@131

"Marshall didn't even bother adding anything, preferring to spend his days lazily watching soap operas on TV."

I remember Marshall's retirement speech. He wasn't drunk, but he was as incoherent as if he were.

We need judicial term limits. There was never any intention that SCOTUS justices would sit on the bench for 3-4 decades.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia October 30, 2018 4:59 PM  

R.G. Camara wrote:Separately, it seems Trump's strategy at this point is to force the courts to make their decisions quickly. That's a far cry from how these cases usually work.

Trump's executive orders immediately give standing for various groups to challenge the orders, and the importance of them makes the courts act quickly in ruling or reversing rulings. Think about how in less than two years his travel ban order got to the Supreme Court and out. That's lightning speed in court time.

Trump isn't just using the executive order to get what he wants without Congress--as Obama did--but is also using them to force the Third Branch to deal with them while Trump is still in office. Then either Trump gets what he wants with the Supreme Court seal of approval, or he can go out and show that the Supreme Court is opposing his agenda, they need to be replaced, he needs to be re-elected, etc. In other words, by doing it with the guarantee that the courts will get involved right away, he's taking care of the downside---that his order might get reversed on legal grounds---before he leaves office, so he can rejigger it to comply with the Coourt's ruling (as he did with the travel ban cases).

This strikes me as very Trumpian. When he gets a bee in his bonnet about a project, it gets done quickly. See the Wollman Rink chapter in The Art of the Deal. But he also wants to take care of the downside---which is one of his principles. And Trump loves having a public battle, as opposed to backroom skullduggery.


This.

Scott Adams gets snark/criticism from Vox and others around here, but he identifies this Trumpian strategic move with the pesuasion technique of "Two Ways to Win and No Way to Lose."

Moreover, the strategy forces the conversation in a direction the YOU want. Even if you vehemently disagree with him, you've been "persuaded" to see the sides of the issue, and face, uncomfortably, the fact that Trump is going to win no matter where the wind blows.

He uses this technique all the time -- the NFL kneeling saga is another example, where it doesn't matter which way the result goes. The players stop kneeling (he wins), the players keep kneeling (he wins because it demonstrates how unpatriotic they are).

The strategy can peter out when the opposition simply ignores or hides the problem, which the NFL is doing.

However, the birthright issue is front and center and will not go away so easily.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 5:00 PM  

@134

Obviously, the state of Texas didn't go to the effort to research, and present to the court, what the term "Proper Jurisdiction" actually means, as used at the time the Amendment was written.

Blogger James Dixon October 30, 2018 5:03 PM  

> Trump just knocked off a number of Republican congress critters and probably cost himself a Republican congress...

Your concern is noted.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 5:05 PM  

@137

"Plyler v. Doe has nothing to do with the issue of citizenship. If illegals were deported then the issues raised by the State of Texas in Plyler would be moot."

Even [[[Wikipedia]]] doesn't try to turn it into an anchor-baby argument.

"The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a "substantial" government interest."

In this case, an intermediate scrutiny standard would be a deport/no-deport question, or the like.

Blogger Cleveland Screamer October 30, 2018 5:07 PM  

@137

It's not about citizenship, but seems to establish that SC finds no difference between legal and illegal with regards to the 14th.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener October 30, 2018 5:07 PM  

This is why strict construction is so important. When it becomes obvious that prior case law violates the Constitution and ignores its historical context, the Constitution must prevail.

Blogger Cleveland Screamer October 30, 2018 5:09 PM  

@Dirk

Thanks for replies.

Blogger Cleveland Screamer October 30, 2018 5:09 PM  

@144


Agree

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener October 30, 2018 5:10 PM  

@143 Only to the extent of the states being required to provide public services to residents. The fact that Texas is required to offer public school to an illegal immigrant residing in Texas does not prevent the federal government from deporting him.

Blogger R.G. Camara October 30, 2018 5:11 PM  

@131 Dirk Manly

I remember Marshall's retirement speech. He wasn't drunk, but he was as incoherent as if he were.

Another of my pet conspiracy theories is that Marshall was a front man and never did any of the intellectual lifting in Brown v Board of Education, where he was supposedly the lead attorney. He was a nonentity on the Supreme Court, never authoring anything dramatic or well-written or memorable at all. His judicial career seems a precursor to Obama's in the White House.

We need judicial term limits. There was never any intention that SCOTUS justices would sit on the bench for 3-4 decade.

At this point, no one's going to agree to it. The Left spent the last 100 years using those lifetime appointments to destroy a lot of America, and are chomping at the bit to do it again. Any argument about "good government" is going to fall on deaf ears; this is about gamesmanship.

That said, I've argued that Supreme Court justices should be elected by appellate region, so the First Circuit has one, the second Circuit has one, etc. The terms are for 10 years, with a two term-limit.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion October 30, 2018 5:11 PM  

Well, I'm dieting and weightlifting regularly with the intent to sleep with Elle McPherson, but I doubt like hell it's gonna happen.
And showing intent is not the same as having already happened. Lucky for Elle.

Blogger Damelon Brinn October 30, 2018 5:16 PM  

The Left spent the last 100 years using those lifetime appointments to destroy a lot of America, and are chomping at the bit to do it again.

True. Razorfist had an interesting rant during the Kavanaugh hearings, where he argued that we should take this opportunity while the left fears the Supreme Court to reduce its power. That sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure how you do that in a way they can't just undo when it's their turn again. In any case, they don't fear the current Court enough to abandon their fantasies of packing it with 15 hard-left judges in the future and using it to get their revenge, so his idea was a non-starter anyway.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 5:17 PM  

@149

"Well, I'm dieting and weightlifting regularly with the intent to sleep with Elle McPherson, but I doubt like hell it's gonna happen.
And showing intent is not the same as having already happened. Lucky for Elle."

She's getting long in the tooth, and saggy in the chest. You need to aim higher. Gen Zyklon college women. Plus, they actually DON'T WANT the family instability of frivorce.

Blogger I DontTroll October 30, 2018 5:18 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> Immigration: Your baby can stay. You can say goodbye to your baby, or you can take your baby with you. Either way, YOU are going back.

That's always the way it should be, yes. Either they find guardians for the baby here or it goes back with them and can claim its citizenship when it reaches adulthood. And that's with the current interpretation.


Why would it be a good idea to let them come back? Magic dirt still isn't going to apply once they reach adulthood.

Tell the invaders that that their spawn will be sent to the tender care BBQ of the Clintons, Podestas, et al. If they beam with pride, then you know that you have done the right thing.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 5:20 PM  

@150

"In any case, they don't fear the current Court enough to abandon their fantasies of packing it with 15 hard-left judges in the future and using it to get their revenge, so his idea was a non-starter anyway."

And this is why it won't end before we start giving them mandatory free helicopter rides. You know, like mandatory vaccinations for the children.

Blogger R.G. Camara October 30, 2018 5:25 PM  

@150

True. Razorfist had an interesting rant during the Kavanaugh hearings, where he argued that we should take this opportunity while the left fears the Supreme Court to reduce its power. That sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure how you do that in a way they can't just undo when it's their turn again. In any case, they don't fear the current Court enough to abandon their fantasies of packing it with 15 hard-left judges in the future and using it to get their revenge, so his idea was a non-starter anyway.

Reform is only possible when both sides see good government as a goal. The Left doesn't see good government as a goal, it sees it as a hindrance. The Left wants a corrupt, powerful government with it pulling the strings.

How far the American Left has fallen since the old Progressive Era---when one of the Left's major goals was cleaning up government from the massive corruption brought on by immigrant "spoils system" politicians and the robber-barons who pushed for open borders to let them in. The Left today has completely flip flopped on that issue.

Blogger DonReynolds October 30, 2018 5:31 PM  

To anyone who believes that illegal aliens are under the Jurisdiction of the United States....

perhaps you can explain why Mexico, which provides 70 percent of the illegal aliens, has a Consulate in virtually every US state and sometimes more than one. Any illegal alien who is arrested for committing a crime in the US can call the Mexican Consulate for help....and many do just that. If they were subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, they certainly could not call on a foreign government through the nearest Consulate for assistance.

Blogger K G October 30, 2018 5:42 PM  

They are exclusively countries no one would ever want birthright citizenship in, and likely not capable of enforcing any citizenship restrictions anyway

Blogger K G October 30, 2018 6:05 PM  

Citizenship is constitutionally defined in the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is the legislative form of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. “Civil Rights” as defined legally in 1866, regarded these civil rights as having “no relation to the establishment, support, or management of government”. So the Act had to be properly legislated as a constitutional amendment. Civil Rights Act of 1866 states that “all people born in the United States WHO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER are entitled to be citizens”. This means a citizen of another nation’s children, AKA, a Mexican citizen’s baby. So the anchor-baby legal loophole doesn’t exist, they aren’t citizens according to the constitution. Also, the Act and the Amendment include language specific to freed slaves, as the intent was to grant citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War. The intent and language all refer to freed slaves, not foreign invaders. The current anchor baby system has never been law.

Blogger Hammerli280 October 30, 2018 6:23 PM  

I wish Trump had said nothing. Just issue the Executive Order.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 6:34 PM  

It's no good if you keep it a secret.

Besides, too many in the bureaucracy don't like him, and would willfully not pass the order down to the guys doing the actual work.

Publicizing it makes sure that EVERYONE finds out who needs to find out, and also produces the I'm-a-traitor reaction in the left -- which is exactly what's needed to get this wrapped up as quickly as possible.

Blogger tublecane October 30, 2018 6:47 PM  

@122- I want to see a cartoon about an Evil Genie fighting the Slippery Slope.

Blogger tublecane October 30, 2018 6:53 PM  

@154- Yes. We must win the culture first. T
Which is why the Federalist Society has been so effective, and why the left hates it more than any political organization besides the NRA.

Actually, no. Scratch that. It's Race War first. Culture War second. Political War and Judicial War to follow.

Blogger eclecticme October 30, 2018 6:55 PM  

"55. Ariadne Umbrella October 30, 2018 1:17 PM
Hospitals in Texas require bi-lingual clerks. ...We lived next to a clerk who told me all about how she did this. "

I recall reading about midwives in TX doing the same things as the clerk. Except maybe they weren't in TX. More likely in MX.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 30, 2018 6:57 PM  

Article 3, section 2

(snip)

... with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

(snip)

The SCOTUS has totally screwed up the meaning of "original jurisdiction" but the uSA's Congress of these uSA can limit the cases the SCOTUS has jurisdiction.

Dr. Paul pushed for the above by declaring an unborn baby a person and to take jurisdiction over abortion out of SCOTUS' lap. Where were all the pro-life Republicans? Cowering in fear of pulling the A2.S2 trigger.

Blogger Tom Rogers October 30, 2018 6:59 PM  

@158

Exactly.

Blogger LP999-16 October 30, 2018 7:00 PM  

Great: more promises made n' kept as the public must note this violent caravan matter making its way thru Mexico, complete with women to have babies. Post the US military at border now, the invasions will stop, its good timing these invaders are pulling this stunt I think funded by the UN which America gives $$ towards, like throwing good money after abject horror: they must be turned away from America.

Its not funny as Mexico now has to feel the burn of criminal low iq of approx 5 figure+ invader-dependents on the system.

Will SCOTUS allow this no more anchor babes, perhaps this will impact certain college admission demographics.

Blogger LP999-16 October 30, 2018 7:01 PM  

Edit: Excellent timing before America's elections.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 30, 2018 7:01 PM  

Amen. It violates the renouncing allegiance and loyalty to a foreign entity. Loss of uSA citizenship should be automatic especially if participant in foreign voting or office.

Blogger eclecticme October 30, 2018 7:03 PM  

I read Ethnic America by Thomas Sowell long ago. A great book. One thing that surprised me was that many ethnic groups want the draw bridge pulled up soon after they got here. The newer arrivals were poorer, stunk, and gave the previous arrivals a bad name.

Blogger Tom Rogers October 30, 2018 7:14 PM  

@94

I mentioned "dogma". I'm not denying that Wong Kim Ark is good law in that it is followed by the lower courts, but this only remains the case for so long as there is no reason to refer jus soli back to SCOTUS on the question of the children of legal aliens.

SCOTUS can overturn its own decisions, so it's only a precedent for as long as that does not happen (or, obviously, for as long as there is not a constitutional amendment by Congress). If the decision in Wong Kim Ark that forms the precedent is no longer relevant to actual existing circumstances, then it will at some point be overturned. For that reason, it should not necessarily be assumed that Trump has no room for unilateral executive action against legal aliens in regard to birthright citizenship, who should not necessarily assume that children they have will be automatically jus soli. If he does try to stress-test Wong Kim Ark, the Court will decide on the constitutionality (obviously).

This explains why Trump's EO could cover children of 'non-citizens' as well as illegal immigrants.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 30, 2018 7:18 PM  


Article 1 Section 8

Congress shall have the power ...
(snip)
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,
(snip)

Blogger Hammerli280 October 30, 2018 7:21 PM  

I also think Trump is trying to maneuver the Invasion Mob into making the first violent act. The moral dimension of this gets a lot easier if they start the shin-kicking.

Remember that the Confederacy arguably lost the Civil War the instant they fired on Fort Sumter.

Blogger James Dixon October 30, 2018 7:32 PM  

> Why would it be a good idea to let them come back?

Under current interpretation they're citizens and have an automatic right to come back. That's what Trump wants to change.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 30, 2018 7:33 PM  

Arguably. The Star Of The West started the war for southern independence.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 8:06 PM  

@173

The Star of the West was a federally-owned ship, carrying food and other essentials to men who were on a federally-owned property.

The population had recently increased, because the South Carolina government had threatened the new-arrivals with cannon-fire from an overlooking position before those federal personnel fled that position, which was ALSO federally owned property.

Lincoln specified in his inauguration speech that at the time, his ONLY intent was to protect the property of the federal government. The Star of the West carried no ammunition or other war material.

Now, if you think that provides Cassus Belli, I ask you -- why is there U.S. military base in Cuba? And no, we don't *own* that land, either, so the standing of that military base in Cuba, which the Castro government has ALWAYS considered to be hostile, is even lower than that of the forts which the government in Washington D.C. actually owned (and still does to this day).

The South lost because it allowed itself to be bumbled into war with an industrial powerhouse by a bunch of hot-heads whose strategic vision extended all the way into next weekend.

Jefferson Davis, their President, and until so recently, Senator from the state of Mississippi, argued AGAINST secession, and after that failed, he argued against any hostilities with the government in D.C. The Confederate Congress ignored him, and joined South Carolina.

IDIOTS.

More than once, long before becoming President, Lincoln had floated the idea being ended peacefully by merely paying all Slaveholders in specie coin for their slave holdings. They could then use the proceeds of the purchases to pay for their labor. The AVERAGE market price of a slave at that time was $3000. At that time, $3000 would pay for several decades of labor...with some left over by the the time they would reach the age of average life expectancy.

Slavery was already dying.
It had nearly died out completely, everywhere, due to the lousy economics of the whole deal -- you have to pay for the feeding and upkeep of a slave regardless of whether he or she is productive, or incapacitated by injury or illness. In Maryland, most slaves didn't even work for their master -- they found their own work in the labor market, and gave 10% to him.

The only thing that resuscitated slavery was the cotton gin. If it had been invented 20 years later, slavery would have ended entirely. By 1850, there would have been an entire generation of adults throughout the south with no first-hand experience with slavery at all. Jefferson kept his slaves, but freed them upon his death, because he feared for their livelihood without his protection while he was alive, and what sort of new master they would have after his death. He certainly wasn't making money off of his holdings of slaves and and more acres of rich farmland than they could work -- he died nearly penniless.

All the cotton gin did was hook up slavery to an "iron lung." As one Vietnam vet who was wounded noted that during his hospital stay, not one patient who was being treated with an "iron lung" ever exited alive -- it just delayed the inevitable.

Blogger Avalanche October 30, 2018 8:34 PM  

@43 "Immigration: Your baby can stay. You can say goodbye to your baby, or you can take your baby with you. Either way, YOU are going back."

From your keyboard to God's hand supporting the God Emperor!!

Blogger Cluebat Vanexodar October 30, 2018 8:37 PM  

Yes, he does have the authority. It will certainly be struck down, but don't despair- he has that all figured out too. Americans will finally remember that this proviso was intended for the benefit of slaves and Native Americans.
Thank you God Emperor for the originalist Supreme Court. Birthright Citizenship for all is a result of activism in the judiciary. Now we can finally fix that. Praise God.

Blogger Hammerli280 October 30, 2018 8:39 PM  

@174: Another factor was the fear of a massive slave revolt and massacre...as happened in Haiti. Prior to 1803, there was serious talk of emancipation in the South. After Haiti, it came off the table.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 30, 2018 8:56 PM  

Guatanamo we have because Cuba is unable to kick us out.
When Anderson received notification of the Star Of The West's was on its way with armed escort, Anderson complained that he should have been involved in the decision and that war thus have started.

Blogger Chris Mallory October 30, 2018 8:57 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:federally-owned property

Squatting on land that belonged to the sovereign state of South Carolina.

South Carolina was correct in repelling the invasion of it's harbor by a hostile force.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 30, 2018 8:59 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 30, 2018 9:01 PM  

BTW, I have read the agreement document on the Guantanamo coaling base lease. We have been in violation for a long time.

Blogger Servant of the Chief October 30, 2018 9:36 PM  

Ireland got rid of Birthright citizenship nearly a decade ago, precisely because Africans were coming here en masse to have anchor babies to initiate chain migration. Its about time America followed suit in this regard and got rid of that stupid law.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 9:59 PM  

@176

"Americans will finally remember that this proviso was intended for the benefit of slaves and Native Americans."

Not even Native Americans. The U.S. was still at war with them for another 3 decades.

Blogger DonReynolds October 30, 2018 9:59 PM  

Cluebat Vanexodar wrote:Yes, he does have the authority. It will certainly be struck down, but don't despair- he has that all figured out too. Americans will finally remember that this proviso was intended for the benefit of slaves and Native Americans.


The Negro slaves freed by the 13th amendment, became citizens by the 14th amendment. This did NOT make Native Americans into US citizens, even though they had been born on US soil for hundreds of years. That happened 60 years later, by Act of Congress, and not by a twisted court interpretation of the 14th amendment.

In fact, I use exactly that argument to prove that the 14th amendment ONLY applied to the freed slaves and not anyone else....and for 60 years, the Native Americans were not US citizens AFTER ratification of the 14th amendment. When they did become US citizens, it was not because of the 14th amendment.

Blogger Cluebat Vanexodar October 30, 2018 10:09 PM  

@183 and 184
Non-taxed Indians were definitely a part of this conversation. The debate concerned the disposition of Native Americans who were not on the rez. The point was rendered moot with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box October 30, 2018 10:15 PM  

When the next Democrat president decides to use Executive Order to rescind the right to keep and bear arms, then what?

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 10:29 PM  

@178

"Guatanamo we have because Cuba is unable to kick us out."

Wrong.

We have a perpetual lease on the place signed in 1901 or thereabouts. As long as we continue to pay rent to the Cubans, we get to keep the base. If we stop paying, we lose it.

Ironically, for the past 55 years, the Castro government has refused to cash in any of the rent checks. Yet they don't attack our presence on the base, or even agitate against it either locally or on the international level.

If we had it by "might makes right," we wouldn't have continued to pay Castro every month even while executing dozens of assassination attempts via CIA agents.

Remember, CIA agents are... well, the agency by which CIA case managers (the career employees who get trained at Langley and "The Farm", and usually have cover as Dept. of State employees working in some embassy or another). CIA _agents_ are recruited by case managers, typically people hired by the local populace (unless they walk into an embassy and volunteer their services), typically paid in cash in a discrete manner, and usually from the local population, or otherwise embedded in the local culture and society. Some agents are on the payroll of multiple countries, and none of the various countries know about the others. These are NOT double-agents -- those pretending to continue working for their first serreptitious employer after being identified and "turned" by an opposing organization. They're just opportunists.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 30, 2018 10:34 PM  

@186

"When the next Democrat president decides to use Executive Order to rescind the right to keep and bear arms, then what?"

The President will find out that the Army and the Marines are far more loyal to the Constitution and the American people than to him. If we're lucky, the matter will be resolved quickly by the Pentagon arresting this enemy of the people and Constitution. While enlisted men are sworn to obey the orders of the President, but ALSO their superior officers, the Officer Corps is sworn ONLY to the Constitution and superior officers -- they are not bound in any way to obey the President.

Blogger VFM #7634 October 30, 2018 10:38 PM  

"Its not funny as Mexico now has to feel the burn of criminal low iq of approx 5 figure+ invader-dependents on the system."

Mexico will have to build a wall and pay for it eventually.

On the Guatemalan border.

Blogger Damelon Brinn October 30, 2018 10:46 PM  

Earlier today, the cuckservatives were saying, "Har har, silly Trump, thinks he can rewrite the 14th Amendment! Everyone knows this is settled and the Constitution leaves no room for discussion. He would get blown out 9-0."

Now, just hours later, I've seen solid explanations of how that's not true at all, and good arguments have already been made over the years for Trump's position. It's just that previous administrations ignored them. There's a quote from one of the writers of the 14th saying of course it didn't apply to foreigners, and even Harry Reid is on record as being against birthright citizenship.

Good thing no one listens to the cucks anymore, or they might have kept us from learning that.

Blogger Damelon Brinn October 30, 2018 10:52 PM  

When the next Democrat president

Do you think *anything* Republicans do today will prevent future Democrats from abusing power if they get it? Can you imagine them saying, "Well, we could take away guns with an executive order, but Republicans didn't push that advantage in 2018, so honor demands that we don't now"?

Blogger Matthew October 30, 2018 11:17 PM  

@55

"The clerks bring birth registration documents to the new mothers. In English, they get everything registered. In Spanish, right in front of the supervisors, they tell them how to apply for benefits- food, housing, diapers. They speak quickly, they are smiling. They do it slower if the supervisor is not right there. The illegal immigrant mother leaves with housing, food, diapers, all of it, set up when she leaves the hospital. Oh, her hospital fees, too. They don't pay for this. They also tend to bring guns into the hospital, to threaten the nurses."

Buddy, I got bad news for you. I'm a Spanish interpreter, and this sort of thing is done out in the open, by English speakers, usually social workers stationed at the hospital. They speak, read and write only English, and they get them all hooked up with whatever they need.

The part about the guns is nothing I have ever seen, and I think it's probably not quite true, but the all in all the situation is worse than you think.

Blogger Jack Amok October 30, 2018 11:19 PM  

OGRE, I would respect your admiration for our mos maiorum a lot more if our enemies had not very obviously abandoned it years ago. "Precedent" to the Leftists is a one-way ratchet - they're free to overturn our precedents, we're not allowed to overturn theirs. The only constitutional question Leftists are pondering is if it's actually constitutional for a Republican to be elected President, seeing as how voting for one is obviously a hate crime. But even if it's constitutional to elect a republican, it certainly isn't for him to do anything democrats don't like.

Hawaiian judges will dress that sentiment up in fancier words, but they'll still mean the same thing. You know in your heart that's the way it is. I sympathize that it's probably not something a lawyer wants to admit, but it's true none the less.

And this is why it won't end before we start giving them mandatory free helicopter rides. You know, like mandatory vaccinations for the children.

"This is the line for your DTap shots. No, the D doesn't stand for Diphtheria, it stands for Double. And we're not inoculating you from a disease, we're inoculating ourselves from you."

Blogger Garuna October 30, 2018 11:28 PM  

God Emperor resetting the news cycle to immigration as the caravan-military showdown approaches ahead of the midterms. This is really a nailbiter election.

I thought all was lost after the shooter. But the early voting hasn't budged much and the final news cycle seems like it'll be immigration.

Blue Wave was always a hoax. Republicans will win several more seats in the Senate. But if they also hold the House, which will go 5-10 seats in either direction, then the God Emperor will will re-election 100%.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 30, 2018 11:37 PM  

Here is the treaty:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/dip_cuba001.asp

Blogger pdwalker October 30, 2018 11:41 PM  

Huh. Birthright citizenship was another case of blatantly dishonest judicial activism. What a surprise.

https://youtu.be/UZyqQn2Uoo8

Blogger MendoScot October 30, 2018 11:51 PM  

eclecticme wrote:I read Ethnic America by Thomas Sowell long ago. A great book. One thing that surprised me was that many ethnic groups want the draw bridge pulled up soon after they got here. The newer arrivals were poorer, stunk, and gave the previous arrivals a bad name.
It's still happening.
Not because they want to assimilate.
They simply realize that more immigrants = less benefits.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 31, 2018 12:21 AM  

Not quite.

The Smart ones came to escape the midwits and below of their society. They try to assimilate, but usually fail.

The midwits (moderately high IQ in the home country, maybe around 105-100 IQ in the U.S.) came to escape their culture --- but bring it with them, and start forming ghettos which recreate the culture they just left. They'll play along with the dominant culture when outside of the ghetto, but only resentfully.

Then come the IQ 110-90 (home country, not US IQs) crowd. Usually the siblings and cousins of a midwits. They don't even know there's such thing as a different culture, and generally get in trouble when outside of the ghetto. These are the ones who go on welfare, because they don't have any especially marketable skills, and generally aren't ever going to speak the new language very coherently. Their children usually have a difficult time with the local language, too. These are the ones who now end up on welfare (before they were allowed on welfare, they would just go back home. E.g. 2/3 of the Italians who came through Ellis Island went back home.)

These days, the midwits eventually start worrying about their relatives who can't make it without welfare. They're the ones who want to shut of the flow of new 0-day welfare recipients.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 31, 2018 12:22 AM  

The primary group worrying about benefits reductions are the blacks. They view welfare benefits as a right to get into whitey's pocket, and don't want to split it with these interlopers.

Blogger tublecane October 31, 2018 12:39 AM  

@173- I believe SCOTUS later ruled the war started when Lincoln called for a 75,000-strong militia.

1 – 200 of 248 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts