The First 100 days

I’m getting a T-Shirt.

 

They seem to want blood in the street
Some of them (ones who should know better) are even pimping genocide

 

I admit I did not look it up either, so maybe I got the messaging wrong, but I instantly assumed I knew what he meant -- he was drawing a parallel with BREXIT wherein the people of Great Britain made the monumental choice to voluntarily leave the EU, freeing themselves from the control of unelected, non-British bureaucrats in Brussels. Here Kanye is suggesting black Americans make the similarly monumental choice to leave the Democrat Party, thereby freeing themselves from the control Beltway Democrats have over their lives.

 

Birthright citizenship is not the norm globally. Only 30 of the top 194 countries automatically grant citizenship to illegal aliens.




Countries with birthright citizenship, per NPR

 

On so-called birthright citizenship, there is no federal law that established it. Nor has the SCOTUS has ever stated that children born to illegals are citizens. The entire idea of "Anchor Babies" come from an aside in a Brennan footnote.

Jim Ho, now a judge on the 5th Circuit, wrote a concise analysis of birthright citizenship in WSJ. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is best understood to mean "Subject to US Laws"



Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

 

JF
Very perspicacious .

And cool of Kanye and Candace

 

So is the argument of birthright that even though someone enters illegally, that person is subject to US law? Thus, her child is considered a US citizen if born here?

Edit: This is why I am an airline pilot and former karate instructor. I do not know the law. However, the sanctuary city and catch and release people would make it seem illegals are not subject to US law.

 

Yes.

The sanctuary city has nothing to do with what laws apply to somebody. It has to do with what measures local law enforcement will or will not take to assist the federal government in enforcing federal immigration laws. Can ICE agents go into sanctuary cities, arrest people, and deport them? Yes.

Catch and release also doesn't have any impact. It simply releases the person with an order to show up in court for a deportation hearing. Basically it treats being in the country illegally like a speeding ticket. The law still applies to the illegal immigrant, and the order still gets signed.

Note - I'm just explaining it. I'm not defending the merits of sanctuary cities or catch and release.

 

Proving once again that you are full of of bright colors and hope

 

I hope I look good in bright colors.

 

There is a key distinction to be drawn --

"Birthright citizenship" refers to the children of legal immigrants, not yet citizens.

"Anchor babies" refers to the children of illegal aliens.

As a legal matter, "anchor babies" have nothing to do with "birthright citizenship."

If you listen to the media in response to Trump's move today, they will get this wrong. Possibly intentionally in an effort to confuse. I have already heard them claim it is in the Constitution. This is false. Foreign citizens do not have a legal right to US citizenship

Good read on this topic generally Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

 

IMO, Trump should have done this EO long ago, but I guess he was waiting for the right time, which is now as he appears to be getting the reaction he wanted. The country is suddenly discussing illegal immigration, whether the media wants them to or not.
As usual, he shows good timing instincts with mid-terms and multiple caravans on the way.


It makes you wonder what the media will come up with to get this discussion buried? They definitely do not want this to happen now. Maybe they will try to play their Mueller card?

 

According to the CBO, the population of anchor babies in the US now exceeds annual US births.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/s1615.pdf

 

I don't subscribe to the WSJ, so I had to look up the article. My takeaway is that people born of illegal aliens are, in fact, citizens, whether it is called birthright or anchor babies.

I agree with the original intent that was debated out off the final amendment not to include children of illegal aliens.

 

The messaging needs to be really clear on this legislation. The media is going to use it to claim Republicans are going to deport every hispanic as a result. They will say it anyway. Unfortunately, I have little hope the messaging will be anything other than extremely clumsy.

 

Here is a calm and measured response to the proposed Executive Order from one of my liberal Facebook friends:
(note, he is an attorney and is the Director for Communications at the Office of the Attorney General in DC) Just in case you are wondering how they will spin this.
I'm not an attorney either, and I wouldn't make a comment on his post with a gun pointed at my head. I have to admit, I don't understand all the ins and outs of the law at times.

"The President of the United States is trying something that is patently unconstitutional to rile up his racist, xenophobic base to win an election. (Ending birthright citizenship is a key goal of white supremacists, FYI.) This man is a narcissist with strong fascist tendencies, through and through -- and ANY vote for ANY Republican on the ballot this fall is a vote to continue enabling this utter INSANITY.

This is your Dietrich Bonhoeffer moment, America; you have one election to start righting this sinking ship. If you don't come through, we all go down into a dark abyss."

 

That's funny. It seemed to me that 2008 through 2016 was a dark abyss.

 

Communists are always railing against fascists. They both idolize state power and seek to wield it for their preferred social group. Communists used to side with the working class but are now the vanguard of multiple victim classes including racial minorities if you catch the language he uses. Fascists are more aligned with middle class, professionals but now the working class is finding they have similar interests.

I don't agree with the framing this way, but this is the way viewpoint of Democratic leadership.

And it is hugely ironic that this guy calls on Bonhoeffer who was a German Christian pastor who was jailed by the Nazis. First, because they are claiming their own victimhood while being in the very seat of power. Second, because Communism is completely anti-Christian. Stalin would have shot Bonhoeffer on the spot, not jail time needed.

 

Is this a "Dietrich Bonhoeffer moment?" No. That's just shrill liberals showing their sanctimony, false virtue, and delusions of grandeur.

However, it is unconstitutional. I don't like birthright citizenship, but it is quite clearly the law. The 14th Amendment states that, "[a]ll 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." Having an illegal immigrant parent or parents doesn't change any element of that. I've heard some on the Right claim that illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, but that's clearly horse crap. Unless we're talking about foreign diplomats and their families, foreign citizens and their children are subject to the jurisdiction of the US when they're in the US. That's why they can be charged with a crime or sued. If we actually decide that being an illegal immigrant makes one not subject to our jurisdiction, then every illegal immigrant or child of an illegal immigrant who has ever been convicted of a crime is entitled to have his conviction vacated. If he has been sued, he is entitled to have the judgment tossed out. Is everybody cool with all that? Didn't think so.

I also think this is on very thin ice from a political standpoint. First, legally this isn't going anywhere. so nobody is going to score any policy victory from this. Very, very few (even among conservative legal minds) actually buy this jurisdiction garbage, but even those who do aren't likely to let a colossal reversal of policy to be dictated by executive order. Our Supreme Court (and probably no appellate court) will let it stand.

Second, if the Left was looking for something to motivate Hispanics to oppose the GOP, this is it. Obviously, plenty of them didn't care that Trump bad-mouthed illegal aliens, and plenty don't care if we deport illegal aliens. However, now we're putting into question the the citizenship of millions of people. That's a big deal, and there's a ripple effect. If the so-called "anchor baby" wasn't a citizen, then what about the children of the anchor baby? I think the caravan issue put the immigration issue on terms favorable to the GOP. This can easily shift it away from them. I think there are some in the party who think it's impossible to go too far on the issue. I don't think that's true.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if this executive order, if it actually happens, makes an exception for those who already have citizenship, but by making this announcement Trump is allowing the media to set the narrative to something far more draconian. It's a stupid move.

 

I agree. it's a bad move to do in an election year.

 

This is where the "constructionist" argument that some advance is proven to be ********. If you advocate for this change as anything other than a Constitutional Amendment change to the 14th Amendment the charade is over for you.

This isn't a serious proposal though. It's a great attempt to distract from the right-wing violence of the last week. Trump is very good at distractions.

 

Look at the worm that decided to crawl out from under his rock. Well, well, well.

Yes, Husker, this would take a change to the language of the 14th amendment to enact. Is the charade over for me, too?

 

Nah, but your hypocrisy for not calling out Trump for overreach will if he does take this EO step. Then again, my bet is it will never happen and is merely an attempt to turn the discussion back to illegal immigration before the midterms.

 

I still can't figure out why Husker(and many other libs) has this overwhelming need for us to denounce Trump constantly. I don't remember asking libs to denounce Obama.

 

Agreed. I was perfectly happy to denounce him myself for his endless idiocy.

 

It reeks of Stephen Miller. He's not always wrong like the media makes him out to be, but he's not the shrewdest of strategists.

But I don't think this is smart in any year, because it's going to take too long to implement. And during that time, the people impacted (which will be many - enough to turn an election) will vote in very heavy numbers and oust you. When you talk about disenfranchising large numbers of people (as ending birthright citizenship would), they're going to vote against you like there's no tomorrow. That's why we could never undo voting rights for women.

 

The argument isn't ******** at all. The Trump supporters who peddle it inconsistently are ********. But I've also heard many on the Left apply a textualist argument to attack the measure. Well, they reject that kind of argument in countless other contexts. Are they ******** too? And keep in mind that if we apply the Left's method of interpreting and applying the Constitution, Trump's policy is MUCH easier to defend.

By far the strongest argument against it is that the words of the 14th Amendment contradict it. Well, how about if we just follow that method in all situations and not care about the political ramifications of judicial rulings?

That is exactly what it is, and even setting aside the merits or constitutionality of it, it was a very stupid thing to do.

 

It's a great attempt to distract from the deranged violence of the last week

there was no right wing violence anymore than there was left wing.