Birthright Citizenship

Trump Plan to End Birthright Citizenship Via Executive Order Is Unconstitutional: Reason Roundup

Plus: Southern border will see more troops than Iraq, Syria.

|

Phil McAuliffe/Polaris/Newscom

President Donald Trump said he's considering issuing an executive order to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. Trump told Axios reporter Jonathan Swan on Monday that he had discussed with his lawyers ending this tradition—which grants citizenship to children born on U.S. soil even if their parents are not citizens, per the 14th Amendment—and plans to proceed despite constitutional concerns.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," said Trump. "It's in the process. It'll happen … with an executive order."

Constitutional law professors and pundits seem to agree that this would be illegal.

It also provides good evidence for the wisdom of orginalist interpretations of the Constitution, suggests Case Western Reserve University law professor and The Volokh Conspiracy blogger Jonathan Adler.

And here's University of Texas professor and Lawfare blogger Steve Vladeck:

Meanwhile, immigration and Trump administration reporters have been cautioning against making too much of the president's comments or reporting on them without proper context—such as that Trump's claims we're the only country with birthright citizenship are untrue, or that we've been here before.

Read more about Trump's animosity toward birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment in Damon Root's 2015 feature "Trump vs. the Constitution," in which Root notes that "the text and history of the 14th Amendment are clear: If a child is born on U.S. soil, and that child's parents don't happen to be diplomats, foreign ministers, or invading foreign troops, then that child is a U.S. citizen by virtue of birth."

FOLLOW-UP

Migrant caravan inspires more Mexican border militarization. Thousands more troops will be deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border, the Pentagon announced yesterday. An additional 5,200 troops will join the nearly 3,000 National Guard members already there. Buzzfeed points out "that is more than are currently deployed to Iraq and Syria" and "about half the US military presence of 15,000 in Afghanistan."

More importantly, it's more than double the number of people traveling north through Mexico to seek asylum here. Many have characterized Trump's fearmongering about migrant caravan "invaders" as a midterm election ploy. It also seems to be a step toward ongoing militarization of the U.S. border and possible preparations for building Trump's promised wall. Those deployed will include members of the Army Corps of Engineers who will help with construction projects, according to a Pentagon press conference. They and other newly-deployed military members will be stationed in southern Arizona, California, and Texas.

Conservative media has mostly been happy to parrot the president's characterization of the caravan. But a few prominent pundits haven't been playing along. On Sunday, Bill Kristol condemned "Fox News and parts of … right-wing media" for "their coverage of the caravan and the dangers of these immigrants" and for being "obsessed" with George Soros. And here's Fox's Shep Smith:

QUICK HITS

• Many who are anti-"political correctness" are also pro-censorship:

• WordPress becomes the next target of folks who think they can actually police all online speech.

• Howard Dean suggested that Gab "should be tried for being an accomplice to murder" because synagogue shooter Robert Bowers posted there.

• Protecting and serving:

• From TechCrunch:

A U.S. government network was infected with malware thanks to one employee's "extensive history" of watching porn on his work computer, investigators have found

• "We have now reached the point where tech is one of the worst covered subject areas by the U.S. and also British media," suggests economist Tyler Cowen.

• Are we in a new era of political violence? Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie discuss.

• Drudge lashes out at Fox:

NEXT: Embrace the Dirt Nap

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. President Donald Trump said he’s considering issuing an executive order to end birthright citizenship in the U.S.

    Finally, a fresh outrage. It’s been a few days.

    1. Hello.

      Shep and Kristol?

      Well played ENB.

    2. Well, it is a ridiculous claim but nothing if not ballsy. Everyone’s so busy debating whether statute might be able to do it; Trump says, I’ll do it by EO.

      I’m a very, very strongly attached defender of birthright citizenship myself, but if this stunt gives the GOP a glimmer of hope on Long Island in the face of the extra-extra-hard shellacking they’re going to get there from the re-entry of guns into the news cycle on top of everything else, I’m all for it.

      1. To be fair, Trump’s pen and phone are more YUGE than Obama’s

    3. [inhales deeply]

    4. In this thread, I kick Shreek around for lying, and then he makes a fool of himself.

  2. …and plans to proceed despite constitutional concerns.

    Isn’t that written over the entrances to both the White House and the US Capitol Building?

  3. This proposed EO is a good reason to be happy President Trump has nominated judges who believe the original public meaning of the Constitution controls. The originalist arguments against this proposal are quite strong. See, e.g., https://t.co/HQg1aB3rsm https://t.co/Pd1p3yuuyH
    ? Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) October 30, 2018

    Hoisted on his own petard.

    1. There’s certainly no shortage of petards when it comes to the Trump administration.

  4. Hasn’t the Open Borders/Bryan Caplan response to immigration restrictionists concerns about mass migration leading to a take over of the government by immigrants been to allow everyone in, but to deny them voting rights/citizenship?

    1. Yeah, pretty much. They vote by proxy if you consider that they count for number of congressmen. It’s worked for California, it can work for other places too I’m sure.

  5. Migrant caravan inspires more Mexican border militarization.

    You know the Redcoats who burned down the first White House came into the country pretending they were going to legally ask for sanctuary, too. Learn some history.

    1. Goddamn Canadian menace. Build the Northern Wall first! Winter is coming!

      1. The “eh” walkers are coming.

      2. Turn back the frostbacks!

  6. President Donald Trump said he’s considering issuing an executive order to end birthright citizenship in the U.S.

    “We can’t possibly overturn a century of precedent on birthright citizenship,” says the commentariat of a nation that just discarded 3,000 years of precedent on the definition of marriage by judicial fiat.

    WaPo: Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright
    Yet for decades, U.S. officials ? led by immigration enthusiasts in and out of government ? have acted as though “subject to the jurisdiction” simply means “subject to American law.” That is true of any tourist who comes here. The framers of the 14th Amendment added the jurisdiction clause precisely to distinguish between people to whom the United States owes citizenship and those to whom it does not. Freed slaves definitely qualified. The children of immigrants who came here illegally clearly don’t.

    1. Those framers understood, as did America’s founders, that birthright citizenship is inherently self-contradictory. A just government in the modern world rests on the social compact, a freely entered agreement among free citizens. That compact’s scope and authority extend only to those who have consented to its terms and whose membership has been consented to by all other citizen-members. A compact that anyone can join regardless of the wishes of its existing members is not a compact. As President Trump likes to say, “If we don’t have a border, we don’t have a country.”

      Some will argue that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue, establishing birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this is wrong. The court has ruled only that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn’t change the status of children born to people living here illegally.

      1. That compact’s scope and authority extend only to those who have consented to its terms

        Oops.

        1. What about the Chinese birthright-tourist industry that has been going on for the last 10+ years? Thousands a year come for six+ weeks, birth a baby, get a SSN, and head back home…


      2. The court has ruled only that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn’t change the status of children born to people living here illegally.

        An interesting take, but I’m fairly sure that it’s that OR born within the United States. There could be an argument that the borders angle is illegitimate if you’re an open borders type I suppose, although they’ve never been exceptionally clear on when borders matter and when they don’t. It’s why I’ve often wondered what benefit there is to declaring the entire planet an American citizen.

    2. Wow, the SoCons are STILL butthurt about gay marriage?

      1. SoCons hang onto 2000 year old myths – so they never give up in reality.

      2. The SoCons have lost on every single social issue, and will continue to do so, until they abandon their insularist principles.

        1. Care to put that to a vote?

          Oh yeah … even friggin California voted against you!

    3. “Clearly” overstates the case, to the point of assuming your conclusion.
      The argument is usually made that ‘subject to jurisdiction’ was intended to separate out diplomats and foreign sovereigns from ‘everyone else’. Case law backs this interpretation.

      Secondly, how can someone not subject to US jurisdiction nonetheless be held to be doing something illegal?

      Thirdly, “social compact/contract.” Read Spooner’s Constitution of No Authority. Social contract ‘theory’ is fantasy, not theory, wishful thinking, not actual fact.

    4. Longtorso, let it go, man. Gay marriage is here to stay.

      1. I support gay marriage. The point in my quote stands whether you support or oppose it.

        1. No it doesn’t. Marriage licenses date back to the 19th century, and they were instituted to prevent interracial marriages. There is no 3,000 year old legal precedent of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman only. For most of history, marriages were a private contract.

          1. The issue then was interracial. The issue now is workplace benefit entitlement.

            1. For married couples it’s workplace benefit entitlement, inheritance, power of attorney, and social security.

              For lawyers it’s an unparalleled income stream, so civil marriage is here to stay…

          2. Actual many marriages were alignments of families. Its why there were dowries.

            The societal norms for most of written history has been Man and a woman. Or one man and woman and then woman and then woman.

            Men and men/woman and woman kept their relationships super private.

            I know you want a man and woman to not be the norm but it is for most humans. Polygamy was the occasional exception. Homosexuality was the rarity and was super quiet.

          3. And it certainly didn’t mean a man and only one woman.

  7. Why we shouldn’t take much comfort in polls showing broad opposition to “political correctness.” Many who oppose PC also favor extensive censorship of speech. post inspired in part by great work by @emilyekins & @AlexNowrasteh of @CatoInstitute. https://t.co/oVRqXTHL1G
    ? Ilya Somin (@IlyaSomin) October 13, 2018

    This is quite a roundabout link to reason.com’s own content.

    1. Evil feeds upon itself.

  8. A U.S. government network was infected with malware thanks to one employee’s “extensive history” of watching porn on his work computer, investigators have found

    Bi-DEN!

  9. “We have now reached the point where tech is one of the worst covered subject areas by the U.S. and also British media,” suggests economist Tyler Cowen.

    I blame the fall of net neutrality.

  10. New York Times Publishes Fantasy Story Depicting Trump’s Assassination
    The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger.

    The Makarov misfired.

    The Secret Service agent at the president’s shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes.

    The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost.

    It did not come.

    He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first.

    “Here,” the agent said politely. “Use mine. ?”

    1. Local GOP Chair Responds to Shots Fired Into Florida Republican Party Office: ‘I’ll Call Them Out, They’re Democrats’
      At least four shots were fired into a Republican Party satellite office in Florida’s Volusia County over the weekend, according to police. No one was hurt, but the Volusia County Republican Party chairman said the incident was carried out by “some sick person,” adding he expected those responsible to be Democrats.

      “You’ve got some sick person, and I’ll call them out: they’re Democrats. No Republicans got any reason to come attack our location. Some sick person decided they wanted to express their anger and they took it out with violence,” Volusia County Republican Party chairman Tony Ledbetter said on Monday.

      1. Maybe it was an embittered right-winger who figures the Republican Party under Trump is becoming soiled by connections with Jews? A 46-year-old white, economically inadequate Appalachian high school dropout, seething with anger toward immigrants he blames for his self-inflicted problems, a bigoted loner who hates blacks, gays, women, immigrants, Muslims, foreigners, and Jews, a stale-thinking right-winger who nevertheless boasts he wouldn’t touch a MAGA hat because he figures Trump does not adequately walk the personal walk on diffuse bigotry?

        1. No one is surprised you are into murder-porning people.

        2. You are dumb.

          1. I’m dumb.

            You’re a right-wing bigot.

            We all have problems.

            1. Politics can change. You’re stuck like that.

        3. I like how he hates Jews twice. B+ for revealing your own prejudices, Kirkland.

  11. Are we in an era of new political violence? Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie discuss.

    WITH THEIR FISTS!

    1. Sounds like a lot of fisting

  12. A segment on Fox News this morning where hosts laughed and joked their way through a discussion on political impact of terror was bizarre. Not even 48 hours since blood flowed at synagogue? Check your soul in the makeup chair!
    ? MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) October 29, 2018

    Who doesn’t watch Fox and Friends for a good laugh?

    1. Who doesn’t watch Fox and Friends for a good laugh?

      I know when I’m enjoying my cup of joe in the morning and am in need of a heartfelt, soulful pick-me-up to get my day going, I think political news commentary. I think Fox and Friends.

  13. “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” said Trump. “It’s in the process. It’ll happen … with an executive order.”

    TRUMP DON’t NEED NO CONSTITUTION!

    1. Funny. You never seemed to care when that buffoon issued EO’s for eight years prior.

      1. Turd’s nothing if no stupid and dishonest.

        1. Yeah, I caught him lying again just yesterday and he collapsed into incoherence.

          1. It was deeply pathetic and desperate, some stupidity about how I criticized Google for their human rights abuses in China so “THAT MEANS YOU MUST WANT THE US GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE THEM” or some such incoherent nonsense.

            I felt bad that he was trying so hard to find SOMETHING but failed anyway.

            1. Quit lying. You attacked Google and you know it. Then you joined another poster and falsely said I supported a government shutdown of Gab.

              1. I did attack them. For their human rights abuses. Like I JUST SAID. IN THE POST YOU WERE RESPONDING TO.

                (Jesus Christ how are you this stupid)

                AND SOMEHOW you got “you WANT THEM REGULATED!!!” out of that.

                You reaponse was weirdly incohrent and an obvious attempt, sad as it was, to find SOMETHING to criticize me for.

                But hey, you’re the one defending Google for human rights abuses, which sounds about right for you.

              2. TuIpa|10.30.18 @ 10:30AM|#

                It was deeply pathetic and desperate, some stupidity about how I criticized Google for their human rights abuses

                Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|10.30.18 @ 10:56AM|#

                Quit lying. You attacked Google and you know it.

                Ladies and gentlemen, screech. So stupid and desperate that if you say you did something, he will call you a liar and THEN AGREE THAT YOU DID IT!!!

                you joined another poster and falsely said I supported a government shutdown of Gab.

                Sorry dickhole, that never happened.

                But post the quote if you like.

                1. Still no quote fuck boy.

      2. I guess the last President had a better pen and phone.

        Why not just use prosecutorial discretion and not prosecute people who refuse to provide civil rights to people here illegally?

  14. Latest poll shows Sinema up six points after all those horrible embarrassing fatal revelations about her hard-left past. Then again, Arizona is a notoriously deep-blue state–just like those deep-blue states of Florida and Georgia and their incoming black socialist governors. Menendez winning too; across the country RNC pulling out of “tossup” race after race to furiously pour money into formerly “safe” districts.

    Man those Democrats are really paying the price for their extremism; The People are against them! I can smell the #RedWave from here; the lefties must be shaking so hard in their boots that all the money from their severalfold fundraising edge is falling right out of their pants pockets!

    1. their incoming black socialist governors

      What’s worse, from your perspective . . . the “socialist” part or the “black” part?

      Right-wing bigots are the worst faux libertarians.

      1. How are you still fucking that up? Jesus Christ you moron, that’s an everyday thing with you, learn to close a tag dumbass.

      2. Just use italics, or quote marks even if the html is too hard.

      3. Man, you are really really bad at the whole reading comprehension thing.

  15. Guys. Trump can’t terminate amendments via executive order. To respond as if he’s ending birthright citizenship because he told an outlet he is ending birthright citizenship is to allow him to be our assignment editor. It’s an obvious stunt
    ? Sam Stein (@samstein) October 30, 2018

    “WE GOT NOWHERE ELSE TO GO!” [sobs]

    1. If they wanted to analyze what they were writing before they posted, then they would have become analysts now wouldn’t they have?

    2. It’s an obvious stunt

      Obvious to people not suffering from TDS.

  16. Howard Dean suggested that Gab “should be tried for being an accomplice to murder”

    “And then on to the Supreme Court! YEAHHHHHHHH!”

    1. I bet he watched television. Try Philo Farnsworth posthumously!

    2. I bet Howard Dean makes that scream when he climaxes.

  17. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Constitution? Forsooth, I am surely vexed!!

  18. About 5 minutes before Gab shut down, I saw this on a blog linked from a Gab post. A blog post from today. Hey @wordpressdotcom? take this blog and every one like it down. pic.twitter.com/bUKDH4Xgjv
    ? (@lilsarg) October 29, 2018

    Make sure they plan in secret!

  19. NYTimes: Beto O’Rourke Once Supported an El Paso Real Estate Deal. Barrio Residents Remember.
    EL PASO ? At a special City Council meeting in 2006, a billionaire real estate investor unveiled his vision for redeveloping downtown El Paso. To replace tenements and boarded-up buildings, he proposed restaurants, shops and an arts walk rivaling San Antonio’s River Walk.

    Representative Beto O’Rourke, one of hundreds attending, wasn’t exactly a disinterested party.

    Not only had he married the investor’s daughter, but as a member of City Council, he represented the targeted area, including a historic Mexican-American neighborhood.

    Calling downtown “one piece of El Paso that was missing on the road back to greatness,” Mr. O’Rourke, now a congressman and the Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas, voted to take the first step forward with the plan.

    Over the next two years, Mr. O’Rourke would defend the plan before angry barrio residents and vote to advance it.

  20. What is the real Libertarian interest in citizenship as opposed to residence? Libertarians are forever claiming that immigration is about their right to hire whom they want and for foreigners to roam free about the country. Neither of those things is contingent on citizenship. Moreover, if you got rid of birth right citizenship and severely curtailed immigrant access to public services like welfare and public schools, people would be much more receptive to increased immigration and those who object would be deprived of their most compelling arguments. You could have a real increase in freedoms that Libertarians claim to hold dear at the cost of depriving immigrants access to public services Libertarians want eliminated anyway. Instead of setting the groundwork for what could be a very sensible compromise that would increase freedom, we will instead be treated to the reason staff informing us that birth right citizenship is the only thing that stands between America and the dark night of fascism.

    1. John I saw you commented earlier that current law requires Congress to include every protected class in any antidiscrimination law it writes, if it is to protect anyone at all. Do you know what decision made that law? I was under the impression that that was not how Equal Protection review worked at all.

      1. Since, the CRA included all of the protected classes under the 14th Amendment, it is not an issue that has ever been decided. But, I don’t see how it could be otherwise. Suppose that tormorrow Congress decided that the CRA need no longer cover discrimination on the basis of religion. It would be saying that some protected classes get protection but not that one. I don’t see how they could do that absent a compelling government interest to do so. If we are going to have a law that prohibits discrimination, then Congress is going to need more than a rational reason to explain why a protected class doesn’t get that protection when others do and the entire purpose of the law is to protect covered classes.

        The CRA doesn’t prevent discrimination on the basis of choice in pro football teams for example. Being a Steelers’ fan living in Cleveland is not a protected class. Therefore, the government need only have a rational reason not to include you in the law. But, being a Jew is a protected class. And Congress will have to have a compelling reason and legitimate state interest in explaining why you are not covered when every other protected class is. If gays are a protected class, I don’t see how you can justify the CRA not protecting them.

        1. I don’t see that following at all, far as I can tell.

          Jim Crow imposed discrimination by race–not only as a public-sector policy, but upon the private sector. The CRA and similar statutes not only lifted that imposition, but imposed a prohibition. These are two very different matters. I know of no case suggesting that Equal Protection mandates any government protection from private-sector discrimination. I fail to see any suggestion that the absence of such a policy could in any way be seen as government discrimination against any particular group, whether or not they decided to address other matters or not. Suspect classification has utterly no bearing on those kinds of civil-rights statutes.

          What suspect classification does is expose to strict scrutiny laws alleged to actually discriminate on the basis of a suspect class, as Jim Crow did. So if Paul LePage gets the Maine Legislature to pass bans on hair braiding, menthol cigarettes, grape sodas, and so forth, one might suspect he was doing so in the spirit of making Maine less desirable for certain types. Whereas he could ban cherry soda and gel toothpaste for “fuck you that’s why; I don’t like them” reasons or worse; and the courts would say, “Sorry Mainers; vote ’em out if you don’t like it.”

          1. …Again, no court to my knowledge has ever suggested that the absence of private-sector discrimination bans in any way constitutes discrimination by the state against a group. And that’s what EP is there to address, government discrimination. If the government drafts a private-sector regulation that favors, say, blacks over Asians, then that would be EP-scrutinized as positive statutory discrimination on the basis of race. That’s something specific. But if it drafted a regulation that chose to address, say, racial discrimination without addressing sexual discrimination, then that does not fit any such mold. It is neither a statute discriminating on the basis of race, nor one discrimination on the basis of sex, nor anything else…

            1. …And in fact we see this kind of thing all the time on the state and local levels. The CRA1964 was in fact far more limited than most people think; it only covers, for example, certain types of service businesses as “public accommodations.” State and local CRAs are relied upon in all states for their much broader and stronger provisions, and in many places they are constantly being tweaked. If NY’s new ultra-radical incoming statehouse decides to pass legislation banning the “pink tax,” no court here or anywhere else will compel them to address the “black tax” by banning exorbitant fish sandwich prices or whatever. Seems like damn near every other law here is already being proudly trumpeted by its backers as abolishing some particular species of “discrimination” in the private sector. It’s all kosher.

          2. I know of no case suggesting that Equal Protection mandates any government protection from private-sector discrimination.

            It does not. But if you are going to prohibit private sector discrimination, you have to do it consistent with the equal protection clause. And that means you can’t deprive protected classes of a benefit you are giving to others without a compelling government interest. The equal protection clause doesn’t require the government to run schools or give out welfare. But if they do, it requires them to not deny those protections and benefits on the basis of being a protected class.

            1. The government cannot treat, say, Blacks and Asians differently in its antidiscrimation legislation. That would constitute legal discrimination–government discrimination–on the basis of race. Race is a suspect class, triggering strict scrutiny.

              There is no sign whatsoever of any such mandate to “balance” antidiscrimination law across suspect classes. It’s not even clear what that would mean. If my state currently has certain statutes addressing racial discrimination, and others addressing sexism, and then it passes a Lilly Ledbetter type act, or a sexual harassment act, or paid maternity leave, or whatever, in the name of workplace sex equity, have we now thrown the balance out of whack by protecting against sexual discrimination “more” than against racial? Or likewise if we “ban the box” asking about prison records, or whatever–again, inevitably trumpeted as a blow against racism–have we done the same in the other direction?

              These things happen all the time, quite loudly. Regulations loudly added in the name of fighting discrimination on the basis of one factor or another, added to the body of civil rights law. The “balance” is constantly being adjusted. And no one ever even attempts a lawsuit challenging that. That is because there is no balance. Equal Protection scrutiny does not work in that fashion.

            2. Equal protection and protected classes cannot logically co-exist.

          3. Jim Crowe laws were unconstitutional as was the CRA.

            Throw both out forever.

    2. severely curtailed immigrant access to public services like welfare and public schools

      So why doesn’t the fucking party in total legislative and executive power (the GOP in case you don’t know) do just that?

      Because they fooled rubes like you into thinking they care about cutting spending, that’s why.

      1. They did in the 1996 Welfare reform. And education is a state issue. They don’t have the power to do that. Also, courts have ruled that national origin is a protected class and it is not possible to deny access to most public services on the basis of being an immigrant.

    3. They want as many immigrants voting Dem as possible, because Dems have the ‘right’ position on immigration. If that means we turn into Venezuela and people try to flee instead of immigrate here, tough shit. At least virtue has been signaled.

      If Reason had the same position on drugs as they do on immigration, it would be “STFU about legalizing or decriminalizing pot. You still want crack and heroin to be illegal so you are a goddamn fascist and we refuse to compromise with fascism.”

    4. My view is that the right of free migration flows from freedom of association/freedom of movement, but that citizenship is a privilege akin to membership in a club, which is not a fundamental right of anyone. So if a nation’s citizens declared “we will let anyone who wishes to come here be free to do so, but we will only admit as citizens 6 foot blonde supermodels”, then that would be their prerogative to do so. I think it would be wrong and foolish, but it wouldn’t trammel upon anyone’s fundamental rights IMO.

      1. Most immigrants only want citizenship because it allows them to stay as long as they want without having to renew their greencards. I doubt many immigrants would care if they could no longer get citizenship as long as they could still work legally. The only people hung up on citizenship are people who make a fetish about equality or who only support immigration because they think immigrants will be a new pool of political support.

      2. I agree.

        But from reading H&R the “true libertarians” believe we need a giant Trump built wall to protect the country from rapist Mexicans.

          1. Your silence is deafening

        1. I’m completely for Mexican rape myself.

      3. If we are being libertarians, citizenship shouldn’t even be a thing, unless it is completely voluntary. You are right in that it is like a membership. But what is the membership fee? Taxes. What are the benefits of membership? Certain government services. From this it follows that if you are not a citizen, you should not have to pay taxes, or at least that portion of taxes that pays for the services only available to citizens.

        1. That’s not a Libertarian position and its coming from YOU a non-Libertarian.

      4. I kind of think there should be a further divorcing of being a citizen from working and being here. Part of it is just pure public confusion, I think people equate citizenship rather broadly with being in the country at all.

        The question then becomes what rights exactly does someone gain by being a full citizen. Voting to me seems to be obviously in that camp. I would also probably say many benefits, though I also think that that the government should supply few to no benefits anyway.

        Of course, the ol’ chestnut becomes clear. It’s easier to break this down if you remove many of these responsibilities from the Federal level. Let local jurisdictions decide how to handle it’s school funding or whatever. Removing red-tape and barriers is a always a valuable goal in my mind though.

        1. Caste-based society, here we come!

    5. John, I fully agree with your sentiments. Immigration and citizenship should not be linked together. I’ve been arguing that for months on this forum.

      A modest proposal that the Republicans should make is to allow people to come here under some other system that includes security vetting and no access to welfare, similar to H1B but without all the red tape. It would actually be a good political move by the Republicans, because it would likely not be supported by Dems, and would have them on record as a voting bloc saying no to improving the lives of the people they claim to care about because it doesn’t increase their voter rolls.

      I’m afraid the Republicans have dug themselves too deep a hole with their base to ever have such a compromise though, which is pretty telling about their true intentions, IMO.

      1. Grant a work VISA good for ten years for anyone who wants one contingent on them not having a criminal record and on the understanding they are not eligible for any public services, their kids won’t be citizens, and if they commit a crime they are gone never to return. At the end of the ten years, give them the choice of either applying for citizenship or going home.

        Such an arrangement would work for immigrants and would greatly reduce the concerns that natives have over immigration. It is an easy solution but one that will not happen because Democrats want votes and only care about immigrants to the extent it gets them votes. And both Republicans and Democrats have big money supporters who love the HB1 system because it gives them enormous power over immigrant and employees and would not want to see that end.

        1. Good luck delimiting “public services.”
          City or state utility services?
          City buses?
          Sidewalks and roads?
          Police? The courts? The public schools?
          “Public services” is a jumble that’s going to be impossible to untangle.

          1. We are talking about welfare, schools and social security Shirley. It is not hard. It doesn’t have to mean city buses. Come back when you can make an honest argument.

            1. Schools are generally financed through property taxes. I take it then that you don’t think non-citizen immigrants should pay property taxes?

              1. People without children pay property taxes too. They can’t opt out of them just because they don’t get to benefit from them. Immigrants are no different. They are our schools. We don’t owe immigrants access to them. If Immigrants don’t like the deal offered them to come here and work, they don’t have to come.

                1. You think it is fair for people without children to pay for schools?

            2. I think it’s a fair point. Delimiting a lot of these things can become absurd because of how invasive Government is in day to day life. I still think it’s a move in the right direction, and may even have an absurd bonus of making people cognizant of all the nonsense government is involved in.

            3. You’re the one who posed “not eligible for any public services.”
              How is it dishonest, or beside the point, to point out that that phrasing has more holes in it than a sieve?
              The devil is in the details, and there are lots of details that are going to need to be worked through. There are a host of legal precedents and statuary prescriptions that must be dealt with.
              Hand-waving all that away and thus pretending there’s an easy answer, now that’s dishonest.

        2. I am for every part of that save the noncitizen kids. With or without such a policy, we can crack the whip in other ways. Provide, for example, that if you have a child here (definitely as an illegal, probably as a tourist, and possibly as a employable noncitizen), that child will be a citizen, but he will provide you with absolutely no favorable treatment for your own case for staying here. He can remain here if you wish–like if you have relatives or whatever–that is his right as an American. But that will be you “breaking up your family.” Take him and leave if you don’t like it. Furthermore he will never be able to sponsor you, or favorably affect your case for reimmigration or naturalization at all, as long as you live. That’s a disability that attaches to you and your relationship to him, not to him.

          This won’t be nearly enough to dissuade illegal immigration. But it should be at the very least a part of any such plan.

      2. And the instant Democrats had control of the government, they’d naturalize every last person who’d come in under that system.

        Yes, they dug themselves a hole, by decades of campaigning on border security, and delivering anything but. Their base doesn’t trust them on the topic, and justifiably so.

    6. Personally (can’t speak for all) I’d be for a legislation that allows more work visas with possible path to citizenship after a period of maybe 10 years if they want and a stronger border presence (border being a mile or so from border line not 50 miles unless you their is some geographical issue like Rio Grande or a mountain range). In interior less federalization of the process, basically if local Leo’s pick you up and your illegal and they want you out then they can call ICE have you deported. No ICE raids in the interior just looking to pickup some stats by targeting workers. I think property owners on the border need more respect from feds on both sides of the issue. Some get drafted into border security against their will while others are left have massive waves of people crossing their property. This is a general summary.

      Mostly I just piss on both major parties since neither want to do anything other then hammer each other over the issue for political gains rather then sit down and deal with the issue.

      1. So NO to enforcing Rule of Law?

        Illegals know that once they get into the interior of the USA, they would be safe.

        The other BS thing about helping illegals is it allows a USA national ID to gain traction. Obviously drivers licenses are National IDs now but you can still get around needing one.

  21. Shep Smith on the migrant caravan: “There is no invasion. No one is coming to get you. There is nothing at all to worry about.” pic.twitter.com/4dLmPuZem0
    ? Jon Passantino (@passantino) October 29, 2018

    He’s talking to the other tenants of his ivory tower.

  22. MS-13 INFLICTS “REIGN OF TERROR” IN CALIFORNIA
    “How brutal murders and fear kept a town silent. MS-13 is like no other gang.”

    That may sound like President Trump at one of his rallies but it’s actually the headline of an October 19 Fresno Bee story by award-winning reporter Yesenia Amaro. “MS-13 carved out a reign of terror,” she writes, “resulting in at least 14 brutal murders in and around Mendota from 2015 to 2017.” Amaro charts how this reign of terror developed, and the bloodshed MS-13 has inflicted.

    “MS-13 slipped into Mendota relatively unnoticed,” Amaro notes, and “few people outside the rural town in California’s Central Valley knew MS-13 had infiltrated the area at least a decade ago.” This was not only due to relative obscurity of Mendota, with a population of some 11,000. When the gang ramped up the violence, “there was little or no media coverage on some of the murders, some of which had been initially labeled as suspicious deaths.”

    Along with the gang’s extortion, kidnapping and drug trafficking, the killings “kept nearly everyone quiet, including city leaders, who failed to sound the alarm.”

    1. MS-13 is an alt-right myth! Just as “Soros” (but not “Zionists”) means “Jews,” so does “MS-13” mean “Puerto Ricans get out.” It’s a well known fact.

  23. “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” said Trump. “It’s in the process. It’ll happen … with an executive order.”

    “It was always told to me” is as close as you’re going to get to hearing Trump saying that he didn’t know, he’s the world’s foremost expert on absolutely everything and if he doesn’t know something then nobody knows it.

  24. Howard Dean suggested that Gab “should be tried for being an accomplice to murder” because synagogue shooter Robert Bowers posted there.

    Just like Reason should be tried in a court of law for all the impolitic things you people write here.

    1. If it finely frees me from this website, then I accept it.

      1. *Finally. I guess finely could make sense. But I’m a libertarian and so I don’t see anything fine about a government shutdown of a private website.

        Please fund my GoFundMe.

  25. My understanding is that there isn’t any Supreme court precedent on the birthright citizenship status of children born to parents who are here illegally.

    I don’t see how we get it adjudicated without some action such as Trump is proposing.

    And the 14th amendment does say, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, so it clearly contemplates that people can be born here and not get citizenship.

    Let’s have it out. So long as automatic birthright citizenship even for the children of illegal aliens is the rule, there’s a huge motive for people to invade our country.

    1. There is plenty of room between present policy and doing everything we can to make this country less illegal-friendly, without crossing the lines of mandatory e-Verify, continued “border area” search privileges, and ending birthright (which happen to be my personal pet hangups). And fuck subsidiarity on this one; I’m on the far lukewarm end of attitudes toward that libertarian principle anyway.

    2. “invasion” lol

      keep on stoking that fear of the scary furriners coming to take away your country

    3. I mean, the language of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is pretty damn unambiguous.

      1. Is someone who has voluntarily and consciously avoided being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” then not really subject to the jurisdiction by choice?

        1. “Is someone who has voluntarily and consciously avoided being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” then not really subject to the jurisdiction by choice?”

          No. We’re all subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government whether we want to be or not.

          For example, the loopy Sovereign Citizens have chosen not to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. How’s that working out for them?

    4. The drafters of the 14A did not want any loopholes for states to deny ex-slaves US Citizenship.

      Slaves lived in another country, The Confederate States of America.

      The 14A is not a good route to defeat these open border people.

  26. “UK wants to tax Facebook and other large internet companies”
    […]
    “”The rules have simply not kept pace with changing business models,” Hammond said. “And it’s clearly not sustainable, or fair, that digital platform businesses can generate substantial value in the U.K. without paying tax here in respect of that business.””
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-digital
    -services-tax-facebook-amazon-alphabet
    -and-other-large-internet-companies/

    Note that he’s not even pretending that the companies receive any government services for the taxes; it’s not like the companies deliver their products over government-provided roads of through the post office.
    Nope, it’s just that some money is being made and the government want its baksheesh.

    1. While I hate taxes…I ALSO hate Facebook. Dilemmas!

    2. Note that he’s not even pretending that the companies receive any government services for the taxes

      The reality of government means that I was actually confused a moment by this comment, as taxes are so divorced in my mind from government services that I forget that was the idea at one point.

      1. “…taxes are so divorced in my mind from government services that I forget that was the idea at one point.”

        At least you knew it was; the Brit-twit obviously never had any concept of taxation for services.

  27. Reason is doing their very best to put the Onion out of business.

  28. “Southern border will see more troops than Iraq, Syria.”

    How long’s it been since the military was actually used to defend the country?

    1. It does sound like a very good development.

    2. Over a century in the West. Over 70 years in the East.

  29. Conservative media has mostly been happy to parrot the president’s characterization of the caravan. But a few prominent pundits haven’t been playing along. On Sunday, Bill Kristol condemned “Fox News and parts of ? right-wing media” for “their coverage of the caravan and the dangers of these immigrants” and for being “obsessed” with George Soros. And here’s Fox’s Shep Smith:

    Reason citing noted warmonger Kristol as a voice of reason. Adorable.

    Note how FNC actually has on-air people who disagree? Note how literally no other network does?

    1. On other networks ALL of the people are disagreeable.

  30. That is a very fitting photo of The Dotard, ENB. He almost looks regal in a Henry VIII way.

    1. But also kind of like a Michael Myers mask?

      1. Looks like that badly restored painting of Christ.

        1. Yes! That is what sprang to my mind when I saw it. Very appropriate.

      2. The Con Man as Leatherface?

        There is a market opportunity for tomorrow that needs to be filled.

        1. Doesn’t really look like Leatherface’s mask. The drooping look is probably closer to the Scream mask if you wanted a different one.

      3. More like this

    2. Yeah, chosen by victims of TDS, turd.

      1. Sevo, your worship of government strongmen is unsettling.

        1. Looks more like he just hates liars like you. You seem to have a huge problem with assigning motivation where none actually exists.

        2. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|10.30.18 @ 10:08AM|#
          “Sevo, your worship of government strongmen is unsettling.”

          No, turd, I despised Obo.

      2. Notice how upset and hyopcritical Reason is.

        Reason advocates for lower partisan aggressiveness but then refuses to use normal pictures of Trump. All the pictures of trump have to be caricatures or have weird tweeks to them.

        Reason didn’t dare do that to our black De Jesus. Imagine putting a black man in a monkey suit holding some watermelon and a crown on his head.

        All the invites to Cosmo parties would dry up.

    1. It’s cute watching musicians pretend they have control over their catalog.

      Trump should send him a polite “Fuck you” letter in response.

      1. ASCAP, BMI, and the RIAA would like a few words with you.
        If the use was not licensed properly, it’s illegal.

  31. NYPD cop put an 11 year old in a chokehold, lied about it under oath. No punishment, he now makes $163,000 patrolling Yankee Stadium while posting racist memes on Facebook

    This is news in New York? And, fuck the Yankees.

  32. NYPD cop put an 11 year old in a chokehold

    “Time out, Buddy.”

    1. The cop is doing the only decent thing, putting him out of the misery of being in NYC.

  33. The one time I don’t copy my comment before I submit it seems to invariably be the time it’s eaten by the gerbils.

    1. Keep refreshing, Ken. It’ll show up eventually.

      1. It didn’t. Not if it’s too long or there’s something wrong with the link.

        Suffice it to say, I oppose the President changing the rules of naturalization without the input of Congress for the same reason that I oppose the President going to war without Congress declaring war–the Constitution enumerates both powers to Congress. I’ve opposed wars I would have supported otherwise because they were unconstitutional, and I’d oppose an unconstitutional change in the rules of naturalization by the President for the same reason.

        . . . even IF IF IF I did support getting rid of birthright citizenship, which I don’t.

        There’s this thing called “intellectual honesty”, and anybody who’s argued over the last two years that we need to persuade our fellow Americans to elect an open borders Congress if that’s what we want (because that’s what the Constitution requires) has no business arguing that President Trump can change the rules of naturalization with an executive order whenever he wishes to do so.

        1. You’re not imagining things. It’s seriously slow today.

          1. Been fucked up since at least last night. Was having this issue in some thread I was shitting up yesterday.

    2. The one time I don’t copy my comment before I submit it seems to invariably be the time it’s eaten by the gerbils.

      I mourn your lost megillah, Ken. We are all made poorer by its loss.

  34. Nothing like a few thousand people in an organized, billionaire-lefty-funded march to swarm the border for reminding sane people that we have a border and enforcing it might be a good idea.

    The people behind this stunt aren’t doing evangelists for the church of open borders any good.

  35. I suspect that in this particular case all the egghead law professors are probably right, but let’s not forget that a lot of supposedly very, very smart preeminent legal minds said that there was absolutely no way that Trump could impose a travel ban on various countries, until the pre-Kavanaugh Supreme Court said “Uh actually, yes he can.”

    It’s kind of amazing how often Trump turns out in the end to proven right and the supposedly very, very smart preeminent legal minds around the country turn out to be wrong.

    1. The more the Con Man packs courts with powdered-wig 18th Century types the more he will be “right” on things.

      1. “Elections have consequences. We won, you lost. Get over it.”
        -Barack Hussein Obama, 2012

      2. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|10.30.18 @ 10:11AM|#
        “The more the Con Man packs courts…”

        Surprise! Trud doesn’t know what “court packing” means. Along with about every other bit of human knowledge.

        1. Well, you don’t know what “court packing” means.

          Nominating one justice to replace a justice that leaves isn’t “court packing”. It’s “doing your fucking job”.

          By your definition every president who has nominated a replacement justice ever has engaged in court packing.

    2. The issue has never been resolved. I think it will be good for it to be settled by the court. No matter what happens, it is good politics since most people object to birth right citizenship. Even if Trump were to win, you can’t take someoen’s citizenship without a lot of due process. So he could only deny citizenship going forward. And that could be undone by a future administration. All it would do is create some truth in advertising. We would find out if the Democrats actually mean what they say when they support it and if the Republicans mean it when they claim to object to it, which would be a very good thing.

      1. most people object to birth right citizenship.

        Only 39% are in favor of changing the Constitution to end birthright citizenship for non-legal residents.

        http://www.people-press.org/20…..ration_04/

        1. No Jeff, one poll from three years ago says 39% are in favor.

          Try to understand why that isn’t the same as what you said.

        2. First, that is one poll and hardly the final word on the issue. Second, even if it is acurate, the people who support ending birthright citizenship are much more likely to vote on the issue than those who claim to object to it. This is smart politics on Trump’s part. The people who really are angry about this, won’t vote for him anyway. The people who want this, are almost certainly Trump voters and this just further cements their loyalty.

        3. No need to change the Constitution Congress can legislate it away.

      2. Obama: “I will use my pen and phone”
        John: “OMG HE’S ACTING LIKE A DICTATOR”
        Trump: “I will use my pen and phone”
        John: “LOL LOOK AT HIM TROLL THE LIBS”

        1. I actually think that’s what he’s doing here Jeff. Trump is the ultimate Troll, and this announcement is likely Trump’s way of shifting media focus to the issue of birthright citizenship. You can say what you want about his methods, but they are effective.

          There’s very little chance that any of the President’s legal team would have told him that this is a Constitutional approach. It’s almost certainly trolling.

  36. I am no fan of birth right citizenship. It is a ridiculous loop hole in a world where China, Russia and others are trying to undermine the US. Despite that, it is in the constitution. I would like to amend the constitution to remove that loop hole.

    Removing it by EO is not the way to do that.

    1. What’s even the definition of a loophole?

    2. I am not at all convinced that the drafters of the 14th Amendment meant anything other than the states could not deny citizenship to freed slaves. I find it hard to believe the thought that they were granting citizenship to the children of all foreign nationals born on US soil forever entered their minds. I don’t think it is unreasonable to read the language, given the context, as meaning something more restrictive than the plain meaning implies.

      I think it is reasonable to go the other way too. It is an issue that the Supreme Court needs to settle. That said, it is funny to hear the very same people who claim the equal protection clause requires state recognition of gay marriage and that the CRA covers transgender now claim that it is all about the plain meaning of the statute. It is the usual “I want my pony” theory of statutory interpretation.

      1. The drafters of the 14A wanted to prevent any excuses for ex-slaves being denied US citizenship.

        The term Naturalization was included too to cover all bases.

        The GOP almost has enough states to convene an Article V Constitutional Convention and multiple things should be amended.

        No more anchor babies.
        Term limits for Congress.
        Balanced budget amendment.
        etc

        Article V Constitutional Convention
        Check out how scared this Lefty outlet is

        1. An Article V convention has to be called by the Congress which will never happen and any proposed amendments would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states which also probably wouldn’t happen.

          1. NO… if 2/3 of the States call a Cosntitutional Convention, Congress is completely left out of the process.

            As designed.

            3/4 of the states have to ratify the amendments.

            1. “The Congress…on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,…”

    3. Congress can change it with legislation.

  37. Well Trump is a very traditional Democrat. I wonder how Democrats are going to respond to this, since Harry Reid tried to push through the very same concept in 1993. Granted, Republicans have pushed for similar legislation since then.

    1. He really is. Trump is President because the Democrats walked away from middle class issues and embraced the gentry left and identity politics to the exclusion of all else. That and he was the only Republican smart enough to take full advantage of the opportunity that provided.

      1. +100

  38. A U.S. government network was infected with malware thanks to one employee’s “extensive history” of watching porn on his work computer, investigators have found

    I miss Crusty.

  39. The UK wants to impose a tax on American tech giants.

    This is probably the dumbest thing you’ll read all week not written by someone named Tony or Shrike:

    “It is important that I emphasize that this is not an online-sales tax on goods ordered over the Internet. Such a tax would fall on consumers of those goods?and that is not our intention. The Digital Services Tax will only be paid by companies”.

    —-Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po…..ey-giants/

    That statement is partially truncated, but not in a way that makes a real difference. Any way you slice it, it’s the dumbest thing I’ve read by someone who should know better in a long time.

    1. He’s just making it clear that it’s everyone else’s fault, not his.

  40. I just got an ad on this site, in German, that mentions a Turkish Currency crisis.

    The Russians have won.

  41. Obama: “I will grant amnesty via executive order.” (Not really an EO, but whatevs)
    Republicans: “OMG YOU CAN’T DO THAT, IT’S ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL”
    Trump: “I will take away birthright citizenship via executive order”
    Republicans: “FINALLY SOMEONE WILLING TO LITIGATE THE MATTER”

    1. Obama’s EO that riled the wingnuts up (that I recall) was determining some details in the ACA that Congess had given him the power to do already.

      1. No, there was a lot of EOs that people took issue with. It was not a singular thing.

        1. Like the one that took away 5th amendment due process protections from social security recipients who had other people handle their money, for instance.

        2. Like the one that took away 5th amendment due process protections from social security recipients who had other people handle their money, for instance.

  42. Howard Dean suggested that Gab “should be tried for being an accomplice to murder” because synagogue shooter Robert Bowers posted there.

    Can he really be this mendacious and/or stupid?

    YEEAAAHHHH!

  43. Amendment XIV
    Section 1.
    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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    [….]

    Trump never does exactly what the media thinks he will do. If he is going to attempt a maneuver relating to anchor babies, he will likely try and prevent them from reaching US territory. This would prevent them from being “born…in the United States”

    1. This would prevent them from being “born…in the United States”

      Bruce Springsteen, hardest hit.

      1. He’s a Lefty advocate this year, so fuck him.

  44. So Soros is showing up in all these GOP ads – he obviously is there as a symbol of the Globalist Jew Stealing My Money.

    How is the GOP not anti-Semitic?

    1. How is the GOP not anti-Semitic?

      Because disagreeing with someone’s political agenda does not an anti-Semite make. But you knew that.

      1. Why do you hate America?

        /sarcasm

        Better question is: Why react to Shrike? He’s a fucking retard.

        1. What’s more pathetic, the antisemite or the moron who doesn’t realize he’s peddling in antisemitism when he shares his moronic political opinions?

          1. Feeling left out?

            You’re an idiot, too, Tony.

            Feel better?

          2. who doesn’t realize he’s peddling in antisemitism

            Surely you have examples.

        2. Tony is definitely more pathetic.

    2. Yeah, putting Soros in some scare adds is much more anti-Semitic than supporting the BDS movement, as a substantial number of Democrats do.

      It’s be nice if you stopped pulling stuff out of your ass…?.

    3. MAGA!

  45. My favorite program for SMS is about to get even better.

    “New Signal privacy feature removes sender ID from metadata”

    http://arstechnica.com/informa…..-metadata/

    In short, Signal is the shiznit. Last I checked it was endorsed by the EFF, and even better than that endorsement?

    Signal was funded by the guys who started WhatsApp. They sold WhatsApp to Facebook for $billions, and left Facebook in disgust several months ago after Facebook started looking to monetize WhatsApp users for advertising. If they’d stayed a few more months, they would have been vested about a cool $billion in options. They walked away in disgust, went off, and poured their own money into Signal instead.

    Anybody who uses WhatsApp for encrypted communications needs to ask themselves what they know about how Facebook treats its users that the founders of WhatsApp didn’t know when they were still working for Facebook.

    Use Signal as a replacement for your current SMS manager, and you may find you like it even better than your native SMS manager. Your communications with Signal can soon be as inaccessible to the government or anyone else as they can be. And for goodness’ sake, don’t be Zuckerberg’s jailhouse bitch.

    You won’t lose your contacts if you start using Signal and make it your default SMS manager. It uses the same contacts you already have on your phone.

  46. Pittsburgh shooting comes amid rise in hate crimes, growing anxiety about right-wing extremism


    A 2017 report by the Government Accountability Office found that since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, far-right violent extremists were responsible for 106 killings in the United States, while Islamist-inspired violent extremists had killed 119. The GAO found that while the number of deaths were roughly similar, the number of incidents were not; far-right extremists committed almost three times as many attacks ? 62, compared with 23 by Islamist extremists.

    https://goo.gl/eeVZ9a

    1. If you just define enough murders as “far right” you can get any result you like. Everyone knows that statistic is a load of shit and it has been explained to you why any number of times. Yet, you continue to post the same lie over and over again like it is going to convince anyone.

      1. This is a GAO report, dumbass.

        And there is no dispute about what “far right” means.

        1. And it doesn’t mean what you claim it does. It way over defines what is “far right” terrorism. You know that and everyone else on here knows that. Stop lying or at least find some new lies to tell.

          1. The MAGA-bomber and the anti-Semitic killer were no doubt far right.

            There have been dozens of others like them.

            BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT GUY WHO SHOT AT SCALISE??? is all you have.

            1. the anti-Semitic killer were no doubt far right

              The guy who hated Trump? So Trump is on the left in your view?

            2. The antisimetic guy is a leftist (nazism is big government collectivism) and he hated Trump.

              The bomber is not even a bomber because he didn’t build any bombs. And he is really just a crazy person who’s political rantings were incoherent. And he is the wrong skin pigment to support your preferred narrative.

              I understand why you are upset, being the bigot and leftist shill that you are.

            3. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|10.30.18 @ 11:03AM|#
              “The MAGA-bomber and the anti-Semitic killer were no doubt far right.”

              Running total of all turd posts which are not lies:
              Zero.

      2. “There are lies, damn lies and statistics.”

    2. “found that since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, far-right violent extremists were responsible for 106 killings in the United States, ”

      Ooooh, roughly 6 people per year. It’s another holocaust!!!

      In that same time period, how many killings were committed by, say, black males between the age of 15 and 30? Or drunk drivers? Or white male truck driver serial killers?

    1. The comments are refreshingly sane at least. Here’s another great quote from the article:

      “you can’t do all the right things and absolve yourself so that you’re no longer a gentrifier, just like you can’t no longer be white,” says Orpwood-Russell. “But you can check your biases, acknowledge your privilege, and fight the systems that create gentrification.””

      1. “you can’t do all the right things and absolve yourself so that you’re no longer a gentrifier, just like you can’t no longer be white”

        Fuck off, racist. Being white doesn’t make me a better person, and it doesn’t make me a worse one. Wrap your silly head around that.

      2. The ultimate fight against gentrification would be to legally prevent people from relocating.

        1. An Executive Order should do it.

    2. There are so many ways to mine this stuff, it’s amazing.

      For instance, the existence of ghettos explains why we have to change our economic policies, but getting rid of the ghettos is also unacceptable.

      Incidentally, combatting gentrification in places like San Francisco is about blaming hipsters for the world’s problems, too. Wake up, hipsters! The people they’re protesting against is people like you.

      1. It’s the hipsters who are the loudest about gentrification too! I can’t tell you how many bearded skinny-jeans white man-girls I’ve seen walking around with “stop gentrification” t-shirts.

  47. Whatever Trump wants to do to citizenship law by fiat, it couldn’t possibly include Melania.

    1. Because she wasn’t born in the US.

  48. About 5 minutes before Gab shut down, I saw this on a blog linked from a Gab post. A blog post from today. Hey @wordpressdotcom? take this blog and every one like it down.

    yeah, because the most influential speech on the internet is on free blogging websites.

    1. Also, “grandpalampshade.wordpress.com” is the best domain for a crazy person’s website I’ve ever seen

  49. “Buzzfeed points out “that is more than are currently deployed to Iraq and Syria” and “about half the US military presence of 15,000 in Afghanistan.””

    Shouldn’t that be a cause of celebration? More troops to protect the U. S. than to meddle in other countries?

    1. using the defense departmen to protect US soil? What kind of craziness is that?

  50. I doubt that an EO (if it comes) would purport to amend the Constitution, it would probably say the Constitution has been misinterpreted in the past – but no more!

    Then there will be a swift judicial challenge to the EO, and it will probably be held unconstitutional based on the Wong Kim Ark case from 1898.

    1. Except Wong only applies to legal permanent residents.

      1. I suspect they’ll invoke it anyway.

    2. SCOTUS could honestly go either way on this one… Most modern conservatives are not huge on illegal immigration or related issues, so their personal politics will likely come into it. But some of the guys on the court are of the more globalist/establishment conservative variety. So it’s really anybodies guess.

      I hope they kill birthright citizenship. The way it’s written could be interpreted that way easily, and it is simply a bad policy. One need look no further than pregnant illegal immigrants, OR pregnant people from China etc rushing here right before delivery to see what a warped incentive system it creates. One parent should be required to be a citizen (or at least green card holder on track for citizenship) for automatic citizenship to be conferred.

  51. Congress just has to change the Immigration and Nationalization Act to end birthright citizenship. Nothing need be done to the Constitution.

  52. d00d, Trump is such a BOSS. Birthright citizenship is a HORRIBLE idea. That’s why almost no nations have ever had it. The whole “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” bit makes it pretty damn ambiguous IMO, and anybody who says otherwise is full of shit. “We” just decided it meant anybody born here, and rolled with that. It should have been more properly challenged a LONG time ago.

    If we ended birthright citizenship, and all the privileges that come with citizenship, I for one might be MORE open to allowing people to come here and work. But as it stands now, giving tons of a people a free ride just because they timed their vacation from overseas here right and pop their baby out in the USA… Or because they illegally crossed the border… It’s just asinine.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if lefty judges try to shoot it down, but with the Supreme Court being made up of who it is now, and the ambitiousness of the 14th… We could even get a good SCOTUS ruling.

    1. Lots of countries had it. The UK got rid of it in the 80’s for instance. My brother was born in France in the 60’s and they tried to call him for military service when he turned 18. He had to renounce his French citizenship to get out if it.

      1. Yeah, they had it before the age of modern travel… And then realized it was a horrible idea when people could go on “vacation” and “accidentally” pop out a baby in a country where citizenship is desirable. I never said nobody had it, just that there were not many… And as you mentioned of the few that had it, many have eliminated it since because of the obvious problems it creates in the modern age.

        Sometimes policy positions DO need to change as the world changes. People weren’t able to zip around the globe so much in 1880 or whatever. People who moved back then generally intended to stay forever when they crossed the oceans to come to America. Not all of them did stay for forever, but that was at least the intention. Not to mention we also had a lot more wide open spaces, resources, etc that were underutilized back then and so on.

        There are a lot of reasons to not be in favor of birth right citizenship, or even large scale immigration in the modern world. I don’t buy into the migration as a “right” concept, because it’s just not that severe of a limitation on anybodies rights, and the downsides (like destroying entire cultures via overwhelming them) are legitimate concerns.

  53. I challenge Reason, I dare them, to actually read and contend with the opposing viewpoint, as stated here for one example, before they keep on publishing drivel that is completely uninformed and free of any substantive content.

    Nobody should be commenting on this legal issue unless they have read this paper and can intelligently discuss the arguments in it.

    Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11

    More:

    What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

    Trump’s Critics Are Wrong about the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship

    1. The 3rd link makes a bad claim. AmerIndians are US Citizens. They have dual citizenship. Tribal and US citizenship.

      I get the desire to win this claim against illegals but the 14A is a bad argument.

      The 14A was designed to prevent any loophole to deny ex-slaves from the nation of Confederate States of America American citizenship. Since the CSA became US territory again, any slave born there was automatically a US citizen.

      1. I don’t understand your point. Everyone agrees that the citizenship clause did not apply to Indians. But then later on Congress gave the option of citizenship to all Indians who wanted it.

        1. Sorry. I was in a rush.

  54. STOP including *FUCKING* tweets in the stories – that’s not journalism.

  55. Afsh Bnjran Transport Company is one of the best moving companies in Najran with great discounts for customers. Transportation of furniture in Najran

  56. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

  57. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.