• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump's Second Term

Andy_Ross said:
Acting AG Todd Blanche: "Everybody should agree that it's a violation of our laws if your intent in coming here if you're pregnant is to have a child to become a US citizen because of our now laws. And so what we have to do as the DOJ is make sure HSI agents and the FBI are focused on stopping that."

video in link
Click to expand...
Republicans simply cannot help themselves, everything always comes back to women's bodies!
 
mumblethrax said:
This simply doesn't follow. Citizenship is not conferred by parents, it is conferred by the state. "Citizenship confers rights, therefore having a citizen's children be citizens is a right" is just window-dressing around an ass-pull that treats citizenship as a quasi-mystical heritable property for no particularly strong reason.
Click to expand...
Historically, people were subjects, and that means subject to the authority of the ruler. With the exception of diplomats if you were living within the lands claimed by a ruler then you were a subject, irrespective of place of birth or your individual wish; William Joyce was executed for treason, despite being US born because the courts found he was subject to the authority of the King and therefore acting for the King's enemies was treason. Hence the basis for a slave who set foot upon an English ship becoming free; because he became subject to the authority of the English crown, and no English subject could be a slave. Subsequently the idea of nationality and passports led to changes in definitions.

The US do adhere to this 'quasi-mystical heritable property' quite strongly in some ways, whilst many countries recognise human rights, the US recognises rights of US citizens, thus non-US citizens can be executed without judicial process, tortured, kidnapped etc. This is very much the basis for US exceptionalism.
 
Q: Can you commit that the US won't return to full-fledged combat operations before the 60-day clock on the MOU is up?

JD VANCE: Well, I can't commit to anything

video in link

JD Vance to the troops: "The president will ask you to go to war -- yes"

video in link
 
Last edited:
Vance: "I'm trying to be non-partisan…Because I'm speaking to all of you, our great patriots and service members, I've got the angel on my shoulder saying, 'JD, don't be partisan. Make this non-partisan.' And then I've got the devil on my shoulder who wants to talk about every time Joe Biden fell up or down the stairs."

video in link
 
Andy_Ross said:
Vance: "I'm trying to be non-partisan…Because I'm speaking to all of you, our great patriots and service members, I've got the angel on my shoulder saying, 'JD, don't be partisan. Make this non-partisan.' And then I've got the devil on my shoulder who wants to talk about every time Joe Biden fell up or down the stairs."

video in link
Click to expand...
At least he recognises who is encouraging him to say things about Biden; I suspect the devil in question is of a rather more orange hue than is usually pictured.
 
Random said:
Because children should be punished for the actions of their parents.
Click to expand...
Withholding birthright citizenship isn't punishing children. Ireland withholds it from almost everyone. The UK withholds birthright citizenship from almost everyone. Finland withholds birthright citizenship from children of Finnish fathers, if the mother isn't Finnish and the parents are not married to each other.

Further than that, I think that part of being a parent is having ultimate ethical and moral responsibility for the effects your choices have on your children. You are their guardian and their agent. When you make choices, you are responsible for the effect of those choices on your children. If your choices make them ineligible for citizenship, that's on you, not on the policy that prescribes that consequence for your actions.

Random said:
Seriously, I have still yet to hear an argument against Birthright Citizenship that doesn't devolve to racism when you poke at it a bit. The whole point of that part of the 14th Amendment was to make it as broadly defined as possible in order to avoid people playing games with taking away citizenship or creating stateless citizens.
Click to expand...
Show me a stateless immigrant.
 
Planigale said:
The US do adhere to this 'quasi-mystical heritable property' quite strongly in some ways, whilst many countries recognise human rights, the US recognises rights of US citizens, thus non-US citizens can be executed without judicial process, tortured, kidnapped etc. This is very much the basis for US exceptionalism.
Click to expand...
I am not asserting that the US has a bettter justification for how it treats citizenship.

I am instead asserting that there's no clear-headed moral reason to treat jus sanguinis as preferable to jus soli.

Because, at the risk of repeating myself, fundamentally what we're doing here is trying to answer the question "Which babies merit the special protections and obligations of citizenship?" and that's just not a question with a reasonable answer. We should recognize that we are doing is trying to mediate outrageously unjust outcomes, because that's all we can hope to do.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Newsmax host: "I'd like to talk a little bit about the Supreme Court ruling with transgender. The backdrop today is that President Trump is at the Teddy Roosevelt presidential library. We know how tough Teddy Roosevelt was -- biological man, real man's man."

video in link
Click to expand...

I can feel the insecurity through the video.
 
bruto said:
I would guess that there will remain at least a few tatters of the Constitution left, and that ex post facto laws might get into trouble. The Constitutional rule reaffirming birthright citizenship doesn't actually do much except to prevent laws from being made that abridge it. I suspect that if a new law were written to limit it, there would be an immediate constitutional challenge, and we'd be back to the court. But in any case, I think any law that limits birthright citizenship would have to apply only to babies born after the enactment of the law.

e.t.a. Assuming the Thomases of this world do not figure out another way to deem the Constitution itself unconstitutional. When the most blatantly, flagrantly corrupt Justice is in thrall to the most egregiously, floridly corrupt President, and it seems nobody has the gumption to stand up to Long Dong Silver and his posse, nothing is off the table.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'm surprised they haven't gone full volksgertichtshof, declared Donnie the only font of law and themselves to be speaking in his voice.

It's what their hero, Roland Freiseler, did.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Vance: "I'm trying to be non-partisan…Because I'm speaking to all of you, our great patriots and service members, I've got the angel on my shoulder saying, 'JD, don't be partisan. Make this non-partisan.' And then I've got the devil on my shoulder who wants to talk about every time Joe Biden fell up or down the stairs."

video in link
Click to expand...

At least he never had to hold a General's hand to walk down a slight slope though. Imagine how humiliating that would be!
 
theprestige said:
So his children would be stateless pretty much anywhere else in the world they were born.
Click to expand...
No. 156 of the 193 countries in the UN recognize Palestine as a state.

I'm not at all convinced that birthright citizenship is an appropriate remedy to statelessness. Certainly it's not the only way to solve that problem.
Click to expand...
It is, in fact, the way we solve that problem. International treaties require that states confer citizenship to those born within their territory who would otherwise be stateless. The children of stateless people are always birthright citizens.
 
theprestige said:
Show me a stateless immigrant.
Click to expand...
It's not the immigrants, it's the children of those immigrants. The USA does not get to decide who is and is not a citizen of another country, each individual country decides who is and is not a Citizen of that country. If Country X says you need to be born in Country X to be a citizen, and an illegal immigrant comes in from Country X and gives birth, that child would not be a Citizen of Country X since they were not born there, and they would not be a citizen of the US if we did not have Birthright Citizenship.

Poof, stateless citizen.

Our broad Birthright Citizenship policy has been making racists complain for over a hundred and fifty years, but it is pretty tough for a stateless citizen to be born here. If we allow the Trumpists to change that, people will fall through the cracks.
 
theprestige said:
And tourists. In fact I'm soured on the whole idea of birthright citizenship. If it were up to me, we'd have a policy much more like Ireland's.
Click to expand...

I have decided I have "soured" on the idea of birthright citizenship as enshrined in the Constitution at the exact same moment in history that the fascist movement trying to remake our county into a white ethnostate are pushing to eradicate it. This is a merely coincidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom