I sometimes feel that a lot of current American politics boils down to: "a black man got elected President somehow and half of white America lost its mind."So much of current American politics is explained by understanding the Great Replacement theory.
Great Replacement conspiracy theory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
True by some definitions, but I believe Rubio's parents were documented immigrants at the time. While I don't think it should make a difference, and I think any attempt to overturn birthright citizenship would be a disaster and fraught with misscarriages and mistakes and misunderstandings, there is at least some difference here between this and the idea of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
That may be true, but the premise I was rebutting with this example was that only children of citizens could be citizens.
Any departure from the plain statement of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment just makes things worse. The crack into which people are driving the wedge is, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which is being variously interpreted as a cage match between legal immigration status and domicile. If you are here only temporarily, but have legal status, you may or may not be considered "subject to the jurisdiction of" the United States for the purpose of determining your child's citizenship. If you intend to be here permanently, but arrived unlawfully, you may or may not be considered "subject to the jurisdiction of." In the latter case you have clearly established domicile in the U.S., and thus your children should be considered citizens, but you are still somehow magically allegiant to the country you came from. In the former case you filed the proper paperwork and are thus "subject to the jurisdiction of," but you lack domicile. See how making it up as you go doesn't solve the problem?
I completely agree and I think the Wong Kim Ark decision was the right one, and that any attempt to change it would be a disaster. I was only remarking that Rubio's self-interest prevents him from going quite that far, or at least it seems to. It depends, of course, on how retroactive such decisions might be. I do not trust any government agency or court to get that right either. He's already gotten away with it and presumably has citizenship, but if some machination goes on that one cannot now get a passport or confirmed citizenship without proof that one's parents were citizens, then he could be back to the bottom of the barrel. I'm probably being too charitable to consider that his position is only wrong and not maximally, flamboyantly, floridly wrong.
This also matched the concept of a British subject, subject to the authority of the crown, in mediaeval terms one who owed fealty to the crown, and was therefore under the protection of the crown.
Easy: because we aren't xenophobic ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. We recognize that we'd rather have people contributing to our communities and economy despite not being citizens than having unqualified goon squads terrorizing and killing people.
In contrast to ICE agents, who think they are wholly unaccountable to anyone. The immigration and naturalization system provides a reasonably good system of accountability for non-citizens living in the country. DHS is simply burning it down and then trying to blame their political opponents for the ashes.
The illegals have blocked the Strait of Hormuz!!1
I appreciate your counter arguments to MAGA's nonsense. However, it should be pointed out that Democrats are not for open borders. Democrats want an immigration policy that isn't reliant on racism, unlike the GOP. They want a more efficient path to citizenship and more efficient asylum policies. This "open border" claim is a lie that the GOP says to rile up their racist base.
Yeah, I never understood the 'open borders' nonsense either. As if the Democrats just let anyone who wanted waltz right into the USA. So dumb.
Good points, of course. What the Republicans call "open borders" is the reasonable policy of paroling some entrants into the U.S. while keeping tabs on them. These are not people who show up unannounced at the border. These are people who have been vetted to some degree overseas. And the records show a high rate of compliance with the tab-keeping process and disproportionally low rates of crimes committed by these people. Instead the Republicans seem to believe that no entry into the United States should be allowed until citizenship is granted. Lately this has come to exclude the customary lawful permanent or temporary residents of the U.S. Failing that, they want undocumented entrants to be detained indefinitely under inhumane conditions until they can be removed, under the premise that otherwise they would commit crimes, vote, or consume the resources of lawful residents.
This. Only the targets are different.
Ah but I think there might be an explanation in the main Trump Thread
◊◊◊◊.
Unsympathetic. Her son was apparently surrounded by kids speaking multiple foreign languages. I don't speak multiple foreign languages and I can see how that might be rather humiliating, to be less urbane and sophisticated than the other kids. Naturally he feels a little embarrassed that he can't.
I'm afraid it's a little more complicated than that. You can't really say that it's blocked, much the same way you can't say that it's open. The Hormuz is in two straits at once, open and closed. An observer determines what it is is by sailling through it. If he lives, it's open. If he dies, it's closed.
