I remember a prominent black leader who told me he disagreed with Jack Kemp's politics but believed he was not a racist because: "he has showered with more black people than most Republicans know."
This is getting repetitious, but the subject at hand is not immigration, legal or illegal, in general, but birthright citizenship. There are lots of economic arguments, good or bad, about immigration, but I haven't yet seen anyone even try to show that the economic impact of birthright citizenship is anything other than small potatoes.
It doesn’t need a Constitutional Amendment. It’s baked right into the 14th which says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” People here without the knowledge or consent of the federal government are not under the “jurisdiction thereof” or they would’ve been deported.
I, and most of the rest of the legal profession, disagree with you.
I haven't made an argument for unlimited birthright citizenship, and don't even have strong feelings about it. All I say is that, for good or ill, that is the current rule, baked into the Constitution, and that I have yet to hear anyone explain what the problem with it -- birthright citizenship, not immigration in general -- is and why it is a big enough problem to be worth ginning up the Constitutional amendment process for some unspecified other system. What I have heard doesn't encourage me to extend the benefit of the doubt.
Chip may want to speak for himself, but I thought he was asking not about immigration restriction in general -- for which there are non-racist economic arguments, not very good, but non-racist -- and the topic under discussion, birthright citizenship. The arguments over that probably aren't economic because it is small potatoes. Or so we are entitled to think for all anyone has said.
You're wasting your time. You'll never get an answer; only the assertion that one could be against birthright citizenship for non-racist reasons. And of course one could, but in the absence of any evidence of a problem worth solving and any specific program to solve whatever the alleged problem is, that's not the way to bet.
Why would anyone "run" on birthright citizenship? It is already the law. I don't see that many people running on a constitutional amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship, and little evidence that it's a priority issue for any reachable voter.
I understand the political value of being aware of what s**t people believe so we can deal with it. Most of the time, however, we already are aware of it, and can't figure out how to deal with it. In the absence of some practical suggestions along that line, I do get tired of arguments based on what "the perception is" or what "[t]he widespread belief is" instead of what's so.
There's nothing sacred about birthright citizenship; it's just the current rule, encoded into the Constitution and, thus, beyond the reach of Congress or the President. Even though one could legitimately argue for a different system, what are the current facts? Is the actual state of birthright citizenship a big enough deal to gin up the amendment process? Who wants it changed that badly? And why? The likelihood that this is motivated by actual knowledge about some genuine problem seems to me slim.
I can't remember the name of the movie and can't spare the time to look it up, but there was a pretty good movie with Robert Mitchum and Curt Jurgens as a U.S. destroyer captain and a German sub commander, and the chess game they played stalking each other.
Talk about unintended consequences.
In a sane world, immigration (and migration) would be a technical, wonky issue of low political salience. We do not live in a sane world, and we know why.
The reference to Bert Williams reminded me that W.C. Fields, a drinking buddy, said Williams was the greatest comedian he had ever seen and that most of what he knew about comedy he learned from him. Sadly, next to none of his work survives.
If I may ask, how does asexuality come up in normal conversation? Do people ask about it? Do you believe it is something you need to tell people in order to answer other questions they might have some right to ask? How do people react? Hostile? Uncomprehending? Curious? Sympathetic? Do people seem to perceive it as a "problem" that needs solving. or just unusual in a purely statistical sense?
This is exactly right. She checked a box reflecting her sincere and, we now know, true belief that she had Native American ancestry. In the absence of evidence that she profited or intended to profit unfairly from this fact, why would anyone care? No creditable motive suggests itself.
What Harvard did with the information, a well-known story, is on Harvard. There is no evidence that Warren herself unfairly profited from her Native American ancestry. You do understand the difference, I think.
I had heard a great many rumors about a great many things. All I know to be a fact is that she claimed some Native American ancestry, which is true. The more lurid rumors about what else she claimed, or whether she took unfair advantage of this fact, as best I have been able to determine, were false. It's true that if enough people believe them, they could well damage her 2020 run -- though the sort of people who would believe such things on the available evidence wouldn't vote for her anyway.
What does it mean that Elizabeth Warren (like every other native Oklahoman I have ever met) has some Native American ancestry? It means nothing. It's just a fact. The people who deny that it is a fact, or make an issue of the fact, or make false claims that Warren took advantage of the fact, are the people responsible for this being a thing.
By and large, I don't think the hardest-throwing starters are throwing any harder than the hardest-throwing starters 40 years ago. (A few relievers, like Chapman, seem to throw harder than anyone used to.) But now most teams seem to have a couple of starters who can consistently hit 95-plus, when there used to be two or three in all of baseball.
I've always been fond of mid 1970's-1980's baseball because there were so many different ways to win.
You can spend a couple of decades in prison for rape based on he-said, she-said. A relative of mine just did. Most prosecutors, who like winning, want more than that for obvious reasons, and will often shy away from bringing cases where they don't have more, but if the jury credits the accuser's testimony, that is legally sufficient.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Are There Earnest Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship?”
I remember a prominent black leader who told me he disagreed with Jack Kemp's politics but believed he was not a racist because: "he has showered with more black people than most Republicans know."
"
This is getting repetitious, but the subject at hand is not immigration, legal or illegal, in general, but birthright citizenship. There are lots of economic arguments, good or bad, about immigration, but I haven't yet seen anyone even try to show that the economic impact of birthright citizenship is anything other than small potatoes.
"
It doesn’t need a Constitutional Amendment. It’s baked right into the 14th which says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” People here without the knowledge or consent of the federal government are not under the “jurisdiction thereof” or they would’ve been deported.
I, and most of the rest of the legal profession, disagree with you.
"
I haven't made an argument for unlimited birthright citizenship, and don't even have strong feelings about it. All I say is that, for good or ill, that is the current rule, baked into the Constitution, and that I have yet to hear anyone explain what the problem with it -- birthright citizenship, not immigration in general -- is and why it is a big enough problem to be worth ginning up the Constitutional amendment process for some unspecified other system. What I have heard doesn't encourage me to extend the benefit of the doubt.
"
Chip may want to speak for himself, but I thought he was asking not about immigration restriction in general -- for which there are non-racist economic arguments, not very good, but non-racist -- and the topic under discussion, birthright citizenship. The arguments over that probably aren't economic because it is small potatoes. Or so we are entitled to think for all anyone has said.
"
You're wasting your time. You'll never get an answer; only the assertion that one could be against birthright citizenship for non-racist reasons. And of course one could, but in the absence of any evidence of a problem worth solving and any specific program to solve whatever the alleged problem is, that's not the way to bet.
"
Why would anyone "run" on birthright citizenship? It is already the law. I don't see that many people running on a constitutional amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship, and little evidence that it's a priority issue for any reachable voter.
On “Wednesday Writs for 11/7”
Have you ever pondered the ethical problem posed by the ending of Witness for the Prosecution? No spoilers.
On “Are There Earnest Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship?”
I understand the political value of being aware of what s**t people believe so we can deal with it. Most of the time, however, we already are aware of it, and can't figure out how to deal with it. In the absence of some practical suggestions along that line, I do get tired of arguments based on what "the perception is" or what "[t]he widespread belief is" instead of what's so.
"
Let's see what people say if you run for President.
"
Lots of them. Every few weeks at the local federal courthouse, a new bunch gets made up.
"
There's nothing sacred about birthright citizenship; it's just the current rule, encoded into the Constitution and, thus, beyond the reach of Congress or the President. Even though one could legitimately argue for a different system, what are the current facts? Is the actual state of birthright citizenship a big enough deal to gin up the amendment process? Who wants it changed that badly? And why? The likelihood that this is motivated by actual knowledge about some genuine problem seems to me slim.
On “Interlude: Where Are All The Good Submarine Movies?”
I can't remember the name of the movie and can't spare the time to look it up, but there was a pretty good movie with Robert Mitchum and Curt Jurgens as a U.S. destroyer captain and a German sub commander, and the chess game they played stalking each other.
On “The Weekend Plans Post: Fall Back”
And now we don't get that extra hour of sunlight fading our fabrics.
On “Border Enforcement and the Realities of Mexican Migration”
Talk about unintended consequences.
In a sane world, immigration (and migration) would be a technical, wonky issue of low political salience. We do not live in a sane world, and we know why.
On “Best Regulated Families: Party Man”
The reference to Bert Williams reminded me that W.C. Fields, a drinking buddy, said Williams was the greatest comedian he had ever seen and that most of what he knew about comedy he learned from him. Sadly, next to none of his work survives.
On “Ace of Hearts”
If I may ask, how does asexuality come up in normal conversation? Do people ask about it? Do you believe it is something you need to tell people in order to answer other questions they might have some right to ask? How do people react? Hostile? Uncomprehending? Curious? Sympathetic? Do people seem to perceive it as a "problem" that needs solving. or just unusual in a purely statistical sense?
On “What Does it Mean that Elizabeth Warren has a Native American Ancestor?”
This is exactly right. She checked a box reflecting her sincere and, we now know, true belief that she had Native American ancestry. In the absence of evidence that she profited or intended to profit unfairly from this fact, why would anyone care? No creditable motive suggests itself.
On “Ordinary World for 22 Oct 2018”
Those attitudes have been pervasive from my perspective for the last 20+ years.
bookdragon, you must be young. I remember it from 50 years ago. It is true, however, that Newt Gingrich famously systematized it in the '80s.
On “What Does it Mean that Elizabeth Warren has a Native American Ancestor?”
What Harvard did with the information, a well-known story, is on Harvard. There is no evidence that Warren herself unfairly profited from her Native American ancestry. You do understand the difference, I think.
"
I had heard a great many rumors about a great many things. All I know to be a fact is that she claimed some Native American ancestry, which is true. The more lurid rumors about what else she claimed, or whether she took unfair advantage of this fact, as best I have been able to determine, were false. It's true that if enough people believe them, they could well damage her 2020 run -- though the sort of people who would believe such things on the available evidence wouldn't vote for her anyway.
"
Well, yes. I believe in human moral agency. Old fashioned, I know.
"
What does it mean that Elizabeth Warren (like every other native Oklahoman I have ever met) has some Native American ancestry? It means nothing. It's just a fact. The people who deny that it is a fact, or make an issue of the fact, or make false claims that Warren took advantage of the fact, are the people responsible for this being a thing.
On “What is Going on with Baseball?”
By and large, I don't think the hardest-throwing starters are throwing any harder than the hardest-throwing starters 40 years ago. (A few relievers, like Chapman, seem to throw harder than anyone used to.) But now most teams seem to have a couple of starters who can consistently hit 95-plus, when there used to be two or three in all of baseball.
I've always been fond of mid 1970's-1980's baseball because there were so many different ways to win.
On “Melania Trump Demands Proof”
You can spend a couple of decades in prison for rape based on he-said, she-said. A relative of mine just did. Most prosecutors, who like winning, want more than that for obvious reasons, and will often shy away from bringing cases where they don't have more, but if the jury credits the accuser's testimony, that is legally sufficient.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.