On this one, part of me suspects that someone (I'm assuming Susie Wiles... btw, notice how everything hinges on Susie Wiles existing -- how long will that last?) said, um, for the tiniest shred of protection, let's just commute the sentence of the Seditious Conspiracy boys. At least they're still convicted felons then.
Ok, I can feel my anti-Trump non-Republican Solidarity party enjoyer calling balls and strikes credibility wearing off in the other thread... so here's one we can all condemn as plain old bad.
And, not just the usual 'dumb bad' but actual bad bad... triple bad bad bad for the people actually convicted of Sedition.
Sure We can agree that there are multiple categories of entrant seekers: Temp Visa Workers, Asylum, Immigrants, and lots of niche sub-categories. This is putting stress on a system that is already stressed to the point of broken.
My original point isn't that this solves everything (or anything), just that I think it will come across as more popular than people expect -- owing, in part, to how broken the immigration system is.
Like you, I prefer to grapple with the actual ideas and not simply spin-off into unreliable narratives based on team identity.
According the the EO, children born prior to the EO are subject to the broad interpretation and therefore citizens.
I think the issue with dreamers isn't that they were born here, it's that they were brought here as children and therefore occupy an ambiguous legal status that's made worse by the fact that their cultural country is the US -- so deporting them to their 'country of origin' introduces new issues.
This EO doesn't actually do anything for or against the dreamers... what we do with the dreamers would require something like the Dreamer Act.
Sure, the court could re-affirm the broad interpretation of 'subject to the jurisdiction' or it could correct itself and affirm a narrower interpretation.
I think it is higher probability that it knocks down an EO than an Immigration Act that clarifies the term.
I don't think the question of 'dual loyalties' or 'dual sovereign jurisdictions' will the fulcrum of the argument... it will be weather the act of ignoring the immigration laws puts one outside the jurisdiction for citizenship requirements -- even if one is still subject to the speed limit.
And, as I note above, it's best that proponents of the idea grapple with the 'edge' cases and put together an immigration policy via Congress.
I don't think it's recreating the same conditions.
At the baseline, if the Father is a citizen, then so is the child... if the Mother is a citizen, so is the child. It only obtains for the circumstances where neither mother nor father are citizens *and* they have entered the country illegally, or are here on temporary visiting visas. That will cover a lot of future folks, even if (especially if) there's no proper border interdiction.
The conditions for Slavery (and, say, the Turks in Germany) is that they were a class that had permanent status, but no real path to citizenship. As written, the EO allows for children of immigrants who have permanent status to become citizens.
I'm completely open to evaluating how it gets applied in practice... and, as I noted above, I don't think an idea like this should be an EO at all for the reasons you raise. It needs to be part of a complete immigration package.
Lastly, I agree that a functioning regime of interdiction, border management and immigration policies should be the goal.
Specifying how birthright citizen requires legal immigration is the correct rhetorical way to frame it... it doesn't end birthright citizenship, it clarifies how it applies through laws. It acts as both deterrent and incentive for a proper functioning immigration regime.
The reason why I say I can see this becoming more popular in the future is that it will likely be part of an overarching settlement.
Let me state that I don't think an EO is the right way necessarily to tackle this; but I think it is well within the realm of Law.
Congress should probably write a proper law defining a policy in line with a statutory interpretation of the amendment. SCOTUS would undoubtedly review and I could see it going either way.
But that's why I say I could see this becoming democratically popular and well within the law or, if needed an amended clarification.
If you apply for immigration and migrate, you can have a child born in the US who will be a US citizen.
It specifically calls out people who are illegally in the country, or clearly visiting and not immigrating legally.
I think you are overinterpreting a permanent Guest Worker underclass like Germany and the Turks... in fact *if* we had something like that it would be closer to the original interpretation of the 14th amendment as it applied to the newly freed slaves.
That would be a reasonable thing to guard against... but so is unregulated illegal immigration a thing to guard against.
The Fourteenth Amendment states: “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.”
As I note below, since it is *not* retroactive I think there's a decent chance that this will gain in popular support across both sides.
Most announcers have changed their approach to be 'pro-ballclub' as employed by the team; fan broadcasters are pretty rare now. Ron Santo is the last one I can remember -- and that was purely because he was untouchable as a Cub (and only on radio).
Let me just ask a curious question to Perplexity:
What year was EcoHealth Alliance first grant in wuhan?
EcoHealth Alliance's first grant involving research in Wuhan, China, was awarded in 2014. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided a grant to EcoHealth Alliance to study possible coronaviruses from bats, and $600,000 of this grant was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology[5]. This grant was part of a larger $3.7 million award from the NIH to EcoHealth Alliance[5]. The project was initially set to run for five years and was renewed in 2019 for another five-year period, but it was subsequently terminated by the Trump administration in April 2020 following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic[5].
Can add citations in separate post if folks are interested...
It is indisputably the case that we should scramble our youth's brains with proper American algorithms, and I'm confident that Trump will find just the right company to do it.
I'm wondering if this becomes one of those things where we all go, "whelp, that was brilliant of Biden to force Trump to either shut it down or own the transfer" ... and Six months later we shake our heads as TwitterTok takes off.
When Donald Trump tells us that the weekend crowds in DC were the biggest ever, anywhere, in the history of the world... it will be (at least partly) because my eldest daughter is getting married in DC. I'm trying to work an inauguration joke into my toast, but no luck so far; best I can do is a bad pun.
We're all thrilled to be tooling around DC looking for places to stay, park, and dine inauguration weekend; DC, which in the most sedate and off-peak hours, I'd charitably describe as 'barely operational'. There are also rumors of snow. Everything will be fine.
At least the wine will be good as we're technically licensed for a day as a vendor, so I could work my wine connections and hand-pick the wines and pay discounted retail prices rather than inflated restaurant/caterer prices. There's even a special case of the good stuff for sharing.
Nice... that's a fun one I've never heard before. The internet really is amazing for giving cranks a place to congregate and stimulate their crankishness. It's one of my favorite things.
Yeah, when it hit me that 1776 was not the right reference date, I double checked and it seems we count ratification as 1788 with the 9th colony to vote yes, but last colony was 1789. Really we should round up to 1790 for a more user friendly date.
On “Trump Term Two, Day One, Executive Orders”
Yes, I was there.
On this one, part of me suspects that someone (I'm assuming Susie Wiles... btw, notice how everything hinges on Susie Wiles existing -- how long will that last?) said, um, for the tiniest shred of protection, let's just commute the sentence of the Seditious Conspiracy boys. At least they're still convicted felons then.
"
Ok, I can feel my anti-Trump non-Republican Solidarity party enjoyer calling balls and strikes credibility wearing off in the other thread... so here's one we can all condemn as plain old bad.
And, not just the usual 'dumb bad' but actual bad bad... triple bad bad bad for the people actually convicted of Sedition.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/granting-pardons-and-commutation-of-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-to-the-events-at-or-near-the-united-states-capitol-on-january-6-2021/
In a properly functioning Republic, we'd impeach him for this.
"
GMC hardest hit.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
I can see where you may want to rhetorically co-mingle it for dramatic effect. But it's a separate matter.
It's pretty simple that Dreamers who are *not* born in the US are not a problem solvable by birthright claims.
"
Heh, y'all are going to lose the public opinion battle sooo hard.
"
Sure We can agree that there are multiple categories of entrant seekers: Temp Visa Workers, Asylum, Immigrants, and lots of niche sub-categories. This is putting stress on a system that is already stressed to the point of broken.
My original point isn't that this solves everything (or anything), just that I think it will come across as more popular than people expect -- owing, in part, to how broken the immigration system is.
Like you, I prefer to grapple with the actual ideas and not simply spin-off into unreliable narratives based on team identity.
"
According the the EO, children born prior to the EO are subject to the broad interpretation and therefore citizens.
I think the issue with dreamers isn't that they were born here, it's that they were brought here as children and therefore occupy an ambiguous legal status that's made worse by the fact that their cultural country is the US -- so deporting them to their 'country of origin' introduces new issues.
This EO doesn't actually do anything for or against the dreamers... what we do with the dreamers would require something like the Dreamer Act.
"
Only 55%? Seriously, that's a jump ball on an issue that in my childhood didn't exist and would've seen 90% opposition.
I didn't say that is *was* popular, I said I can see it becoming popular -- and that poll suggests to me it's becoming popular.
"
Sure, the court could re-affirm the broad interpretation of 'subject to the jurisdiction' or it could correct itself and affirm a narrower interpretation.
I think it is higher probability that it knocks down an EO than an Immigration Act that clarifies the term.
I don't think the question of 'dual loyalties' or 'dual sovereign jurisdictions' will the fulcrum of the argument... it will be weather the act of ignoring the immigration laws puts one outside the jurisdiction for citizenship requirements -- even if one is still subject to the speed limit.
And, as I note above, it's best that proponents of the idea grapple with the 'edge' cases and put together an immigration policy via Congress.
"
I don't think it's recreating the same conditions.
At the baseline, if the Father is a citizen, then so is the child... if the Mother is a citizen, so is the child. It only obtains for the circumstances where neither mother nor father are citizens *and* they have entered the country illegally, or are here on temporary visiting visas. That will cover a lot of future folks, even if (especially if) there's no proper border interdiction.
The conditions for Slavery (and, say, the Turks in Germany) is that they were a class that had permanent status, but no real path to citizenship. As written, the EO allows for children of immigrants who have permanent status to become citizens.
I'm completely open to evaluating how it gets applied in practice... and, as I noted above, I don't think an idea like this should be an EO at all for the reasons you raise. It needs to be part of a complete immigration package.
Lastly, I agree that a functioning regime of interdiction, border management and immigration policies should be the goal.
Specifying how birthright citizen requires legal immigration is the correct rhetorical way to frame it... it doesn't end birthright citizenship, it clarifies how it applies through laws. It acts as both deterrent and incentive for a proper functioning immigration regime.
The reason why I say I can see this becoming more popular in the future is that it will likely be part of an overarching settlement.
"
Let me state that I don't think an EO is the right way necessarily to tackle this; but I think it is well within the realm of Law.
Congress should probably write a proper law defining a policy in line with a statutory interpretation of the amendment. SCOTUS would undoubtedly review and I could see it going either way.
But that's why I say I could see this becoming democratically popular and well within the law or, if needed an amended clarification.
"
Possible, but that's not how the EO reads.
If you apply for immigration and migrate, you can have a child born in the US who will be a US citizen.
It specifically calls out people who are illegally in the country, or clearly visiting and not immigrating legally.
I think you are overinterpreting a permanent Guest Worker underclass like Germany and the Turks... in fact *if* we had something like that it would be closer to the original interpretation of the 14th amendment as it applied to the newly freed slaves.
That would be a reasonable thing to guard against... but so is unregulated illegal immigration a thing to guard against.
"
The Fourteenth Amendment states: “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.”
As I note below, since it is *not* retroactive I think there's a decent chance that this will gain in popular support across both sides.
"
Having now seen the text, my counter-intuitive take is that this will become broadly popular.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
On “Mister Baseball”
Most announcers have changed their approach to be 'pro-ballclub' as employed by the team; fan broadcasters are pretty rare now. Ron Santo is the last one I can remember -- and that was purely because he was untouchable as a Cub (and only on radio).
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
Let me just ask a curious question to Perplexity:
What year was EcoHealth Alliance first grant in wuhan?
EcoHealth Alliance's first grant involving research in Wuhan, China, was awarded in 2014. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided a grant to EcoHealth Alliance to study possible coronaviruses from bats, and $600,000 of this grant was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology[5]. This grant was part of a larger $3.7 million award from the NIH to EcoHealth Alliance[5]. The project was initially set to run for five years and was renewed in 2019 for another five-year period, but it was subsequently terminated by the Trump administration in April 2020 following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic[5].
Can add citations in separate post if folks are interested...
"
The only curious thing about the pardon is that it seems to imply that they needed 6-yrs to get the first operation monetized.
On “SCOTUS Upholds TikTok Ban: Read It For Yourself”
Agreed and true.
It is indisputably the case that we should scramble our youth's brains with proper American algorithms, and I'm confident that Trump will find just the right company to do it.
I'm wondering if this becomes one of those things where we all go, "whelp, that was brilliant of Biden to force Trump to either shut it down or own the transfer" ... and Six months later we shake our heads as TwitterTok takes off.
On “Weekend Plans Post: One Single Good Song in 2024”
When Donald Trump tells us that the weekend crowds in DC were the biggest ever, anywhere, in the history of the world... it will be (at least partly) because my eldest daughter is getting married in DC. I'm trying to work an inauguration joke into my toast, but no luck so far; best I can do is a bad pun.
We're all thrilled to be tooling around DC looking for places to stay, park, and dine inauguration weekend; DC, which in the most sedate and off-peak hours, I'd charitably describe as 'barely operational'. There are also rumors of snow. Everything will be fine.
At least the wine will be good as we're technically licensed for a day as a vendor, so I could work my wine connections and hand-pick the wines and pay discounted retail prices rather than inflated restaurant/caterer prices. There's even a special case of the good stuff for sharing.
On “The Shakedown”
Only a phobophobe would hope for such a thing.
On “Short Status Report on the Abilities of AI”
Also, one needs a time horizon plus continuity to plan future actions; the eternal present with limited or restricted continuity is self-limiting.
On “Trump’s Ace in the Hole”
Really, it should be the BicentenniaL
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025”
Nice... that's a fun one I've never heard before. The internet really is amazing for giving cranks a place to congregate and stimulate their crankishness. It's one of my favorite things.
"
Yeah, when it hit me that 1776 was not the right reference date, I double checked and it seems we count ratification as 1788 with the 9th colony to vote yes, but last colony was 1789. Really we should round up to 1790 for a more user friendly date.
On “Short Status Report on the Abilities of AI”
Feeling some metaphysical dread about making AI 'time aware'...