Main Menu

Close the door behind you

I think it worth highlighting an article at Think Progress titled: “How Many Candidates Have ‘Taken  Advantage’ of Birthright Citizenship, but Oppose It?

The article talks about the usual subjects, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and Santorum. What’s interesting is some others mentioned, including Ben Carson because without the 14th Amendment (or a reversal of the Dred Scott decision) Dr. Carson would not even be a citizen of the United States today. They even take a swipe at Donald Trump.

Read more:

, , , , , , ,

16 Responses to Close the door behind you

  1. avatar
    Joey August 21, 2015 at 9:57 pm #

    Today, August 21st is the 8th anniversary of Phil Berg’s filing in Berg v Obama, et al, the first federal court natural born citizen lawsuit.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2015 at 10:06 pm #

    And today Berg is driving for UberX.

    Joey:
    Today, August 21st is the 8th anniversary of Phil Berg’s filing in Berg v Obama, et al, the first federal court natural born citizen lawsuit.

  3. avatar
    Lupin August 22, 2015 at 4:36 am #

    The Roach Motel of the US electorate at work:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/22/1414429/-They-Yelled-White-Power-From-the-Stands-at-Donald-Trump-s-Alabama-Rally

  4. avatar
    Punchmaster via Mobile August 22, 2015 at 10:29 am #

    Looks like Trump is BR’s new hope. Their latest fantasy is that if elected President, Trump surely have Obama investigated.

  5. avatar
    Pete August 22, 2015 at 10:48 am #

    There was some tongue-in-cheek boxing movie years ago.

    I never saw the movie, just the preview. That had a memorable quote from a woman who was enthusiastically promoting the main character, who wasn’t much of a boxer:

    “Everybody’s always talking about the Great White Hope, right? Well, he’s not so great, and he’s not much hope, BUT…!”

  6. avatar
    Northland10 August 22, 2015 at 12:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    And today Berg is driving for UberX.

    For the first time, I saw a car with an Uber sticker. He was going the wrong way on a one way street.

    In my opinion, not the best marketing choice.

  7. avatar
    Dave B. August 22, 2015 at 3:27 pm #

    Doc, we need us an open thread!

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 22, 2015 at 6:01 pm #

    Sorry ’bout that.

    Dave B.:
    Doc, we need us an open thread!

  9. avatar
    donna August 22, 2015 at 6:40 pm #

    from the WSJ: Born in the U.S.A.
    A primer on birthright citizenship and the U.S. Constitution.

    In 1898 the Supreme Court confirmed the Amendment’s original meaning in Wong Kim Ark, which recognized the citizenship of a San Francisco-born man of Chinese descent, and it reaffirmed this understanding as recently as 1982 in Plyler v. Doe.

    If the candidates are as committed to the Constitution and the rule of law as they say they are, then they should propose a constitutional amendment on birthright citizenship.

    By the way, the conservatives who say a President should challenge the Fourteenth Amendment unilaterally are promising a GOP version of President Obama’s “illegal executive amnesty.” Maybe they can also tell us which five Justices they think will uphold such an order.

    The immigration hawks are correct that birthright citizenship is unusual among nations, but since when did Republicans dump their belief in American exceptionalism?

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/born-in-the-u-s-a-1440113798

    FLASHBACK to June 1896: Restriction of Immigration

    It ends with: The problems which so sternly confront us to-day are serious enough without being complicated and aggravated by the addition of some millions of Hungarians, Bohemians, Poles, south Italians, and Russian Jews.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1896/06/restriction-of-immigration/306011/

  10. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 23, 2015 at 3:38 am #

    donna: If the candidates are as committed to the Constitution and the rule of law as they say they are, then they should propose a constitutional amendment on birthright citizenship.

    The GOP has been trumpified. The other day I read a Trump supporter on Twitter declaring she hopes Trump will “abolish SCOTUS” as President. These peeps are clearly hoping for a dictator who will just do as he pleases, as long as they agree with it.

  11. avatar
    Joey August 23, 2015 at 1:46 pm #

    From the Government’s brief in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark:
    “For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply -with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

  12. avatar
    Arthur B. August 23, 2015 at 2:22 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): These peeps are clearly hoping for a dictator who will just do as he pleases, as long as they agree with it.

    I think that’s absolutely spot on.

    The Trumpistas are proud to envision their candidate as unstoppable, an irresistible force. As he fleshes out his positions, it will be interesting to see how they react to the prospect of his being unopposable on policies they don’t like.

  13. avatar
    Sef August 23, 2015 at 3:55 pm #

    TFB has a new topic on birthright citizenship: http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=8123 which is worth a read. “chilidog’s” post http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=8123#p677244 is probably most apt to this discussion. It points out the misconceptions the GOPers are having (jurisdiction vs. allegiance).

  14. avatar
    y_p_w August 24, 2015 at 7:44 pm #

    Sef:
    TFB has a new topic on birthright citizenship: http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=8123 which is worth a read. “chilidog’s” post http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=8123#p677244 is probably most apt to this discussion. It points out the misconceptions the GOPers are having (jurisdiction vs. allegiance).

    Well – as a long term goal, having a child as a US citizen can eventually lead to a green card for the parents. However, the child has to be 21 and generally would need to have the financial means (or enlist a cosponsor) to support the parents according to a USCIS formula based on the published federal poverty level. So doing that is extremely long term.

    This has come up a lot when it comes to “birth tourism” – which seems to be the most common amongst Chinese nationals. However, an outright elimination of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship would seem to be an extreme way to handle this. Border agents already have the authority to deny entry into the US if there’s a suspicion of birth tourism.

  15. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 27, 2015 at 11:58 am #

    y_p_w: as a long term goal, having a child as a US citizen can eventually lead to a green card for the parents

    That’s not what immigration wingnuts (or xenophobes in general) care about.
    Their motives are racist/nationalist and fueled by the fear of being “outbred” by “foreigners” (Germans call this idea “Überfremdung”, lit. “over-alienation”).
    They don’t fear the parents following the children, they fear foreign people having millions and millions of US-born children ultimately leading to “the white man” being the (oppressed) minority.
    We have the same people over here in Germany burning down houses designated for refugees.