A slight correction: Trump's last encounter with the bible was publicly hocking his own edition of it that includes the US Constitution and Lee Greenwood's song. I'm surprised the thing didn't burst into flames.
Hillsdale College's Imprimus had an excellent article on why the current interpretation of the 14th amendment is wrong as far as birthright citizenship is concerned.
I'm not going to weigh in on this too much, but the author should have ended his arguments on the Wong Kim Ark case.
After that, he starts to get a bit over his skis with proclamations like:
"The doctrine of birthright citizenship and the acceptance of dual citizenship are signs that we in the U.S. are on the verge of reinstituting feudalism and replacing citizenship with the master-servant relationship."
and
"In this new universe of international norms, demands on the part of the nation state to exclusive allegiance or for assimilation violate 'universal personhood.' In such a universe, citizenship will become superfluous or even dangerous."
The strawmen that he erects hurt his credibility instead of enhancing it.
I read the arguments in your linked reference. The arguments were overwhelming about uniformity of citizenship between states and the rights of black citizens.
I agree with what I think was the main point of your article - that there are believers who have no tolerance whatsoever for any contrasting opinions. I think you got off track when you got into immigration.
I see no proof that Trump intends to deport denaturalized immigrants for no cause. If the immigrants lied on their application documents or are actively working on behalf of unfriendly nations. If they are committing crimes, they could be denaturalized. They could also be imprisoned although that is so much of a permanent fix.
Citizens who rob banks and escape prosecution for years while working under an alias and supporting their current families are generally convicted and go to prison. They are not represented by bleeding heart organization dragging their case out for years, and judges seldom intervene on their behalf. The same treatment was applied to Nazi war criminals found after peacefully living undetected for years in the USA.
Illegals living in the USA are subject to prosecution because they are unvetted. Their years of illegal presence are no more proof of their character than the years the escaped bank robber spent hiding his identity.
A slight correction: Trump's last encounter with the bible was publicly hocking his own edition of it that includes the US Constitution and Lee Greenwood's song. I'm surprised the thing didn't burst into flames.
Hillsdale College's Imprimus had an excellent article on why the current interpretation of the 14th amendment is wrong as far as birthright citizenship is concerned.
I'm assuming that this is the Hillsdale Imprimus piece:
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/are-we-subjects-or-citizens-birthright-citizenship-and-the-constitution/
I'm not going to weigh in on this too much, but the author should have ended his arguments on the Wong Kim Ark case.
After that, he starts to get a bit over his skis with proclamations like:
"The doctrine of birthright citizenship and the acceptance of dual citizenship are signs that we in the U.S. are on the verge of reinstituting feudalism and replacing citizenship with the master-servant relationship."
and
"In this new universe of international norms, demands on the part of the nation state to exclusive allegiance or for assimilation violate 'universal personhood.' In such a universe, citizenship will become superfluous or even dangerous."
The strawmen that he erects hurt his credibility instead of enhancing it.
I suppose there is no reciprocity. China does not recognize dual citizenship except when it helps their cause with ignorant or greedy USA citizens.
Does it involve completely ignoring the documented debate on the 14th amendment prior to its passage?
Rather than jump to conclusions, you should locate and read the article.
Don't really need to, if we're going off intent and originalism grounds.
You could also just link it, since you want others to read it.
For those that wish to read the debates during creation of the amendment: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/congressional-debate-on-the-14th-amendment/
I read the arguments in your linked reference. The arguments were overwhelming about uniformity of citizenship between states and the rights of black citizens.
I signed up for Matt Taibbi's substack like six years ago.
What is this shit? This is not Matt Taibbi, or Taibbi's quality of writing. Why is it in my inbox?
This is not Matt Taibbi's site, which is "Racket News".
This is "The Racket News", which predates Taibbi's site by many years.
Blame the substack algorithm.
Oh, well I'm really confused why it is ending up in my inbox then. I only subscribed to Taibbi's page.
Substack algorithm, I guess...
I agree with what I think was the main point of your article - that there are believers who have no tolerance whatsoever for any contrasting opinions. I think you got off track when you got into immigration.
I see no proof that Trump intends to deport denaturalized immigrants for no cause. If the immigrants lied on their application documents or are actively working on behalf of unfriendly nations. If they are committing crimes, they could be denaturalized. They could also be imprisoned although that is so much of a permanent fix.
Citizens who rob banks and escape prosecution for years while working under an alias and supporting their current families are generally convicted and go to prison. They are not represented by bleeding heart organization dragging their case out for years, and judges seldom intervene on their behalf. The same treatment was applied to Nazi war criminals found after peacefully living undetected for years in the USA.
Illegals living in the USA are subject to prosecution because they are unvetted. Their years of illegal presence are no more proof of their character than the years the escaped bank robber spent hiding his identity.