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.
There was also discussion about applicability to Indians/Native Americans, which was generally agreed did not apply due to their quasi-nation status.
Sen. Edgar Cowan questioned the meaning of the addition of the definition with:
"Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? . . . I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that, within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit."
And he was responded to by Sen. John Conness:
"The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this Constitutional Amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."
And of course we can just refer to Wong Kim Ark for the finding that the text means exactly what it says: it doesn't matter the allegiances of the parents, only whether they were subject to our laws - in other words, not diplomats or officials from a foreign power.
So if y'all want to change that - you'll likely need a new amendment that changes the 14th to exclude children of tourists/etc...
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.
All of the debates on the 14th are accessible for those that wish to do some really deep dives: https://guides.loc.gov/14th-amendment/digital-collections.
There was also discussion about applicability to Indians/Native Americans, which was generally agreed did not apply due to their quasi-nation status.
Sen. Edgar Cowan questioned the meaning of the addition of the definition with:
"Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? . . . I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that, within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit."
And he was responded to by Sen. John Conness:
"The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this Constitutional Amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."
And of course we can just refer to Wong Kim Ark for the finding that the text means exactly what it says: it doesn't matter the allegiances of the parents, only whether they were subject to our laws - in other words, not diplomats or officials from a foreign power.
So if y'all want to change that - you'll likely need a new amendment that changes the 14th to exclude children of tourists/etc...
Or codify that such is not the case - with final ruling by the Supremes.
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.