Bill Kristol and leftists of his ilk are numbskulls on birthright citizenship, which 83% of the world eschews unlike us

 

 ... One of my critics on the “conservative” Left who once claimed to be an originalist illustrates the point. He says that the simple fact of birthright citizenship being “age-old” makes it somehow sacrosanct. There is not even a pretended appeal to the Constitution. Beyond this, someone with a philosophic education ought to know that it is a mistake to identify the old with the good. Even if it were not, his argument still fails on its own terms. Before the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898, America did not have birthright citizenship. Hence the true “age-old” practice—going back to the beginning of the republic—is not to have it. If the old is the good, why is the younger birthright citizenship practice sacrosanct but the prior, and far-older practice of granting citizenship only to the children of citizens and lawful immigrants bad?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the quality of “conservative” argument in 2018. ...

A social compact that can be joined contrary to the will of its existing members is an impossibility, a self-contradiction.

It’s no wonder, then, that only around 30 countries out of nearly 200 practice birthright citizenship. The highest accounting that I have seen says 33. There are 197 countries in the world (193 UN members, two observers, and two non-members). Thus 83% of the world’s nations do not allow birthright citizenship. Those countries that do have a combined population of 958 million (in all cases, rounding estimates up in order not to be accused of fudging the numbers in my direction). According to the UN, the world population is today 7.6 billion. Our “conservatives” insist that opposition to birthright citizenship is “nativist, xenophobic, bigoted, racist, white nationalist, white supremacist” and more. This means that 6.642 billion of the world’s people (give or take) must also be “nativist, xenophobic, bigoted, racist, white nationalist, and white supremacist.” The latter two would truly be something, given how few of those people are white. ...

More.

Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome. We all pay an involuntary homage to antiquity. ... To the great majority of mortal eyes, Time sanctifies everything that he does not destroy.

-- Charles Mackay

 

Michael Anton made a persuasive case that if America could correct the error of the Dred Scott decision of 1857, surely it can correct the error of the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898

Birthright Citizenship: A Response to My Critics

 

... Before the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898, America did not have birthright citizenship. ...

Can we do it without a war this time, please?

Bill King is skeptical that Donald Trump's birthright citizenship gambit will be fruitful

 Here:

Adopting a rational immigration system that included better criteria for granting citizenship would greatly benefit our country. Many of the issues surrounding birthright citizenship are the legacy of the inability of Congress to enact such a rational system. I wish I believed Trump’s executive order might spur a thoughtful debate and legislative action in that direction. But sadly, our representatives from both sides of the aisle seem more interested in demagoguing the issue than working together to enact a rational system.

 

Ronald Reagan appointee blocks Trump's birthright citizenship executive order

It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life... or death.

 Federal district court judge temporarily blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order

... “Ample historical evidence shows that the children of non-resident aliens are subject to foreign powers — and, thus, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to birthright citizenship,” Rosenberg wrote.

Ultimately, the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Native Americans were not made citizens by the 14th Amendment of 1868. It took an act of Congress in 1924 to do that. 

It is good that this will be decided by the Supremes, maybe, once and for all, maybe.

Michael Anton lol: Leftists argue that the otherwise implacably racist US statesmen of the 19th century left us one instance of openhearted liberalism in the 14th Amendment called birthright citizenship

 The idea that the framers intended to extend citizenship to anyone whose parents snuck across our border is absurd and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nineteenth century American mind.

I note, however, how convenient it is for leftists who constantly attack all past American statesmen for being implacably “racist” to suddenly discover this one instance of their openhearted liberalism. Really? The same bewhiskered, frockcoated “racists” up to their eyeballs in white supremacy nonetheless decided to open America’s borders to the entire world? It’s an obvious lie of convenience and should be dismissed with contempt.

More.

Michael Anton rightly rejects birthright citizenship

Here.

Investors Business Daily has a sensible editorial on birthright citizenship

Birthright Citizenship: It's About The Law, Not Mob Rule:

As Daniel Horowitz recently noted, the only legal justification for granting citizenship to illegals comes in a footnote to the Supreme Court's Plylor V. Doe decision. In it, ultra-liberal Justice William Brennan claimed that illegal aliens had a right to claim jurisdiction under U.S. law. But it's never really been decided as a separate issue by the Supreme Court.

So on strictly constructed constitutional grounds, Trump is right. Whether you hate him or not.

Of course, the counter-argument to that is: We have allowed this system to go on for so long without direct challenge it now has the force of law. That is a legitimate legal argument. It deserves serious consideration, either by Congress or the courts.

And that's our point. As bad as we think birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is, any decision should be a matter of law and democratic process, not of screaming and name-calling. We have a Congress. We have a court system. The president has, in effect, challenged them to do their job. So they should do it.

If they don't, then Donald Trump, as the nation's chief executive, is well within his rights to issue an executive order if he thinks birthright citizenship represents a violation of the Constitution and threatens harm to the nation. It's his duty.

He has precedent. Axios.com quoted Trump telling reporters Wednesday that, if President Obama can "do DACA, we can do this by executive order."

Ted Cruz' many flip-flops: Obamatrade, foreign workers, illegal alien amnesty, birthright citizenship, Edward Snowden, crop insurance

Nicely detailed with links by Laura Ingraham, here.

Scott Walker has nothing up his sleeve

In the last week Governor Scott Walker has stated he's for the 14th Amendment as currently (mis)interpreted, establishing birthright citizenship as the law of the land, for repealing birthright citizenship going forward, and against taking a position on the subject for now!

Scott Walker is a fish out of water, flopping on the pier.

CNN (justly) crucifies him for it, here.

On the merits of the issue Walker's flip-flops clearly show that he perceives the acceptable establishment view to be out of step with what he thinks the voters feel about it. Regular middle class folks with whom Walker identifies hate it that they're footing the bill for people who cut in line, go on government assistance and even commit crimes without serious consequences.

On the politics Walker looks unprofessional and unready for primetime, and when you get down to it, divided in his own mind about the issue.

The real Scott Walker has always been a little soft on illegal aliens but keeps changing his position because he senses voters aren't soft on them.

In view of his previously stated support for a pathway to citizenship, it's pretty obvious Walker has never had the fire in the belly on this subject which the Americans whose vote he's angling for possess.

And it's too late to do anything about it now.

He's done.

If he were wise he'd find a way to bow out, throw his support to Trump, and hope for a position in a Trump administration where he can do to government unions nationally what he's done to them in Wisconsin.

Taking a position on birthright citizenship is above Scott Walker's pay grade

What a disappointment this guy has become. He is so finished.

We might as well wait for Godot.

Trump comes out swinging with illegal immigration policy paper

Here.

Grab your box of Depends. The Donald means business.

Some highlights:

• Triple the number of ICE officers
• Implement nationwide e-verify
• Mandatory deportation of all criminal aliens
• No more catch and release
• Cut-off federal funds to sanctuary cities
• Criminalize visa overstays
• Deploy ICE with local police in gang raids
• End birthright citizenship
• Increase prevailing wage requirements for H-1B visas to stem the tide of foreign hires at US workers' expense
• Immigrants must prove they are self-supporting
• Terminate the jobs program for foreign youth
• Suspend issuance of green cards to foreign workers until employment improves for citizens
• Make Mexico pay for the wall, or impound remittances derived from illegal wages ($22 billion in 2013) and increase fees on temporary visas of Mexican CEOs and diplomats, on all border crossing cards, on NAFTA worker visas and at all ports of entry from Mexico
• Generally restore the rule of law and order by actually enforcing existing laws

To the Left, Enforcing the Law is Right Wing Extremism

As in this from Conor Williams for The Washington Post:

Yet [the ex-governor's] views are hardly moderate at all: [Tim] Pawlenty has advocated fining or jailing business owners who employ undocumented immigrants. He's even suggested amending the Constitution to repeal birthright citizenship.

This approach to immigration policy could be disastrous for a region already suffering from economic hardship. The Midwest needs more immigrants - not fewer.

What the Midwest needs is fewer coastal pricks telling fly-over country what's what, and a vigorous emigration policy for liberals, from wherever they hail, including the Michigan governor's residence.