aflanigan wrote: 
World class gymnastics...

 rotekz wrote: 
Another Trump myth bites the dust . . .

 R_P wrote: 
So the media and everybody ripping Trump were wrong again. Nice try.

The real story behind Trump's '7/11' comment

Donald Trump is being roasted in the mainstream media for confusing the convenience store chain 7/11 with the 9/11 tragedy.

During a campaign rally earlier this week in Buffalo, Trump said, "Its very close to my heart because I was down there. And I watched our police and our firemen, down at 7-11, down at the World Trade Center, right after it came down."

Trump's comment wasn't a slip of the tongue. Nor was he referring to the convenience store chain.

Trump was referring to a New York fire station... Engine 7, Ladder 1, Battalion 1.

Hat tip to Nels, one of my listeners, who pointed this out to me:

"As a former New Yorker, I immediately knew what Donald Trump was referencing. Firestation #711 / Firemen's Legion #711 (Engine 7, Ladder 1, Battalion 1) were the very first responders to the 9/11 attacks. There was even a film made about them that won a Peabody and Emmy, called 9/11. How quickly our heroes are forgotten.  Also, the funniest thing is if you assume he mean 9/11, "down on 9/11" makes zero sense!"

 kurtster wrote: 
You believe it, but you're wrong—at least as far as the courts are concerned.

There would be no Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform if the courts had ruled differently. They are trying to overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark, not reinterpret it. The ruling says exactly the opposite of their position, and it states it very clearly.

The precedent they cite for their case (Elk v. Wilkins) was in 1884, 14 years before United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The court was doubtless aware of that precedent and cast it aside, as it pertained to an entirely different set of circumstances: John Elk was a Winnebago Indian suing a Registrar of Voters in Omaha for the right to vote. Indians were excluded from citizenship in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and the allegiance claimed in this case was to the Winnebago tribe.

This entire doctrine was discarded in 1924 in the Indian Citizenship Act, but it has nothing to do with United States v. Wong Kim Ark or birthright citizenship (of anyone but Native Americans anyway).

The quoted text (allegedly from a 1982 decision) does not appear in any supreme court ruling. You can search for yourself here.

It's amusing that every precedent Trump supporters drag out in defense of a clearly indefensible position are from execrable racist actions of the past.

Own it.

Unite or Die: RNC’s Reince Priebus Defies ‘Never Trump’ Movement

 kurtster wrote: 
Interesting that a Trump supporter would be arguing Ted Cruz' case for him.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
A differing opinion on United States v. Wong Kim Ark as it applies to our discussion ...

Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review — and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the civil rights bill of 1870. (1866 See below).  Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean.

(The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens."  I cannot find support for this statement.)

By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.

 From the court ...

Page 112 U. S. 102

to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

 

1866 Enforcement Act

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

......

I believe that the language regarding the meaning of jurisdiction is quite clear.  And the arguments and explanations presented very sound.

kurtster wrote:
How? Not seeing anything here that contradicts.


The first forbids entangling the government with religion or the free exercise thereof. That would include a religious test for citizenship or entry.

There are very few exceptions to birthright citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment, as settled by United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. You'd basically have to be the child of a foreign diplomat.

There is no such thing as an anchor baby. The whole idea is fake; parents of citizens have no special priority in immigration. And I'm sure this isn't the last time I'll have to refute this; it's a durable lie, evergreen among the anti-immigrant right, but a lie nonetheless.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Here's one statement regarding plenary power that disagrees with your assertion.

Again, the 1st has nothing to do with anyone seeking to enter the country who is not already here.  The 14th leaves it to Congress to determine how it applies by defining jurisdiction and its application.  The 14th does not absolutely guarantee citizenship to those born here.  That has been widely documented by the authors of the 14th regarding its purpose and intent.  Congress can determine that if it so chooses.  That includes anchor babies and those who participate in the birth tourism industry.

On the 14th ...

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

 kurtster wrote:
The US constitution has force and effect only within our borders, but the rights protected by it apply to everyone—not just citizens, and not just legal aliens. There are no exceptions for citizenship in the constitution, and that is by design. The constitution is a document recognizing the rights of humans, not of citizens.

Congress has plenary power to set immigration criteria, but that power is not unlimited. The first and 14th amendments restrict what criteria they can apply.

Congress has passed laws restricting entry based on ethnicity (the Chinese Exclusion act of 1889) which the courts at the time refused to review. It has since been repealed (and—extraordinarily—apologized for by the congress) but it would doubtless fail to withstand a constitutional challenge today.

The president has the power* to suspend "the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens" for as long as s/he likes, for any reason, but all actions of the president and congress are subject to compliance with the constitution and judicial review.

*Note to Stephen Molynieux fans—this is statutory, not constitutional power.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I do not believe that is correct.  Where did you find that ?

Congress sets the criteria IIRC.  There is no Constitutional provisions stating who can or cannot be denied consideration.  The 1st amendment only applies to those already here.  It does not extend past our borders.

Jennifer had no idea who set up the account, but this really was
the match Ashley Madison had found for her.

 kurtster wrote: 
This establishment is currently closed. Please bear with us while we're working hard to make ourselves greater than ever. We're enormously sorry for any inconvenience. The Management.

 kurtster wrote:
Everyone has the right to be considered for entry, and that the criteria for entry have nothing to do with religion.

 buddy wrote: 
Does anyone have a right to be admitted to this country ?  

 miamizsun wrote: 
Trump is the ONLY candidate who will hit 1,237 but then consider this:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trumps-real-magic-number-is-less-than-1-237-222184

but of course we then must also flush this from our minds...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/20/internal-campaign-memo-projects-trump-will-win-1400-delegates-at-gop-convention/ 

and then there is this:

HANNITY: There Will Be No Contested Convention – Things Are Happening Behind the Scenes

 buddy wrote: 

fixed it for ya ...

Yeah, if you come to our front door.

Crawl in the back window ?   No respect. Respect is a two way street.

 kurtster wrote: 
And that obviously targets legal immigration as well.

But kudos for being right about low information voters and short attention spans.

 R_P wrote: 
blah, yada ...

 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.