In the Trump Regime we still play "cowboys and Indians"?

1. 81

   Credence2posted 6 months ago

   The Juneau Alaska article comes to my attention as the Trump Justice Department attorneys now questions the birthright citizenship rights of Native Americans. They were here before any of us. An act of the Goverment enacted in 1924 gave all NAtive Americans citizenship. Trump is proven to be the exhumed 19th century cadaver that walks among us spouting out all sorts of dated anachronisms. Death serves a phenomenal purpose of sweeping the deck clean of aged principles and retrograde ideas, and those that promoted them. Well, until now.
   
   There are some tricky slight of hands being employed by Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship. One of them is questioning the meaning of "under the jurisdiction therof". I wanted to better define the meaning of this and see if the Trump apparatchiks have a leg to stand on. I think that the meaning is clear and it is not in Trumps favor.
   
   https://www.juneauempire.com/news/birth … istration/
   
   https://law.stackexchange.com/questions … e-14th-ame
   
   
   
   Those are my opinions
   Your thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 84

      GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      My layman's opinion is that a constitutional amendment is the only way to change our current birthright citizenship problem.
      
      I think a case could be made, regarding the intent of the amendment, that the original intent was to accommodate children of slaves, but, the wording chosen doesn't restrict its application to just slave children.
      
      I think that's how SCOTUS  will see it too. The verdict will be a 'yeah, but . . .'
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks for your comment, we may well see eye to eye on this one.
         
         Some sort of interpretative nuance from the courts won't do, a Constitutional Amendment will be required to rewrite the 14th amendment as its words cannot be interpreted in the way the Trump administration would like.
         
         I acknowledge a problem with uncontrolled border access, but the administration needs to find another way to address it.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Find another way than what?  You aren't thinking this birthright thing has anything to do with illegal aliens flooding the country are you?
            
            I don't know what is in Trump's mind unless it goes back to America First with the birthright thingie.  Is he thinking that Indian reservations are a separate country, not part of the US?  While I can see that stance being taken, because of the legal shenanigans of the reservations, I personally can't see it meaning they are not a part of the US OR that Indians are not US citizens.  But that's just me - Trump may have a different take on it.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 5 months agoin reply to this

               Thanks for the comment.
               
               Maybe you should ask Trump before posting a reply. Trump is talking about a status of Native American tribes prior to 1924. Being the legal scholar that he is, he speaks on his intuition that has no basis in American law. His intuition is totally worthless.
               
               I say the children are citizens, the parents are not. The parents cannot legally stay, so they should take the child with them back to their own country. The parents may not assume rights as citizens, get jobs or anything else if they don’t leave. Don’t make it easy and they will go home with the child.

               replyreport
      2. 84

         GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

         Oops, a little look-about has changed my "layman's" opinion. A pro-birthright citizenship paper did it.
         
         It did so by providing evidence of the 'original intent' of the authors of the 14th amendment, via records of the Congressional debate that produced the amendment's language.
         
         Here's a quote that affirms my stance that human nature doesn't change;   'the names may change but the game stays the same.'
         
         ". . . The intent to include children of aliens within birthright citizenship is clear from the floor debates of 1866. Members of Congress specifically debated the impact automatic citizenship would have on various immigrant groups that had recently migrated to the United States in significant numbers, notably the Chinese population in California and the West, and the Gypsy or Roma communities in eastern states such as Pennsylvania.
         
         Much of the nineteenth century hostility toward Chinese and Gypsy immigrants is similar to the resentment and distrust leveled at immigrants today from Latin American countries: concern that immigrants would take away good jobs from U.S. citizens (while exhibiting a willingness to allow immigrants to take jobs perceived as undesirable) fear of waves of immigrants ―invading or overtaking existing American communities and distrust of different cultures and languages.
         
         These fears were expressed by some members of the Reconstruction Congress but were not allowed to influence the requirements for citizenship.
         
         For example, early in the debates, an opponent to birthright citizenship—Senator Edgar Cowan, often cited by modern opponents of birthright citizenship—objected to the citizenship provision by asking whether ―it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of the Chinese and Gypsies born in this country. Senator Trumbull stated that it would undoubtedly. As Trumbull stated clearly in the face of Cowan‘s xenophobic remarks, ―the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.
         
         Echoing Trumbull‘s definitive statement, Senator Morrill asked the Congress, ―As a matter of law, does anybody deny here or anywhere that the native born is a citizen, and a citizen by birth alone? Morrill cited ―the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and politics, that the native born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone.
         To erase any doubt, he went on to state that ―birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship."
         
         It's a good read and sources all of its quotes. I no longer see an 'original intent' argument. It should take a constitutional amendment to change.
         
         Born Under the Constitution: Why Recent Attacks on Birthright Citizenship are Unfounded

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I think your initial assessment was generally the correct one...
            
            This is something that should be considered and if the overwhelming will is that change should be made, then an amendment will be made...
            
            I think we have tested the boundaries of the Constitution quite a lot in a variety of ways of late... perhaps we need instead of trying to bury it, ignore it, or try to create an international authority that negates it...
            
            Amend it by winning the hearts and minds of the people to encourage that change...
            
            Unless of course it is not considered a significant enough issue by the people to garner such support...
            
            Hmmm...
            
            Maybe that's why so much of what has been done today, goes around the Constitution...
            
            You know what... why worry about it... we will all be clamoring to have Neuralinks implanted into our brains soon enough... then we will all belong to the collective.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

               I don't think there is enough support for an amendment. So we're stuck with things the way they are.
               
               If Neurolink's new Blindsight efforts work out you might be right about the "collective" thought.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Agreed, to the first sentence, how they were able to manage and come to terms over amendments in the past no longer seem possible today...
                  
                  Or the changes required are not of high enough importance to a large enough majority of people to make it happen.
                  
                  Compounded by the fact that run-arounds from EOs to NGOs now make changes irrelevant or unnecessary.
                  
                  To the second, I believe so... and it may very well be required if humans are to evolve beyond the tribal instincts and the innate hostility, we as tribes, have toward others that are noticeably and substantially different.
                  
                  It may require the blending of AI, Neural Interphase, Robotics, Microbotics, in a symbiotic relationship with humans to propel us beyond our current limits and well beyond this earth.
                  
                  If that is achieved most anything is possible for our future... that would also be a true leaving of the Garden of Eden... proving that we can exist beyond the planet that our consciousness, our knowledge, can be preserved...
                  
                  I have doubts as to this being truly possible... it may be that we are tied to this earth... that the ability for our minds to function beyond it has not been proven, what are the ramifications for leaving its magnetic field for indefinite periods of time?
                  
                  How significantly are our biological functions tied to earth... its gravity, the filtered sunlight reaching our skin, which we create vitamin D from, and so on...
                  
                  It may be, that the only way we can explore beyond this earth, is through projecting our senses through 'robots' that can explore strange new worlds that we ourselves cannot.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                     If that is achieved most anything is possible for our future... that would also be a true leaving of the Garden of Eden... proving that we can exist beyond the planet that our consciousness, our knowledge, can be preserved...
                     
                     I have doubts as to this being truly possible... it may be that we are tied to this earth... that the ability for our minds to function beyond it has not been proven, what are the ramifications for leaving its magnetic field for indefinite periods of time?
                     
                     How significantly are our biological functions tied to earth... its gravity, the filtered sunlight reaching our skin, which we create vitamin D from, and so on...
                     
                     It may be, that the only way we can explore beyond this earth, is through projecting our senses through 'robots' that can explore strange new worlds that we ourselves cannot.
                     
                     ------
                     
                     Interesting
                     
                     I am not comfortable with the idea of neural interfaces. Would you trust anybody to insert some sort of electronic contrivance in your brain?
                     
                     At our current level of science and technology, yes Earth is the only habitable place, Musk and Trump not withstanding. We can't even manage to return to Moon after over 50 years.
                     
                     In spite of the ExoPlanet research that hypothesizes that earth like planets are orbiting other stars, I believe that the Earth and its biosphere are unique and just having the approximate mass and relative distance from its star does not begin to address a myriad of other factors that are simply indeterminate under observation due to the sheer distances involved.
                     
                     Reasonable manned exploration of the Solar System remains a technological challenge today. Even our probes take far too long. We can forget about any idea of interstellar travel or even probes for the foreseeable future. So we would do well to cherish and care for our own planet.

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                        "I believe that the Earth and its biosphere are unique"
                        
                        Just curious, but what do you base this belief on?  Just because you want it to be so?  Because you don't know what we need to survive, but DO know its a lot?  Because you are not an astronomer and don't know how they come to conclusions?
                        
                        What is the basis for that belief?

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Credence2posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                           Well Wilderness, I know that are we burners of gaseous oxygen at the appropriate atmospheric pressure to start. Oxygen is a very reactive material that is not found in large quantities because of rust and other chemical combinations. So, that reduces the probability of finding oxygen in large quarries ona "typical Earthlke world". I have taken basic biology, Wilderness, and have a pretty good idea of what is required to sustain human life without artificial aids.
                           
                           I have not seen any real evidence to the contrary. I already know that the Earth and its biosphere is not even approached by any planet in the solar system. No, I can't rule out that Earth like planets suitable for supporting human life are entirely absent, but the findings and evidence available to date are not encouraging. The astronomers have yet to definitely identify any and that is good enough for me.

                           replyreport
                           1. 76

                              wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                              Thank you.  I take the other side of the fence, with the reasoning that if the earth is truly unique it would mean that the (estimated) other 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets of about earth size and in the "goldilocks zone" are all very different somehow.  I find that to be a very low probability with so many zeros.

                              replyreport
                     2. 71

                        Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                        To your ending sentence, yes, that is however a sentiment that has been hijacked by the 'elites' to use to gather to themselves more power and control.
                        
                        It is also a sentiment that requires complete global agreement... if we stop burning coal... only so that coal can be shipped to China and burned there... well... that doesn't alleviate the problem of what that does to the atmosphere does it?
                        
                        To the first... would I agree to such?
                        
                        'what ifs' aside, yes, I would... at this juncture in my life.
                        
                        I have traveled, I have had a family, the ability to explore this new frontier is compelling enough to me that I would be happy to consider it at this stage in my life.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Credence2posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                           "It is also a sentiment that requires complete global agreement... if we stop burning coal... only so that coal can be shipped to China and burned there... well... that doesn't alleviate the problem of what that does to the atmosphere does it?"
                           
                           So how do we benefit our selves by creating a toxic unbreathable atmosphere for ourselves that much sooner by adding to the crisis? Yes, we have to push for a global accord if we can get one.

                           replyreport
                           1. 71

                              Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                              A variety of ways... that do not require a new "carbon tax" be pushed down on the people who can least afford it.
                              
                              In this endeavor I would look to nations that have had more success in such efforts and incorporate those that were most successful.
                              
                              If we are so concerned about coal burning, then our efforts also should include the banning of sales of American coal to China and other nations that are buying it up, on the cheap, because we made it illegal to use here.
                              
                              If not, then what we are really doing is supporting China's use of cheap coal, at the expense/cost of the American citizen, who would benefit from that cheaper energy source being used here.
                              
                              China's coal imports to stay high in 2024 after record-breaking Q4 2023
                              https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelli … 3-80251799
                              
                              US exports of met coal rise in September
                              US coking coal exports rose by 4.8pc on the year in September to 4mn t, driven by increased deliveries to India and China
                              https://uscoalexports.org/category/china/
                              
                              Do you see the hypocrisy?
                              
                              Do you see how this does nothing to protect the environment, it simply diverts the cheap energy resource from America to China, and others, who use as much of it as they can cheaply get.
                              
                              We pay more for energy, the cost to build things in America increases, the environment is not saved... China benefits at the expense of America/Americans.

                              replyreport