When he said the "US" he was pronouncing it phoenetically. He mean us as him
and the rest of the ruling class.; which are mostly loyal to Israel.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of abdulah aga
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 10:46 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump's War on 'Anchor Babies'
Hi
atlis trump was honest when he say that will bee loyal to both the US and Israel
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 12:27 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump's War on 'Anchor Babies'
Old King Midas had nothing on these Idol Worshippers.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/1/15, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think we can answer that with the old Watergate era expression "just
follow the money". They claim their status as Israeli citizens
absolves them of the burden of US taxation, with no regard to the fact
that they worn born in the US, live in the US and even vote in the US.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam
Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 8:46 PM
To: blind-democracy@freelists.orgThe fact that they were born in the
US, reside in the US and even vote in te US doesn't seem to dissuade
them from their positions.
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump's War on 'Anchor Babies'
They would say that they are loyal to both the US and Israel. However,
given their stance on the Iran deal, I'd question their allegiance to
the US.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank
Ventura
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 7:17 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump's War on 'Anchor Babies'
So under the Trumpazoids interpretation of the fourteenth amendment a
person is not a citizen unless the declare their undivided allegiance
to the US of A? Well I know more than a few very wealthy US Jews that
consider themselves citizens of Israel, not the US. I doubt the Donald
will be deporting them anytime soon.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam
Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 10:40 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Trump's War on 'Anchor Babies'
Trump's War on 'Anchor Babies'
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trumps_war_on_anchor_babies_201508
31/
Posted on Aug 31, 2015
By Bill Blum
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump waves to the crowd
after speaking at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies in
Nashville, Tenn., on Saturday. (Mark Humphrey / AP) If Donald Trump
has learned anything during his long and overblown career as a real
estate mogul and reality TV huckster, it's that flamboyance,
belligerence, vulgarity and the allure and promise of supremacy sell.
Truth, fairness and justice-abstract eggheaded concepts all-don't
sell, and have little to do with Trump's concept of success. All that
matters is winning and outperforming the competition. As Trump was
recently quoted as saying in an Aug. 15 op-ed by New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd: "I always win. ... It's what I do. I beat
people. I win."
No doubt Trump would have added, had he been asked directly, that the
people he beats include babies-or more precisely, "anchor babies," the
pejorative du jour used to describe the U.S.-born children of
undocumented immigrants, who become citizens at birth under current
legal doctrine. Trump wants to wage war on anchor babies and strip
them of their American citizenship.
He's
made that war the cornerstone of the anti-immigration platform that
has vaulted him to the top of the Republican presidential polls.
Say what you will about the Donald, but the man isn't stupid. When he
announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination June 16 and
declared that Mexico was "sending" drug smugglers and "rapists" into
the U.S., he knew exactly what he was doing. He wasn't just bemoaning
the presence of an estimated 11.3 million undocumented immigrants in
our midst, or simply tapping into our long and sorry traditions of
nativist scapegoating; he was accusing Mexico of deliberately staging
an invasion of the United States.
The invasion thesis operates at the center of Trump's campaign, whose
motto is "Make American Great Again." The thesis is spelled out in
greater detail in the "immigration reform" policy the campaign posted
on its website in mid-August, and it is central to the thinking behind
the policy.
"For many years," the policy statement proclaims, "Mexico's leaders
have been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal
immigration to export the crime and poverty in their own country. .
They have even published pamphlets on how to illegally immigrate to the
United States."
To turn back the invasion, Trump's policy calls not only for tripling
the number of immigration agents and conducting mass deportations of
the undocumented, but also building the much-ballyhooed
2,000-mile-long impenetrable wall along our southern border, which
Trump has vowed Mexico will be forced to fund should he attain our nation's
highest office.
But of all the proposals tendered by the Trump campaign, none is more
far-reaching politically or dependent, in a strict legal sense, on the
invasion argument than the call for ending "birthright citizenship"
for so-called anchor babies. Birthright citizenship, the policy
contends, "remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration."
But can it be done? Wouldn't the repeal of birthright citizenship
require a constitutional amendment, or more specifically, an amendment
to the 14th Amendment of 1868? Amending the Constitution is a
cumbersome, time-consuming and highly uncertain process. It's been
done only 27 times before.
Although the Trump campaign's immigration policy is silent on the
amendment issue, the candidate himself, as might be expected, has not
been. In an Aug.
19 town meeting in Derry, N.H., Trump told a crowd of ardent
supporters that "many of the great scholars say that anchor babies are
not covered" by the 14th Amendment. "We're going to have to find out"
by means of a court challenge, he said.
Like many other students of constitutional law, I dismissed Trump's
remarks as little more than the usual hot air and red meat that
Republican pols and their echo chamber at Fox News regularly
spoon-feed their base. But as the PolitiFact project of the Tampa Bay
Times subsequently reported, a small yet influential collection of
academics, such as Yale Law School professor Peter Schuck, actually
supports Trump's position. It has also been endorsed by at least one
highly respected federal judge-Richard Posner of the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both the legal proponents of birthright citizenship and their
opponents begin their interpretations with the text of the 14th
Amendment's citizenship clause, which reads: "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside."
The amendment was adopted to overturn the Supreme Court's infamous
Dred Scott decision of 1857, which invalidated the Missouri Compromise
and held that African-Americans, whether enslaved or freed, could never be
U.S.
citizens. Both sides in the current debate agree that the amendment's
central purpose was to confer citizenship upon newly emancipated slaves.
However, when it comes to other groups of people, the two sides
disagree sharply over the meaning and purpose of the clause that
limits citizenship to people "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
Those who align with Trump maintain that the clause pertains only to
people who declare unswerving allegiance to America and to no other
sovereign. It is for this reason, they argue, that children of foreign
diplomats born in this country do not receive citizenship at birth.
Nor would the children of foreign occupying forces born here receive
automatic citizenship, birthright opponents insist. Although Mexico
has not, of course, declared war on America, the Trump campaign
regards today's illegal Mexican immigrants as a de facto invading
force. As one anti-immigrant organization-the Colorado Alliance for
Immigration Reform-explains the current nativist position: "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."
Birthright opponents further buttress their interpretation with
invocations of the "original intent" of the framers of the 14th
Amendment, cherry-picking various anti-immigrant sentiments expressed
during the Senate's 1866 debates over the measure. They also cite the
Supreme Court's
1884 decision in Elk v. Wilkins, which declared that Native Americans
were not citizens under the 14th Amendment, even though they were born
within the geographic limits of the U.S., because they owed their
allegiance to tribal nations that had their own reservations.
Birthright opponents emphasize that the Elk ruling was effectively
overturned with passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. No
constitutional amendment was required. Thus, they conclude, if
Congress had the power to pass legislation and alter the citizenship
status of America's indigenous population without a constitutional
amendment, Congress can also pass new laws to take away the
citizenship of anchor babies.
Fortunately, the great weight of legal scholarship is to the contrary.
As University of Baltimore Law professor Garrett Epps, the
Congressional Research Service and others have shown, the ratification
debates taken as a whole indicate that the 14th Amendment was designed
to extend citizenship to all people born in the U.S. regardless of the
race, ethnicity or alienage of their parents.
Any doubts in this regard were laid to rest by another landmark
Supreme Court decision handed down in 1898-United States v. Wong Kim
Ark-in which the high tribunal held that the 14th Amendment had to be
read according to English common law and the principles of jus soli
(Latin for "law of the soil"). Under those principles, people born
within the territorial dominion of a nation were recognized as
citizens at birth. Construing the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause,
the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
referred to anyone who is required to obey U.S.
law rather than those formally swearing their allegiance.
Although the Supreme Court has had few occasions to revisit its Wong
Kim Ark opinion, it has since expressed its approval of birthright
citizenship
twice: in 1982 in Plyler v. Doe concerning the right of undocumented
children to attend public schools, and again in 1985 in the case of INS v.
Rios-Pineda, a deportation proceeding.
In the face of the overwhelming legal authority against them, you
might expect Trump and his minions to let anchor babies off the hook
and declare a truce in the war against them. Don't count on it.
If you had asked legal scholars back in 2007 if they thought the
National Rifle Association and its allies had a snowball's chance of
persuading the Supreme Court that the Eighth Amendment protected an
individual right to bear arms, most would have smiled and referred you
to the vast body of literature and prior case law that advised that
the Eighth Amendment protected gun ownership only in connection with
service in a state militia.
Then, along came Justice Antonin Scalia. With Scalia writing for a 5-4
majority, the court purported to divine the original intent of the
framers of the Bill of Rights and succeeded in turning the Second
Amendment on its head in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing
an individual constitutional right to bear arms.
I'm not prepared to say that the same kind of turnabout could happen
with the 14th Amendment. But neither am I prepared to say it won't or it
can't.
So stay tuned. Donald Trump's war on anchor babies is no laughing matter.
It's serious, and it's just getting started.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/ Trump's War on
'Anchor Babies'
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trumps_war_on_anchor_babies_201508
31/
Posted on Aug 31, 2015
By Bill Blum
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump waves to the crowd
after speaking at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies in
Nashville, Tenn., on Saturday. (Mark Humphrey / AP) If Donald Trump
has learned anything during his long and overblown career as a real
estate mogul and reality TV huckster, it's that flamboyance,
belligerence, vulgarity and the allure and promise of supremacy sell.
Truth, fairness and justice-abstract eggheaded concepts all-don't
sell, and have little to do with Trump's concept of success. All that
matters is winning and outperforming the competition. As Trump was
recently quoted as saying in an Aug. 15 op-ed by New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd: "I always win. ... It's what I do. I beat
people. I win."
No doubt Trump would have added, had he been asked directly, that the
people he beats include babies-or more precisely, "anchor babies," the
pejorative du jour used to describe the U.S.-born children of
undocumented immigrants, who become citizens at birth under current
legal doctrine. Trump wants to wage war on anchor babies and strip
them of their American citizenship.
He's
made that war the cornerstone of the anti-immigration platform that
has vaulted him to the top of the Republican presidential polls.
Say what you will about the Donald, but the man isn't stupid. When he
announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination June 16 and
declared that Mexico was "sending" drug smugglers and "rapists" into
the U.S., he knew exactly what he was doing. He wasn't just bemoaning
the presence of an estimated 11.3 million undocumented immigrants in
our midst, or simply tapping into our long and sorry traditions of
nativist scapegoating; he was accusing Mexico of deliberately staging
an invasion of the United States.
The invasion thesis operates at the center of Trump's campaign, whose
motto is "Make American Great Again." The thesis is spelled out in
greater detail in the "immigration reform" policy the campaign posted
on its website in mid-August, and it is central to the thinking behind
the policy.
"For many years," the policy statement proclaims, "Mexico's leaders
have been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal
immigration to export the crime and poverty in their own country. .
They have even published pamphlets on how to illegally immigrate to the
United States."
To turn back the invasion, Trump's policy calls not only for tripling
the number of immigration agents and conducting mass deportations of
the undocumented, but also building the much-ballyhooed
2,000-mile-long impenetrable wall along our southern border, which
Trump has vowed Mexico will be forced to fund should he attain our nation's
highest office.
But of all the proposals tendered by the Trump campaign, none is more
far-reaching politically or dependent, in a strict legal sense, on the
invasion argument than the call for ending "birthright citizenship"
for so-called anchor babies. Birthright citizenship, the policy
contends, "remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration."
But can it be done? Wouldn't the repeal of birthright citizenship
require a constitutional amendment, or more specifically, an amendment
to the 14th Amendment of 1868? Amending the Constitution is a
cumbersome, time-consuming and highly uncertain process. It's been
done only 27 times before.
Although the Trump campaign's immigration policy is silent on the
amendment issue, the candidate himself, as might be expected, has not
been. In an Aug.
19 town meeting in Derry, N.H., Trump told a crowd of ardent
supporters that "many of the great scholars say that anchor babies are
not covered" by the 14th Amendment. "We're going to have to find out"
by means of a court challenge, he said.
Like many other students of constitutional law, I dismissed Trump's
remarks as little more than the usual hot air and red meat that
Republican pols and their echo chamber at Fox News regularly
spoon-feed their base. But as the PolitiFact project of the Tampa Bay
Times subsequently reported, a small yet influential collection of
academics, such as Yale Law School professor Peter Schuck, actually
supports Trump's position. It has also been endorsed by at least one
highly respected federal judge-Richard Posner of the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both the legal proponents of birthright citizenship and their
opponents begin their interpretations with the text of the 14th
Amendment's citizenship clause, which reads: "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside."
The amendment was adopted to overturn the Supreme Court's infamous
Dred Scott decision of 1857, which invalidated the Missouri Compromise
and held that African-Americans, whether enslaved or freed, could never be
U.S.
citizens. Both sides in the current debate agree that the amendment's
central purpose was to confer citizenship upon newly emancipated slaves.
However, when it comes to other groups of people, the two sides
disagree sharply over the meaning and purpose of the clause that
limits citizenship to people "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
Those who align with Trump maintain that the clause pertains only to
people who declare unswerving allegiance to America and to no other
sovereign. It is for this reason, they argue, that children of foreign
diplomats born in this country do not receive citizenship at birth.
Nor would the children of foreign occupying forces born here receive
automatic citizenship, birthright opponents insist. Although Mexico
has not, of course, declared war on America, the Trump campaign
regards today's illegal Mexican immigrants as a de facto invading
force. As one anti-immigrant organization-the Colorado Alliance for
Immigration Reform-explains the current nativist position: "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."
Birthright opponents further buttress their interpretation with
invocations of the "original intent" of the framers of the 14th
Amendment, cherry-picking various anti-immigrant sentiments expressed
during the Senate's 1866 debates over the measure. They also cite the
Supreme Court's
1884 decision in Elk v. Wilkins, which declared that Native Americans
were not citizens under the 14th Amendment, even though they were born
within the geographic limits of the U.S., because they owed their
allegiance to tribal nations that had their own reservations.
Birthright opponents emphasize that the Elk ruling was effectively
overturned with passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. No
constitutional amendment was required. Thus, they conclude, if
Congress had the power to pass legislation and alter the citizenship
status of America's indigenous population without a constitutional
amendment, Congress can also pass new laws to take away the
citizenship of anchor babies.
Fortunately, the great weight of legal scholarship is to the contrary.
As University of Baltimore Law professor Garrett Epps, the
Congressional Research Service and others have shown, the ratification
debates taken as a whole indicate that the 14th Amendment was designed
to extend citizenship to all people born in the U.S. regardless of the
race, ethnicity or alienage of their parents.
Any doubts in this regard were laid to rest by another landmark
Supreme Court decision handed down in 1898-United States v. Wong Kim
Ark-in which the high tribunal held that the 14th Amendment had to be
read according to English common law and the principles of jus soli
(Latin for "law of the soil"). Under those principles, people born
within the territorial dominion of a nation were recognized as
citizens at birth. Construing the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause,
the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
referred to anyone who is required to obey U.S.
law rather than those formally swearing their allegiance.
Although the Supreme Court has had few occasions to revisit its Wong
Kim Ark opinion, it has since expressed its approval of birthright
citizenship
twice: in 1982 in Plyler v. Doe concerning the right of undocumented
children to attend public schools, and again in 1985 in the case of INS v.
Rios-Pineda, a deportation proceeding.
In the face of the overwhelming legal authority against them, you
might expect Trump and his minions to let anchor babies off the hook
and declare a truce in the war against them. Don't count on it.
If you had asked legal scholars back in 2007 if they thought the
National Rifle Association and its allies had a snowball's chance of
persuading the Supreme Court that the Eighth Amendment protected an
individual right to bear arms, most would have smiled and referred you
to the vast body of literature and prior case law that advised that
the Eighth Amendment protected gun ownership only in connection with
service in a state militia.
Then, along came Justice Antonin Scalia. With Scalia writing for a 5-4
majority, the court purported to divine the original intent of the
framers of the Bill of Rights and succeeded in turning the Second
Amendment on its head in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing
an individual constitutional right to bear arms.
I'm not prepared to say that the same kind of turnabout could happen
with the 14th Amendment. But neither am I prepared to say it won't or it
can't.
So stay tuned. Donald Trump's war on anchor babies is no laughing matter.
It's serious, and it's just getting started.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_russell_brand_tires_of_comm
enting
_cyclical_news_puts_trews_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_russell_brand_tires_of_comm
enting
_cyclical_news_puts_trews_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_russell_brand_tires_of_comm
enting
_cyclical_news_puts_trews_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/iceland_could_only_take_in
_50_sy rian_refugees_10000_icelanders_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/iceland_could_only_take_in
_50_sy rian_refugees_10000_icelanders_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/iceland_could_only_take_in
_50_sy rian_refugees_10000_icelanders_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/enter_the_bear_russia_planning_air
_strik
es_islamic_state_syria_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/enter_the_bear_russia_planning_air
_strik
es_islamic_state_syria_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/enter_the_bear_russia_planning_air
_strik
es_islamic_state_syria_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/are_we_really_moving_towards_an_ag
e_of_t
echnological_abundance_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/are_we_really_moving_towards_an_ag
e_of_t
echnological_abundance_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/are_we_really_moving_towards_an_ag
e_of_t echnological_abundance_20150901/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://w
ww.tru
thdig.com/user_agreement/http://www.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http:/
/www.t
ruthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?sourc
e=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+trut
hdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
