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_20150831/
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_20150831/
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_commenting
_cyclical_news_puts_trews_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_russell_brand_tires_of_commenting
_cyclical_news_puts_trews_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_russell_brand_tires_of_commenting
_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_age_of_t
echnological_abundance_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/are_we_really_moving_towards_an_age_of_t
echnological_abundance_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/are_we_really_moving_towards_an_age_of_t
echnological_abundance_20150901/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.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?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
