The student union of Leeds University has suspended a third-year philosophy and theology student, Connie Shaw, for what were declared “gender critical” views. Shaw’s transgression was to discuss her concerns over transgender ideology. We have previously seen student governments or bodies engage in such anti-free speech activities. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the school administration to maintain free-speech protections on campuses.
Shaw wrote an article, “Gender Madness at the University of Leeds,” questioning the university’s “gender expression fund.” She also interviewed Irish comedian Graham Linehan, an outspoken critic of transgender policies.
She promptly received a “notice of suspension” after she allegedly brought the radio station into “disrepute” because of her “social media activity,” according to The Telegraph.
We have previously discussed how free speech is in a free fall in the United Kingdom. This latest case seems to build on prior moves against “toxic ideologies.”
The cases out of Great Britain are chilling and mounting. A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
We also discussed Nicholas Brock, 52, who was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target of Ireland’s proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. It covers the possession of material deemed hateful. The law is a free speech nightmare. The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”
Clearly, Shaw did not confine her views to herself. She wanted to engage and challenge others. She wanted to test her ideas against those who believe strongly in transgender values. Instead of an exchange of differing viewpoints, she received a suspension from further expression by the student group.
The fact that students took the action in Leeds should not change the significance for the free speech community. Universities often allow students to carry out anti-free speech agendas in the name of student self-governance. However, students come to our institutions to learn in an environment of free speech and self-exploration. Administrators cannot simply shrug and walk away as students seek to silence dissenting or opposing viewpoints.
The British government has created a culture of speech criminalization and censorship. This culture infects every aspect of life, from government to the media to academia. It even distorts the view of a group of students engaged in journalism who seek to punish the expression of opposing views. Rather than view this as a great opportunity for a passionate debate, the students prefer to silence or suspend one side in a growing debate around the world. In the ultimate doublespeak, they are enforcing a strict rule of intolerance in the name of tolerance.
I understand that the students have strong views opposing those of Shaw. Those are counter views that should be given the same opportunity of expression. Let’s have the debate rather than focusing on how to silence one side.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Jonathan: remember those heady days a decade ago? When Darren Smith was featured as a Weekend Contributor? Rather than employed as your publicity manager and marketing CEO for jonathanturley.org.
Remember back when some of those weekend contributors had no fear of calling a Democrat CIA and Democrat CIA Director corrupt, rather than giving a corrupt Democrat CIA and CIA Director cover with faint criticism for being “low confidence”?
The CIA’s Whitewash Investigation Of Itself
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty – Weekend Contibutor
https://jonathanturley.org/2015/01/25/the-cias-whitewash-investigation-of-itself/
it is now more clear than ever that Brennan was the prime mover behind a hugely inappropriate assault on the constitutional separation of powers, and continues to get away with it. Remind me again, why are we supposed to believe anything John Brennan or his CIA says? Maybe Mr. Brennan thinks he is the Wizard behind the curtain and no one can see his deception.
Jonathan, can you get some help from the Weekend Contributors that have disappeared, to write similar analyses of President Biden’s CIA Director, Gina Haskell that you don’t have the time to do?
Those believing that any change to Citizenship law requires a Constitutional Amendment….
How did Native Americans become eligible for US citizenship?
Though the words don’t say it, the 1868 Citizenship Clause was understood by its ratifiers to exclude “Indians not taxed”. More over, the 1884 Supreme Court UPHELD that interpretation (exclusion of Indians) in Elk v. Wilkins.
Given Elk v. Wilkins, how could Native American go on to obtain citizenship? Do you still insist it took an Amendment?
Congress fixed things in 1924 with the Indian Citizenship Act. Yes, Congress, under Article I, Section 8 authority can redefine pathways to citizenship (only going forward in time). We don’t need an Amendment.
Even assuming the truth of everything you said, if a constitutional amendment (or any other constitutional provision) grants citizenship, I don’t see how legislation can take it away. I’m not saying 14A.1 does grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens, just suggesting there is a difference between what you’re talking about and the question debated below.
Looks like you uncovered the dirt secrets of citizenship. YOu deserve the Presidential medel of honor. Joe would be proud of you. Racist.
The OFFICIAL LYING has begun–Trump’s new bottle blondie “press secretary” actually is trying to blame BIDEN for the shortage of eggs, which is due to a very highly contagious strain of bird flu. Hundreds of thousands of sick and exposed chickens had to be euthanized to prevent the spread, but it has already spread to cattle, domestic cats, and wild animals like raccoons. Because of this, multiple products that use eggs, like baked goods, frozen breakfast items, fast food breakfast items that use eggs, etc., will also rise. Excerpted from “Newsweek”:
“Jeff Sebo, author and associate professor of environmental studies at New York University, told Newsweek that the bird flu crisis “reveals a vulnerability at the heart of industrial animal agriculture.”
“When we produce our food by keeping large populations of animals with weakened immune systems in cramped, toxic environments, we create the ideal conditions for zoonotic diseases like bird flu to develop and spread,” he said.
Meanwhile, Dombroski added that the “fact that a virus can hit poultry farms so hard shows just how fragile our food system is” and that “a single disease can throw everything off balance.”
Dombroski said the current crisis “highlights the need for better biosecurity and risk management” across the entire food industry.*
“This is not just for the egg industry but any sector that uses live animals or products from these animals. Milk from cows** and other areas should be included in this as well,” he said.
Dombroski suggested “farms and livestock growers need to step up their game” by implementing “improved tracking systems for livestock, strict cleanliness protocols*, and quick response plans to manage outbreaks,”* as well as robust contingency plans that include “a network of backup suppliers or storage solutions” which “can help industries weather biological risks without going into full crisis mode.”*
When Will the Crisis End?
The future of egg prices is, for now, uncertain. The USDA has adjusted its production forecasts downward for 2025, meaning recouping supply losses could take longer than anticipated. While some experts are hopeful prices will stabilize once laying flocks are replenished, there is no concrete timeline for how long this will take.
“We can’t begin fixing it the next day. It is really a six-to-nine-month process. It’s causing some shortages in certain markets that are intermittent and localized,” Metz told Newsweek.
While the risk of the disease for humans is low, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has said it “is watching the situation carefully and working with states to monitor people with animal exposures.”***
Now, how many of you MAGAs think that it is JOE BIDEN’S fault that bird flu has caused shortages of chickens and eggs? Bottle blondie complained that “BIDEN” had sick or exposed chickens euthanized–was that the wrong thing to do? If so, what authoritative source said so? There is NO cure–the only measure is to euthanize sick or exposed birds. BUT–Biden just HAS to be wrong, somehow.
*He’s referring to “regulations”–something Trump opposes.
**RFK, Jr. advocates for “raw milk”–that has not been pasteurized, which can give you bird flu. Again, regulations, that Trump opposes, would prevent this.
***Trump has banned publication of the CDC’s “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report” (MMWR) that tracks communicable diseases, like bird flu, so local health departments won’t be able to track outbreaks and curb the spread.
No worries, we still have your posts for disinformation!
A blanket denunciation contains no useful info. If you can rebuke something with specifics, that would show you’re serious, not lazy.
I challenged you to provide something, anything, that proves that the sick and exposed chickens should not have been euthanized. You accuse me of “disinformation”. WHAT did I get wrong? These flu outbreaks happen periodically–this is not the first time, and if nothing is done, we wouldn’t have ANY chickens left. The flu could also spread to humans. Those are veterinary facts. The solution, according to experts, is to better regulate the industry, to improve cleanliness, implement quick response and back up plans. Trump opposes regulations. My point was that Trump’s “press secretary” begins the first briefing with blaming the Biden administration for bird flu because they followed veterinary advice on curbing the spread. Egg prices are going to stay high for awhile, and we should probably be thankful that we still have eggs. Here’s another crisis in the making–lack of biodiversification of bananas. If we get a viral outbreak that affects the current strain and don’t have viral-immune back up strains, we could end up with NO bananas. Banana blight has happened in the past, and could happen again.
What the —- happened to America?
I am incapable of assimilating these once-unacceptable occurrences.
I received a forceful swat with a wood paddle in junior high for either chewing gum or not wearing a belt; I don’t remember exactly.
I was called into the vice principal’s office, including an appearance by my father, for having hair so long that it actually, if only barely, touched my ears.
Most kids followed the rules and did what was expected of them and what they were told.
By the way, we were taught about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, the American Revolution, rights and freedoms, and, at least mild, patriotism—actually taught that in school; can you imagine?
Britain is lost. It’s probably time we regard them as such and stop being surprised. This is not new (and was never true; we kicked their pasty behinds to curb for a reason, centuries ago), it has been decades in the making, and many of us have observed and commented on their slow drip then fast rush to old fashioned fascism; nobody cared. Modern Labour will leave that island in ashes over the next four years. Check back and tell us that think so we were wrong.
Jordan Peterson to Piers Morgan: “it would be a dreadful shame to lose you” (the UK) to the woke mind virus.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bj9jMj6-Rnw
I love the smell of a civil rights lawsuit with punitive damages in the morning.
Sounds like it’s time for the UK folks to either revolt or request asylum in America to escape their political persecution.
We don’t need any more people that allowed their government to become tyrannical. We already have California. The British can sleep in the bed they made and keep their weak minds where the belong in Londinistan.
Turley: why do you waste everyone’s time writing about Leeds University, which is in the UK, and why not, instead, comment on Trump’s effort to overturn the Fourteenth Amendment by claiming that children of migrants born in the United States can’t be citizens? This would be a topic within your wheelhouse. I know why–you KNOW what he did is unconstitutional, and Murdoch didn’t assign you to comment negatively on Trump and his dictatorial BS or to say anything that would contradict the MAGA media swill that, somehow, the matter of “subject to the jurisdiction” makes migrant’s children not US citizens.
Gigi: Why do you waste everyone’s time…..writing about anything.
Because she gets off on it.
Why do you tell lies?
President Trump isn’t trying to overturn the 14th Amendment. He wants to restore the framers meaning to ‘subject to the jurisdiction.’ Which the framers clearly said means subject to the full and complete jurisdiction — power/authority — of the federal government. The power the federal government exercised over current citizens.
The full and complete power means legal and political power because that is what a citizen has — the Right to participate in the political process. The authority to vote, serve on juries, hold office, be drafted.
Legal residents don’t have this, illegal aliens don’t have this. They are still under the power of their home countries.
Stop your nonsense.
The US Supreme Court settled this issue in 1898 in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Excerpted from Wikipedia:
“United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that “a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China”,[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[6] This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.[4]”
Whatever MAGA media you listen to and believe is LYING to you. That BS about voting, etc, is just BS. Stop YOUR nonsense.
No issue is ever settled. Courts can reverse previous wrong rulings — as we have seen most recently with Roe v Wade, bad laws can be repealed, new laws can be written, and the People can amend the Constitution.
No court can change what the Framers of the Constitution or amendments said was the meaning. The only way that can be changed is by the People amending the Constitution.
Now, when was the 14th amended to change the Framers’ meaning of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ which they said meant full and complete jurisdiction? Not being under the authority of another government?
Ark’s parents were legal residents — still under their native country’s authority. Children’s citizenship follows their parents’. Which the court even said — his parents are still under the authority of the Chinese Emperor. That is a direct contradiction to what the Framers said, to what was ratified. A person cannot be a citizen if they are still under the authority of another sovereign.
You must know that Gray went against previous rulings on this, correct?? Gray pulled his ‘ruling’ out of his behind.
Roe v. Wade was NOT bad law–it was based on the Constitutional protections of individual liberty and privacy. The Federalist Society had to wait for someone as unethical as Trump to shove Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch down the throats of the American people to appease the Evangelicals. They all lied about Roe being “settled law” and pledged to honor “stare decisis”. Even Republican Senator Susan Collins said that they LIED to her. The majority of Americans disagree with the Dobbs decision and want Roe v. Wade reinstated.
The Ark decision was reaffirmed in a legal treatise from 1912 and in a legal case in 1982: Excerpted from the Constitutional Center: “In recent years, the Court revisited Wong Kim Ark in Plyler v. Doe (1982). In a 5-4 decision, the Court overturned a Texas law allowing the state to withhold funds from local school districts used for educating children of illegal aliens. In his majority opinion, Justice William Brennan cited Wong Kim Ark and a 1912 legal treatise that held there was no difference “between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”
Under what authority would migrant children be subjects if they are born in the United States? This is just some MAGA media lies that you choose to believe–but it is wrong.
“Roe v. Wade was NOT bad law–i”
Ruth Bader Ginsberg thought it was and stated that in writing. I copied some of what she said about it when we were on the subject. As usual you don’t learn from your mistakes. That is why you are a pariah on the blog.
As usual, you cite NOTHING to support your ad hominem attacks against me.
I didn’t have to quote anything. Lgbmiel clearly explained what Trump was doing. You don’t have the courtesy to deal with this, so why, if I gave you a similar answer, would you respond sensibly to me?
You are nothing more than a toy to be played with, much like the ball I throw at my dog.
giggles has been hunting on Wikipedia again (the law books have too many big words)
Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is not a power delegated to the feds. Therefore, it is reserved to the states and the People.
That would be the case if we didn’t have the 9th Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Abortion was being practiced in the Colonies, and it could be considered protected by the 9th Amendment from State encroachment. There’s 100s of “unenumerated rights” — parents being free to choose the names of their children. That right is protected by the 9th Amendment. States cannot regulate the way children’s names are chosen by parents.
Not mentioning a right in the Constitution does not open it up to attack by the States.
Those 9th Amendment Rights aren’t enumerated, as such, they don’t ‘arise under the Constitution.’
There is no power to legislate abortion delegated to the feds. Per the 10th, it is a power reserved to the states.
P.S. Just because something was practiced in the Colonies doesn’t make it a Right.
Didn’t they also practice witch burning in the colonies prior to the Constitution?
Yes, they did! Many things people do are not Rights. Rights don’t involve other people, especially when it comes to terminating an innocent life.
I remember my older sister being upset that people confuse freedoms and privileges with Rights.
“Abortion was being practiced in the Colonies, and it could be considered protected by the 9th Amendment from State encroachment. “
That doesn’t prevent the states from passing laws covering abortion.
The Founders and Framers revealed and codified NATURAL and GOD-GIVEN rights and freedoms, including in the 9th Amendment. Congress may legislate and legalize abortion but it never will; abortion is not prohibited to the states so it is reserved to the states.
Abortion is homicide of a separate person so “my body, my choice” is completely false and fraudulent. The embryo and fetus are separate human beings that fight to live by counteracting attacks from the mother’s white blood cell defense; the baby wants to continue to live and grow.
Does anyone seriously believe the founders would condone killing babies in the womb? If women don’t want to become pregnant they should use birth control. Abortion is NOT a means for birth control.
No, it’s not. They probably had some form of birth control back then, that was not a Right either.
With all the forms of birth control available, now, women who get pregnant unintentionally are just not being responsible. The choice is before one becomes pregnant, not after.
I had read that archeologists have found lamb intestines used as condoms in the excavations of medieval castle ruins in Europe.
That is really interesting!
I also read that Hamas can use them for IED’s
Bad law begets bad law.
Again, I ask, when was the Framers’ often stated meaning of ‘jurisdiction’ amended?
No court can arbitrarily change what was ratified.
And in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), the Supreme Court said: “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”
Ark’s parents were still under the power of the Chinese Emperor and could only pass that to their children. Legal residents are not part of our political society. No court can make them so.
I won’t say it again.
Legal power is not the full and complete power of the government. If it were only legal power, the Framers wouldn’t had many times said — full and complete power. The same power current citizens are under. Wouldn’t have said — not under the power of another sovereign.
Are current citizens under just legal power of government? No, they are under political power. The Right to participate in our political process. The government can summon citizens to jury duty and draft citizens.
This is not so with other people living in the Country.
I will not reply to any more of your silliness.
lgbmiel – I also raised the question below (perhaps nobody saw it), if being born here automatically makes a person subject to our jurisdiction, of what meaning is the second clause in the following:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . .
The “and” must mean something, otherwise the entire second clause is surplusage, and there is a fundamental rule of interpreting legal texts that no part of it was intended by its drafters to be surplusage.
That’s just me looking at the text, so if you see something wrong with my reasoning, please advise.
Thank you. I did see it and ‘liked’ it.
I have had a migraine since yesterday and it was a mistake to start replying before it fully subsided.
I did read today’s posts from Professor Turley and I should have just stuck with ‘liking’ some comments and not jumped ‘into the fray’ so to speak.
Maybe ice and more sleep will help.
lgbmiel, I hope you feel better soon, and that you don’t take too much time off commenting, as I like your comments . . . although I don’t know how to “like” them (ha!).
In the meantime, I’m hoping Gigi will show me where I went wrong.
Thank you, you are so sweet!! I can’t express how much I appreciate everyone’s kindness.
I have some soup, two ice packs, a cup of strong coffee, and I’m going to just rest. I’m currently watching the Harry Potter movies, again, I enjoy the fantasy and sci-fi genres.
That strong coffee sounds good!
They would have citizenship of that of their parents, and be subject to the laws of that country, which may include obligations such as military service or taxation for the other country in the world that taxes worldwide income. In other words they are subject to a foreign power.
For example korean citizens born abroad have to show up to a consulate to defer military service, israeli citizens as well.
https://embassies.gov.il/MONTREAL/CONSULARSERVICES/Pages/Arrangement-for-Military-Status.aspx#:~:text=Service%20in%20the%20IDF%20is,they%20are%20not%20Israeli%20citizens.
https://overseas.mofa.go.kr/us-sanfrancisco-en/wpge/m_4775/contents.do
This would provide clarity to wether “the jurisdiction thereof” means sole jurisdiction or not.
P.S. I get my info straight from the Framers themselves.
lgbmiel: Welcome to Gigi-world.
You’ll get used to it. Most of the time, you will just fly over without refueling, but now and then, the landscape is so ______________, you will be tempted to land and try to reorient.
p.s. your comments are definitely contributing to the width of conversation, especially your historic quotes/underpinnings to provide starting points (from which we often stray!)
DL (dearlin), thank you very much for your kind words.
I’ve been trying to stick to factual posts and not address opinions. Everyone has an opinion, while opinions aren’t right or wrong, they can be based on facts, truth, or nonsense.
I have instituted a new rule — to just pass right by ‘anonymous’ except for OAD — signing a post is just as good.
I have seen many of ‘gigi’s’ comments, usually pass them, but outright lies bother me. I may just have to add a few named posters to my ‘anonymous’ rule.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
Oh, No–you’re not going to get away with that. WHAT OUTRIGHT LIE did I tell? Cite me something reputable. And, it is really not funny that you believe you are in contact with “the framers”.
I already said your lie.
Did I say I talked to the Framers? We have historical records.
You really are something else.
I have cited SUPREME COURT CASES that put this issue to rest over one hundred years ago, which is far more recent than whatever you are claiming, and which would have been availabile for the Supreme Court’s consideration. Nothing you cited supercedes those–NOTHING. Anyone born in the United States is a CITIZEN, and not subject to the jurisdiction of a country from which their parents came–that argument was rejected over one hundred years ago.
Gigi, stop tearing up the law as you would a dog bone. The law is something that requires discussion.
lin: I cite REPUTABLE sources that counter the MAGA media lies. None of you MAGAs ever cite anything authoritative–instead, you listen to MAGA media, starry-eyed, believing the swill they serve up, and NO resource will change your mind. This is why I call you “disciples”. The law on birthright citizenship has been settled for over 100 years, and reaffirmed in legal treatises and subsequent legal cases. Cite me some REPUTABLE legal source that relies on Court opinions or reputable legal treatises that says that a president can amend the Constitution via an Executive Order and declare that children of migrants born in the United States are not US citizens. You can’t, and even Turley won’t weigh in because his intellectual dishonesty hasn’t reached that far–yet. That Republican judge literally tore Trump’s DOJ flunkies new ones–saying he couldn’t believe that any reputable lawyer would make such outrageous and legally-incorrect arguments.
Lin
You mean a GooGoo gun run right? Rockets and strafing fully acceptable, occasionally a door gunner will open up for the assist!
lgbmiel,
Just like to add to Lin’s warm welcome! You will need to know, in the past, Gigi was Natasha and a nurse during the pandemic. When many people pointed out all her lies, she then changed her handle to Gigi and now claims to be a lawyer. Oh! She also is a petrochemical engineer. Just ask her how do they make synthetic oil. Her comments generally border on the hysterical and her lies are well known. She makes wild claims, then claims she is citing some expert but never says who. She also makes all these claims about MAGA media but will never mention who said what or what was the source.
Thank you so much!!
I have read some comments on the background info of ‘gigi.’ My new rule is to just ignore certain people.
It just causes me aggravation to do otherwise.
Upstate–you can call me a liar all day long, just like the MAGA media you rely on calls mainstream media liars because they call out Trump and his lies. You choose to believe lies–why? Because you fell for the lies of a malignant narcissist, because you feel threatened by anyone who isn’t straight, white, male, Christian or college-educated. You make things up about me, just like MAGA media makes things up about Democrats. You say I don’t cite “some expert”–but don’t say who? That is a LIE, and you know it. It’s you MAGAs who regurgitate lies you heard on MAGA media and repeat, without any attribution. So, keep on lying to each other.
Goo Goo
The Supreme Court can modify the prior decision based upon the evolution of our society and the conditions that we may find ourselves in today. 1898 population was roughly 50M American citizens, mass global transit did not exist. The problem has arisen of tourism birth to achieve an anchor baby that then evolves into entire families gaining entry over legal immigration people.
WTF is wrong with you?
What “evolution of our society and conditions” have changed since the 1982 Court ruling that Affirmed the Ark case? You are, once again, listening to and believing MAGA media. And that “anchor baby” BS is another MAGA media LIE. If a migrant child is born in the United States, and thereby becomes a citizen, the entire family does NOT become citizens, too. And, there are THREE court cases that affirm this. From “PolitiFact”:
“It sounds like a way for illegal immigrants to get a foothold in the United States: Pregnant women from Mexico and other countries can come to the U.S. to deliver their babies. Voila! Under the 14th Amendment, the babies are instant citizens!
That’s become a popular talking point for critics of illegal immigration, who have dubbed the children “anchor babies.” The implication often is that the baby U.S. citizens act as an anchor that that helps parents and other relatives obtain citizenship and other benefits.
Several Republican senators, including Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., John McCain, R-Ariz., Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have called for hearings on whether the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, needs to be rewritten to curb automatic “birthright citizenship.”
The most prominent voice pushing that concept is Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who proposed amending the Constitution to make clear that babies born in the U.S. do not automatically receive American citizenship.
In a July 28, 2010, interview on Fox News’ On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Graham said that “there’s another problem we have in this nation that I think is novel and needs to be fixed. If you come across the border illegally and you have a child in America, automatically, that child becomes an American citizen. Under the 14th Amendment, three court cases says there’s a constitutional right to that. I would like to deal with the 12 million (illegal immigrants) firmly and fairly. You can’t stay here on your own terms. You have to learn English. You have to pay fines. You have to get in the back of the line if you want to be a citizen. But I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here. Birthright citizenship, I think, is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child’s automatically not a citizen.”
Later in the interview, Van Susteren asked Graham, “How realistic is it that you will introduce a constitutional amendment?”
Graham replied that he had to because “people come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child. It’s called ‘drop and leave.’ To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child’s automatically an American citizen. That shouldn’t be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.”
In a later interview with Van Susteren on Aug. 3, Graham once again referred to a “problem where thousands of people are coming across the Arizona-Texas border for the express purpose of having a child in an American hospital so that child will become an American citizen, and they broke the law to get there.”
We’ve dealt with one aspect of this issue before, when we checked a claim by Fox host Glenn Beck that “we’re the only country in the world” that offers birthright citizenship. (We found that 33 others do, so we rated Beck’s statement False.)
This time, we were curious about Graham’s statement that “people come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child.” He portrays it as such a big phenomenon that it warrants changing the U.S. Constitution. But is the problem as big as he suggests?
Limited benefits
It’s important to note that having an “anchor baby” won’t do much to help a Mexican mom become a U.S. citizen. Because citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until they turn 21 — and because if the parents were ever illegal, they would have to return home for 10 years before applying to come in — having a baby to secure citizenship for its parents is an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process.”
STOP REPEATING MAGA MEDIA LIES.
STOP PRETENDING YOU ARE “ANONYMOUS” WE ALL KNOW WHO GIGI IS
Come up with some proof about the “anchor baby” lie–I dare you.
“I dare you.” Another copycatted term from yesterday.
An anchor baby immediately qualifies the mother to receive all benefits of a US citizen that are attributable to their minor.
The “anchor baby” lie says that the parents and siblings of babies born in the US automatically become citizens–that’s not true. What “benefits of a US citizen” are you referring to? They can’t vote.
Social Security for one
Medicaid for another
I would bet welfare and food stamps.
That’s not what it is about you yahoo. It’s about chain migration, a child as a citizen opens the door for mother and father, siblings, aunts and uncles into our country legally and illegally. That’s the rub bub. Social service benefits, welfare, attendance in public schools, healthcare.
“President Trump isn’t trying to overturn the 14th Amendment. He wants to restore the framers meaning to ‘subject to the jurisdiction.’ “
Lgbmiel, the difference between you and Gigi is that you are able to think and process information. Gigi is a waste of time to be used only as a play thing to be tossed around. “Wants to restore” gets to the point quickly and efficiently. That is something Gigi cannot understand.
You are too kind. Thank you.
Why don’t you believe the THREE U.S. Supreme Court cases and legal treatise that say that children born in the United States are citizens, unless they are the children of diplomats or emissaries of a foreign government– which makes them subject to foreign jurisdiction? Why do you attack ME instead of the facts? I didn’t make up these cases. You’ve picked up the Trumpian theme of just ignoring the law and doing as you please and calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar.
Gigi, you don’t seem able to understand the discussion. lgbmiel gave you all the right answers. If you don’t like the place you are in, discuss the points she made and stop with the BS and lies.Your Gig is up[.
WHAT “right answers”? I cited US Supreme Court opinions–which are neither BS or lies. They all were decided after whatever crap igbmiel claims is more authoritative.
Lgbmiel opened the discussion up. You closed it down with your rigidity, ignorance and dogged adherence; what you believe true cannot be questioned.
Congress using powers under Article I, Section 8 can modify pathways to citizenship. In 1924, Congress passed The Indian Citizenship Act, which by statute overruled both the 1868 Citizenship Clause (understood by its Ratifiers to exclude Indians), and the 1884 SCOTUS precedent upholding exclusion of Indians (Elk v. Wilkins).
That 1924 statute proves that Congress can modify pathways to citizenship to suit changing ideas and circumstances. You don’t need a Constitutional Amendment.
Elk v Wilkins said:
“The persons declared 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.”
Gray went on to further state in Elk: “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States…although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government…”
Congress can only make laws of naturalization. They can’t change the Constitution.
THE JURISDICTION, THE WHOLE JURISDICTION, AND NOTHING BUT THE JURISDICTION, SO HELP YOU GOD.
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
The Fourteenth Amendment
By P.A. Madison
“In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship–not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty – then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth.”
https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Wrong. It’s entirely Constitutional. If you read the writings of the time, the 14th was intended only for the children of freed slaves. Court cases since have denied test it even applies to Indians born on reservations. It was misapplied without a change to the Constitution, so can be correctly applied without a change to the Constitution. I mean, you tried, but I can’t even say it was a good try.
If the US Supreme Court intended its ruling to apply only to freed slaves IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO–but it didn’t because whatever MAGA media liar told you that is wrong.
Your position is that anyone born in the US necessarily is subject to the jurisdiction thereof, right? Now I’m not saying that that, in itself, is unreasonable when considered in a vacuum. But look at the text:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
Think of what the word “and” means. Doesn’t the above text, on its face, set forth two distinct requirements? If being born in the US automatically makes a person subject to the jurisdiction thereof, doesn’t that make the entire second clause superfluous, i.e., it adds nothing?
P.S. I am aware of what Scotus said in 1898. That’s not my question. It’s possible Scotus made an interpretive error. It does that sometimes. In fact it is known to overrule prior cases when it considers them to have made an interpretive error.
The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that children of diplomats and foreign emissaries who happen to get born while their mother is in the United States are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This does not apply to migrant children, whose parents were born in another country. That issue was settled over 100 years ago. What “interpretive error” could there be? That Judge who excoriated Trump’s DOJ attorneys made clear that there is NO room for “reinterpretation”.
So you’re saying that the only thing the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language does, or was ever intended to do, is weed out the kids of diplomats. Okay, that’s at least a coherent argument . . . but since the constitutional text itself does not mention diplomats, I wouldn’t be dogmatic about it. Your interpretation may be right, it may be wrong. I realize your interpretation is consistent with Scotus’s 1898 case, but I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk that Scotus will agree with you if they do elect to take a deeper look at the question.
That Judge who excoriated Trump’s DOJ attorneys made clear that there is NO room for “reinterpretation”.
What specifically did that judge say? He said “blatantly unconstitutional.” Did he also say “no room for reinterpretation”? I don’t think so. That judge, by the way, was a US District Judge, the lowest-level judge in the federal system. He is duty-bound to follow the Scotus 1898 case, so “blatantly unconstitutional” simply means “blatantly inconsistent with US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).” It does not suggest he was doing any interpretation of his own, but only following Scotus, as he must.
But unlike him, Scotus does have the authority to overrule its own cases. So, it is sketchy to rely on the statement of a single US District Judge, or any of his visceral reactions, as a final, definitive interpretation about which there cannot be any reasonable disagreement. Further, to say there is no room for reinterpretation is a weak position because, as noted, the text itself is ambiguous: it simply does not mention diplomats; it is much more general than that, and only hinges on what the framers meant by “jurisdiction” – a multifaceted term.
Hahaha, like I said before, the Constitution means what the people in power say it means. There was no chain migration in 1898 that would exhibit itself for the justices to consider, in 1982 the illegal invasion was just getting started, no one would ever believe our government would assist in a foreign invasion of our homeland. I lived what they did to the construction industry. America was better off without all this social engineering and culturalism being crammed up our a$$es. Deport every single one of them. Control migration on the basis of benefit to our nation and not to the benefit of the invading hordes.
What was settled in 1898 was an interpretation of the 1868 Citizenship Clause that suited the ethos of that era (e.g., aliens, diplomats, invaders, Indians not included) for the sake of one case (WKA).
In 1924, Congress made Indians US Citizens, thus overruling the 1868 Citizens Clause (as understood during its ratification) and the 1884 SCOTUS precedent uphold that exclusion. The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act was not ruled unconstitutional. There goes your argument that any change to citizenship law requires an Amendment first.
Gigi, the 14th Amendment is a rehash of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, to bering Constitutional force to it.
You and I both know what was going on in our country during those years (Reconstruction and determined “resistance” from white southerners).
The authors of the 14th had to come up with a means of including the emancipated slaves. Birthplace in the US was thought a way to do it offering the least “gaming” by white supremacists.
The story I resonate with is how Native Americans obtained US Citizenship. It was finally an act of Congress in 1924 that overturned Citizenship Clause as understood by the ratifiers to exclude Indians, and the 1884 Supreme Court upholding those exclusions (Elk v. Wilkins).
This precedent illustrates how Congress exercising its explicit powers to define pathways to citizenship (Article I, Section 8) can overturn both ratified 1868 Constitutional intent and SCOTUS precedent upholding it.
This precedent is one we can all be proud of, and learn from in term of what Congress can do at this hour about indiscriminate birthplace citizenship — whose effect defies logic and common sense.
Gigi, I wouldn’t bank on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship EO for anything more than ginning up public support to get Congress to pass legislation. That could work, similar to the way Indian Citizenship was created by Congressional statute, overriding Elk v. Wilkins. Congress has explicit power to make Citizenship rules. SCOTUS does not, though some of its casework has attempted to temporarily on a case-by-case basis (Elk vs. Wilkins, Wong Kim Ark).
You might want to check the results of recent polls–Trumpy Bear is dropping like a rock, even with Rasmussen–and, he started out with less than 50% approval. People don’t like a dictator pardoning people who beat up cops, they don’t like unilateral efforts to overturn the Constitution, they don’t like the freeze on Medicare–and–news flash–there’s another federal injunction on the EO that froze government grants. It’s not going well for Trumpy Bear, and it’s only going to get worse. The public does NOT support ending birthright citizenship: From “Newsweek”: “Of 924 voters, 63 percent said birthright citizenship should remain in place, granting any child born in the U.S. the right to an American passport. Meanwhile, 29 percent felt the system should be changed so that those born to noncitizens are not automatically eligible.
The question followed an NBC Meet the Press interview with Trump on December 8, in which he said: “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” before claiming the U.S. was the only country in the world to offer birthright citizenship, which was incorrect.”
“. . . the freeze on Medicare . . .”
You’re just making stuff up, again.
There is no freeze on Medicare.
transgenders are such a small insignificant group. Why are they invading us everyday with protests, vandalism, speak-outs? They are clearly a minority outside group pushing their wares upon us.
Should we refer to them as “undocumented genders?”
Anonymous 11:49AM-A good question. Seems reasonable since many of these alternative genders are specific to 1 person or as much as a coven. And they often have other complicating mental health disorders (which is usually the problem in the first place)
I seriously wonder if the rise of “transgenderism” would rapidly deflate if the NEA and it’s members were banned from schools.
You don’t speak for “us”. How are transgenders harming you in any practical way? This is part of the culture wars BS that billionaires who started MAGA media use to hook gullibles so they won’t notice all of the Project 2025 crap Trump is implementing, even though he denied knowing about it.
Anonymous, nobody cares that someone is a transgender. The objections are cutting off the genitals of a child and forcing young women to compete with males. Are you that stupid you don’t recognize these good reasons?
Meyer, you are not responding to Anonymous, that is another moniker for Gigs. When s/he is afraid to sign a comment as Gigi, she uses this alternate. Like we wouldn;t know
No, we should refer to them for what they are. Mentally disturbed individuals.
Yep, England is really intercoursed up.
Professor Turley writes, “Universities often allow students to carry out anti-free speech agendas in the name of student self-governance.”
I would add that it’s not just universities. The Left routinely exploits youth and immaturity as a human sandbags. Greta Thunberg and David Hogg are further examples.
This is as cynical a tactic as they come. If anybody criticizes the child, they can be accused of cruelty. If they don’t criticize the child, the Left wins by default. Hiding behind Greta’s skirts has become a cottage industry for her silly liberal-left parents.
And there is no limit to this. The Khmer Rouge used children to terrorize and murder 600,000 adults because children were so easily intimidated and brainwashed. Woke mommies dragging their six-year-old sons to be videotaped watching drag-queen story time–I can’t wait to see that teen rebellion.
I submit that this childish tactic is as futile as it is cynical. Well-centered parents don’t like seeing children put up as human shields…
That’s why we won.
Diogenes – I agree. Trump is laying down the law, dismantling the censorship-industrial complex; he won’t put up with the nonsense. Mel Gibson recently alluded to his inauguration as: “Daddy is home and he’s taking off his belt.”
* It’s like a religion isn’t it?
You’ll get swift punishment?
If a mob follows any virtue or vice (if those exist) then that’s the good path. Life has no meaning except the meaning given to it philosophy. Then add psychopathic geniuses and there’s a ballgame.
Heil
Anonymous10:42 AM-
Somewhat incoherent mixed with nihilism. Are you sure you are not staring into the abyss again?