Yesterday, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Constitution Day event at James Madison University about “Rage and the Republic.” and various constitutional issues. During the event, organized by the James Madison Center on Civic Engagement, one student asked me what I would change about the U.S. Constitution. I said that I would amend the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship, as have other nations who once followed this ill-considered practice. Well, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Kentucky) has wasted no time. He just reintroduced his bill to ban birthright citizenship.
I have previously written about the possible need for such an amendment after the decision in Trump v. Barbara.
With that decision, the matter now rests not with the court but with the country. We have never truly had a national debate over the practice. The basis and future of birthright citizenship have remained matters almost exclusively for the courts.
Most countries in the world reject this controversial policy. Our closest allies in Europe reject birthright citizenship and follow the common practice of “jus sanguinis,” or right of blood. We are part of a smaller number of countries following “jus soli,” or right of soil.
Various countries that once followed the practice later amended their constitutions or laws to get rid of it. That is what would need to be done with a 28th amendment.
It is time that we have a civil and substantive debate over birthright citizenship in the United States. Given that the states are Democratic-controlled, it is unlikely that an amendment would pass; as noted, we have never been given this decision at the national level. Even with the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868, there were differing views on the meaning of the critical line: “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.”
Both sides have good-faith arguments, but the time for that debate is long overdue.
Here is the language of the amendment:
JOINT RESOLUTIONProposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect United States citizenship.
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
“article —“Section 1. For purposes of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a person may be considered to be ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ only in accordance with section 2.
“Section 2. A person born in the United States may only be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is—
“(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
“(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
“(3) an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the Armed Forces.
“Section 3. Congress shall have the power to carry out this article through appropriate legislation.”
Clinton, Obama, and Biden brought more stability than our current orange buffoon, who brings only chaos.
I was still able to make a decent living under their presidencies.
ANON BUFFOON!
ANON BUFFOON
Andy Griffith, in an interview with Morning Exchange in 1972, talks about his role in the film, “A Face In The Crowd.” He plays a character named Lonesome Rhodes, who is eerily similar to Donald Trump.
Nice try. The end of the clip explains that “the guy” was recorded off-record calling his followers dumb sheep, etc.
Trump never said or implied any such thing.
Sounds more like Obama, who referred to “small town” people in the Midwest who “cling to their guns and religion.”
Remember that?
There’s zero comparison between the Lonesome Rhodes character and Donald Trump. I’d bet you’d say Taylor Swift and Oprah Winfrey are eerily similar too.
A carefully written ammendment defining the legal pathways to citizenship is the right thing to do but the process is too slow.
EOs are quick but temporary and the lawfare around them is pernicious.
The best solution now is for Congress and the President to rapidly enact legislation to at least stem the tide.
The elements of the legislation need to be many, and separable, to make the lawfare counterattacks numerous and costly.
Go after state sanctuary laws, definition of jurisdiction, time periods, anything and everything
You can’t legislate a “by-pass” of the constitution because you don’t agree with the amendment.
Ironically former President Biden managed to come up with a bipartisan immigration reform legislation to “stem the tide”. The problem? Trump wanted republicans to reject it because it would have undermined his talking points at the time. Trump doesn’t want to just “stem the tide”, he and his ilk want to stop both legal and illegal immigration completely. The ‘great replacement theory’ crowd obviously believes they are being replaced by immigrants and losing their cultural majority is scary.
Every single ammendment has general principles, vague definitions, and gaps that become the topics of legislation. Sometimes it sure looks like a bypass.
Grants of immunity aren’t in the plain text of the fifth and they sure as hell bypass our rights.
No need to even begin to list the assaults on the first and fourth.
So your argument is null based on current practice. There is room to work.
OldFish, There is a vast, ironclad difference between the architecture of a constitutional amendment and a legislative statute. Constitutional amendments—like the First, Fourth, and Fifth—were intentionally drafted with broad, enduring principles (“due process,” “unreasonable searches”) because they were meant to govern a developing republic over centuries. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, however, is a specific, modern statute passed by a legislature to address precise workplace mechanics. You cannot use the inherent flexibility of the Bill of Rights to justify a judge rewriting the specific definitions of an explicit congressional act.
Bringing up grants of immunity under the Fifth Amendment completely undermines your point. Use of immunity isn’t a “bypass” or a vague gap created by activist judges; it is a direct operational framework designed to uphold the literal text of the Amendment. The Fifth Amendment states you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If the government grants you full immunity, your testimony can no longer be used against you, meaning your constitutional right remains perfectly intact. It’s not a bypass; it’s exact compliance with the text.
Your assertion that current practice leaves “room to work” is just a euphemism for judicial lawmaking. When the text of a law is clear, judges do not have “room” to creatively expand it to achieve policy outcomes that the legislature explicitly failed to pass.
If the Supreme Court can simply look at a clear, unambiguous statutory limit and decide there is “room to work” to bend it to modern preferences, then the written law means absolutely nothing. You aren’t arguing for interpretation; you are arguing for a system where a committee of nine unelected lawyers acts as a super-legislature.
Inherent in the lawyers game of twisting the meaning of words and adding crap that simply is not in a plain reading is the act of destruction.
These laws are already in USC of regulations. They wanted those changed so scotus did that for them. Actually the democrats want to delete citizenship because its discriminatory. We are the world type thing. 😏
No 17th post?
That’s all a load of garbage. These things are NOT in the US Code, which is laws, not regulations. They’re not constitutional. SCOTUS didn’t change anything; on the contrary, it stopped Trump’s attempt to change the law unilaterally. An amendment is the only way to achieve this, if we want to do that.
There are already laws that define those pathways. These are the laws that Trump has been ignoring in order to deport law abiding immigrants who applied to be citizens.
Sadly, the Founders never foresaw our modern world where baby factories from third world and enemy countries (pretty much the majority of the world now) could fly to America, deliver on our soil, and then use that baby as an anchor. I doubt the America we have known (us terrible Baby Boomers whose parents suffered through depression and war) will survive to her 300th birthday. We’ll be lucky to make it to 255.
Never foresaw our modern world …. how would they? Makes no sense.
Except they did support jus soli: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html
Thomas Jefferson: those “born within the territory” were automatically deemed citizens at birth.
Its a bill that refers to “The Commonwealth” i.e., Virginia in 1779.
Yes it preceded our Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, each state or commonwealth could set up its own citizenship rules.
Mary’s above post suggested that the Founders could not have supported jus soli, which is clearly not accurate.
The used timeless principles. The problem was the economic system.
The Founders imported immigrant workers to hold as slaves, forced to work, torture, rape, and, sometimes, kill. Every baby of a slave was anchored here against their will.
I think an amendment ending birthright citizenship is a reasonable idea, but requires vast statutory enforcement details by a Congress well-known for being AWOL. That dilemma winds up leaving the matter subject to the vagaries of Executive Orders and contradictory rulings from the judicial jungle (both state and federal).
But I do agree that the SCOTUS erred in Barbara by claiming that the 14th Amendment already established absolute birthright citizenship. I would much rather have seen Roberts join with Gorsuch in saying that the Framers did not intend to pre-empt the matter from a decision by Congress, or even a rogue President.
The problem for SCOTUS conservatives wanting to side with Trump was literally the actual text of the constitution. The thing they always talk about, ruling on what the law says. Not what the founders intended or assume they meant.
The 14th amendment DID establish absolute birthright citizenship with actual exceptions written in.
People started putting in words that are not in the constitution to justify their argument. There was no error in the SCOTUS ruling. They ruled based on what the words stated. Not what they implied. That’s what being a “strict constitutionalist” means. And the supposed strict constitutionalists like Thomas and Alito showed is they were perfectly willing to abandon their strict constitutionalist philosophy to arrive at the conclusion Trump wanted.
The SCOTUS is always happy to change the definition of words if it suits their political ends.
For example, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination “because of sex” encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity in the 2020 landmark case Bostock v. Clayton County. Title VII prohibited discrimination based on a person’s sex, which means only males and females. That’s it. But Gorsuch changed all that in Bostock v. Calyton County. Gorsuch redefined “sex” to also include “gender identity” “sexual orientation”. Gorsuch committed this fraud to accomplish his political agenda to protect trannies, homosexuals, zoophiles, etc., under Title VII. And this guy is supposedly a “conservative” and “originalist”.
So, the SCOTUS would hardly be doing something unusual if it determined new interpretations of the language in the law to eliminate birthright citizenship.
The problem with that is Justice Gorsuch applied a strict, literal reading of the text that originalists and conservatives pride themselves on.
In the explicit text of the Bostock ruling, Gorsuch actually accepted the exact definition of “sex” you are demanding—he defined it strictly as the biological distinctions between male and female as understood in 1964. He did not change the definition of the word.
Gorsuch’s ruling relied on the simple logic of but-for causation. If an employer fires a male employee for being attracted to men, but does not fire a female employee for being attracted to men, that employer is treating the male employee differently solely because of his biological sex. It is mathematically impossible to discriminate against a gay or transgender person without taking their biological sex into account. That is strict textualism, not activism.
X
Do you think you are fooling anyone by lifting interpretations and commentary from other sources, including AI.
You are as phony as paid-for participation.
George is a …. fool, idiot, liar. Oh, and wholly uninteresting.
What are you talking about? Nothing I’ve posted is factually incorrect.
It seems all you do is complain. The point is not about “fooling anyone” it’s just posting information that anyone can use to decide if they agree or not. Which is a lot more than you can say for yourself.
Your understanding is what is lacking due to a lack of information.
So? You’re not saying what I posted is factually incorrect.
This is likely where X lifted his [X’s] “opinion.” It contains everything X said.
https://uclawreview.org/2020/06/23/a-textualists-dream-reviewing-justice-gorsuchs-opinion-in-bostock-v-clayton-county/
Again, it’s not wrong. Thanks for confirming it.
So George is a plagiarist. That’s nothing new. Also a liar.
Nope. What’s the lie? You keep saying that and yet you can’t prove what I posted is factually incorrect.
Of course that is not a conformation. George has never posted original material, instead he uses AI to formulate bizarre and incorrect info.
One has to ask, what’s George’s point of showing up here everyday and post lies? He thinks attacking Turley, a world renown legal expert and author etc., and yet no one anywhere has ever used George as a source for … anything. So why does he do it?
One has to assume he has a mental problem, again, he’s not an authoritative source for anything and will post lies to what end?
Conformation? Huh?
Nothing I posted is factually incorrect, and the fact that you can’t disprove a single word of it says it all. Pointing out Professor Turley’s glaring biases isn’t an ‘attack’—he is a public figure and absolutely fair game for criticism. Your confusion on that basic point says a lot more about you.
I have never claimed to be an expert, but I don’t need a credentials check to present documented facts and state my opinion.
If anyone is exhibiting mental problems here, it’s you. You are clearly suffering from a severe case of ‘George Derangement Syndrome.’
So, let’s hear it: what exactly are the ‘lies’ you claim I told? Please, enlighten the rest of us.
Georgie, if you were as educated as you pretend to be, you would know that you need to “attribute” or “ascribe” the source from which you copied. Do you know what those words mean or are they too big of words for you?
Oh, sweet irony. If you’re going to try and lecture me on education and “big words,” you might want to double-check your own grammar first. The correct phrasing is either “attribute the source” or “ascribe to the source”—you don’t “ascribe from.”
But since you’re so deeply concerned about my citations, let’s clear this up: posting widely known public facts, economic data, and easily verifiable legal outcomes isn’t “copying”—it’s called being informed. You still haven’t shown what lies I posed on this thread?
Even X’s responsive tactic, “Thanks for confirming it” is something he copied and learned here. Anyone can go back and trace and see where X picked it up.
George is a clown. Knowing his reputation for lying, why waste time playing his childish games. George HAS NO CREDIBILTY.
So? You’ve picked up a lot of things from this blog too. So what’s you’re point?
You still haven’t shown that I posted anything factually incorrect on this thread. You sound so desperate.
Wrong only in the sense of ignorant.
It’s a rendition of facts or your viewpoint. Your viewpoint lacks information.
Fact is just 1 or 2 commenters engage George a day, so to provoke engagement he makes up lies and resorts to childish taunts. People don’t waste your time with George X.
Gorsuch’s application of but-for causation, however, is a perfect example of formalistic textualism – not a deviation from it.
Justice Gorsuch carefully parsed the words of Title VII, focusing closely on semantic context. The Court first assumed that the term “sex” in 1964 referred to “biological distinctions between male and female.” The Court then found that “discriminat[ion]” referred to intentional differences in treatment, and that “because of” meant that “sex” had to be a but-for cause of the employer’s decision. “[T]aken together, an employer who intentionally treats a person worse because of sex — such as by firing the person for actions or attributes it would tolerate in an individual of another sex — discriminates against that person in violation of Title VII.
Alito’s dissent also attempts to use textualism, but it is a less rigid and more flexible version (basically one used to justify whatever ends Alito prefers).
The idea that textualism results in a single answer each time is ridiculous.
If that was the case, then why would legislation ever need to define terms?
Good.
(And may I respectfully add that there were other explanations/reliances that went into the decision. Even Alito’s dissent expresses something to consider:
“Many will applaud today’s decision because they agree on
policy grounds with the Court’s updating of Title VII. But
the question in these cases is not whether discrimination
because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be
outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in
1964.
It indisputably did not.”
You are missing the forest for the trees. No one is arguing that textualism always yields a single, mathematically perfect answer in every corner of the law—the debate over statutory interpretation is precisely why we have an appellate court system.
The real issue with your defense of Bostock is that it completely ignores the core flaw of Gorsuch’s logic: it substitutes the literal mechanics of a phrase for the actual public meaning of the law when it was enacted.
If we are playing the game of true originalism, semantic context matters. In 1964, not a single person—not the legislators who drafted Title VII, not the citizens who voted for them, and not the civil rights activists marching in the streets—understood “prohibition of discrimination because of sex” to mean the federal protection of gender identity. By focusing purely on a modern, hyper-literal “but-for” grammatical trap, Gorsuch bypassed the actual intent and historical context of the statute.
Your characterization of Alito’s dissent as “flexible” just to suit his preferences is a convenient dismissal. Alito wasn’t being flexible; he was applying expected public meaning. He argued that courts should interpret words based on what they meant to ordinary people at the time of enactment.
When a court decides that a 1964 law suddenly contains a hidden mandate that went completely unnoticed for over half a century, it isn’t merely “parsing words”—it is legislating from the bench under the guise of grammar.
And to answer your final question: legislation defines terms precisely to prevent judges from doing exactly what Gorsuch did in Bostock—using linguistic gymnastics to expand a law far beyond what the legislature ever agreed to pass.
hey X
Give it up, old man or woman.
Looking at your other comment I burst out laughing. First, not only have you learned from this site and copycatted the responsive comment “Thanks for confirming it,” but your attempt to correct grammar is equally farcical.
The original comment said, “Georgie, if you were as educated as you pretend to be, you would know that you need to “attribute” or “ascribe” the source from which you copied>”
But X tried to correct the commenter, saying, “The correct phrasing is either ‘attribute the source’” or ‘ascribe to the source’—you don’t ‘ascribe from.’”
ROFL! (which X, when he first tried to use and copied it, wrote, “ROLF”)
Back to the above comment. X somehow missed this: “Proper Placement of “Ascribe”
“It’s usually followed by “to” (the source or cause). Or, it can be followed by a noun or pronoun that receives the attribution.” “OR IT CAN BE FOLLOWED BY A NOUN OR PRONOUN THAT RECEIVES THE ATTRIBUTION.”
–In this case, that noun or pronoun is the word, “the source.”
https://englishwordchamps.com/ascribe-meaning-and-examples/
Good Lord, no wonder so many people make fun of you and your fake intelligence, george.
hey X
Give it up, old man or woman.
Correct. X is an old man which is why he accuses everyone of being an old man, old boomer, old widow, etc. For every accusation X lobs against another person, he is projecting.
Imagine what an empty life he must have to post 24/7 on the internet day after day. Sad as f***
It is genuinely hilarious watching you aggressively caps-lock a grammar rule you still don’t comprehend.Let’s slow this down so you can actually process it: Yes, the verb “ascribe” can be followed directly by a noun or pronoun that receives the attribution (the object). That structure is: Subject + ascribe + [noun/object] + to + [source].
For example: “You ascribe cluelessness to “X”.” In that sentence, “cluelessness” is the noun receiving the attribution.
However, your original sentence you are desperately trying to defend didn’t do that. It said: “…you need to ‘attribute’ or ‘ascribe’ the source from which you copied.”
By putting the phrase “from which” right after it, you altered the mechanics of the sentence. You aren’t ascribing a trait or a quote to a source; you are trying to make “source” the origin point of the action using “from.” But as your own linked website explicitly states, it is a grammatical rule to always include “to” when indicating the cause or source. You do not “ascribe from a source,” you “ascribe a work to a source”.
If you are going to copy-paste a grammar blog to validate your internet rage, you should probably make sure you can pass the reading comprehension segment first.
George, “to” and “from” are both prepositions that can be used after the word “ascribe.”
Please learn your grammar before you start criticizing others over nothing.
Try to stay on topic.
Stay off AI.
Stop pretending you are superior to Turley and to us (you are definitely not).
Grow up.
X
From your daddy, Mr. Google:
“AI Overview
The phrase ‘ascribe the source from which the quote is taken is grammatically correct”
The word ascribe means to attribute a quality, a work, or a quote to a specific cause or source. The correct structure is: You ascribe [the quote] to [the source].
When you write the phrase “ascribe the source from which the quote is taken,” you completely reverse the mechanics of the verb. In that broken sentence structure, “the source” becomes the object being attributed to something else. To “ascribe a source” literally means you are claiming the source itself originated from somewhere else.
That is obviously not what you meant. You meant cite the source or identify the source. You tried to swap in “ascribe” as a fancy synonym for “name” or “cite,” and your reading comprehension problem got in the way.
OMG! More AI-George trying to weasel his way out of his nonsense. BOTH are correct. Leave it alone X. Quit now.
George, “to” and “from” are both prepositions that can be used after the word “ascribe.”
Please learn your grammar before you start criticizing others over nothing.
Try to stay on topic.
Stay off AI.
Stop pretending you are superior to Turley and to us (you are definitely not).
Grow up.
All you’re saying is that, prior to Gorsuch’s perversion of the English language, if an owner or manager fires a man for his homosexuality at the work site, but doesn’t fire a woman he knows is a lesbian at the same work site, that would be descrimination based on “sex.” And that I would agree with.
But that isn’t what Gorsuch did. He took the word and logic far beyond the word “sex” as defined in any dictionary. He made unlawful to fire trannies and zoophilia practitioners. Thus, Gorsuch wasn’t doing any parsing of words. He was perverting the English language so that “sex” in Title VII would include “sexual identify” and “sexual orientation.” So, Gorsuch is far from a “Conservative” and an “Originalist”–unless, of course, you want to pervert the meaning of those terms too.
The distinction is a “moral” judgement.
What you said is total nonsense and ciruitous rubbish. At the end of the day, Gorsuch perverted the English language so as to include trannies, homosexuals, zoophiles, etc. Sex means male or female. Period. Gorsuch merely used corrupt legal gibberish to attempt to mask that he changed the definition of sex to include sexual identity and sexual orientation. When Title VII was made law in 1964, Congress never gave any protection to trannies, homosexuals, zoophiles, etc. under Title VII.
For example, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination “because of sex” encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity in the 2020 landmark case Bostock v. Clayton County.
[…]
Gorsuch redefined “sex” to also include “gender identity” “sexual orientation”.
No, he didn’t. Anyone who claims he did has either never read the decision, and doesn’t know what it says, or is lying.
The word games concocted by phony “conservative” Neil Gorsuch are total BS. He did, indeed, change the meaning of the word “sex” to include “sexual orientation,” regardless of his word games and Leftist mental masturbation.
The logic of his phone “logic” for making trannies part of the definition of sex is this: If an employer fires an individual assigned male at birth who now identifies as a woman, but tolerates a female employee who identifies as a woman, the employee’s biological sex is the driving factor behind the firing.
This is totally illogical, as there is zero comparison between “an individual assigned male at birth who now identifies as a woman” and “a female employee who identifies as a woman”. These two situations are enitrely different. The logical thing to compare is “an individual assigned male at birth who now identifies as a woman” with “an individual assigned female at birth who now identifies as a man.” That–and only that–would be a valid comparison.
Clown liar Gorsuch is just using his sophistry to say that because “sex” is involved in “sexual orientation”, they are the same thing. Nonsense. Similarly, if a male individual has sex with a female goat, that’s not the same thing as a male human who has sex with a female human merely because “sex” is involved in both.
Imply George? That’s what you do when you don’t have any facts or when you plagiarize, or twist Turley’s words, by implying what he meant.. You contradict yourself from day to day and play word games when caught lying or plagiarizing. Why would anyone take you seriously? And why would anyone want to waste time validating your comments, your history as a serial liar precludes that. Delusional.
Obviously you have a bad case of George Derangement Syndrome.
Maybe you should focus on the merits instead of whining about things you can’t prove.
X
From your daddy, Mr. Google:
“AI Overview
The phrase ‘ascribe the source from which the quote is taken is grammatically correct”
Who’s doing the “whining” (about grammar, yet?)
“The phrase ‘ascribe the source from which the quote is taken’ is grammatically correct”
from Google AI
you were the one who was whining about grammar when someone corrected your substance
I have seen more lifelike performance in the Walt Disney World Hall of Presidents than was reflected in Moscow Mitch McConnell’s return to the Senate. He’s been out of sight longer than it would take to make casts and a frame for a robot copy; the copies are quite lifelike now. The Chinese have factories churning out sex-bots and they have made robots which can outrun Usain Bolt. Building a Mitch McConnell would be relatively easy, particularly if the money was right. What is the going price for a Senate seat?
Note how fast Mitch’s wife was at leaving the country immediately after the critical incident? Overall the timeline fits perfectly.
Perhaps this is a start in welcoming our robotic overlords.
relevance to the column?
I would love to see this reform. Let’s be practical, and study how other developed nations went through this change process. The main thing to realize is that the lazy, indiscriminate interpretation of the 14th has always let the USG off the hook for actually knowing which adults (at the time of a newborn) are US citizens, and who are not.
If we move to Citizenship by Inheritance, and we should, then these are the complex logistics to first be worked out:
• develop and test a National Citizenship database which may be instantly consulted by hospital Labor and Delivery
nurses, so that the citizenship status of the newborn is properly recorded. Enter the baby into this system if
eligible. Design this system to be fraud-proof! That last requirement is NOT for lawyers to solve — it is for hard-
nosed security infrastructure architects.
• Babies born on US soil who are ineligible for US Citizenship have to have their Nationality decided, and the baby be
issued a Neonate Visa. This process is gets complicated is the parent’s home country does not have jus sanguinis,
or the parent plays dumb and conceals their own Nationality. We can’t have stateless babies being born here.
• The states and counties need to be given at least 18 months to revise and adapt their systems of vital records.
• We should demand Congress solve these complex issues by statute. We need to see that Congress can even pull
off the legislative competence to do everything I’ve listed, because it has to be done to change the system.
• Let’s title this reform in a positive voice: Citizenship Inheritance — not by “banning birthright citizenship”. It’s
always clearer to say what we are for, than to say what we are against.
We need a functioning legislative branch to achieve this reform.
This was a ‘hit’ job on America.
“lazy, indiscriminate interpretation of the 14th” well, They totally ignored the ‘subject to the jurisdiction of’ like it wasn’t the important phrase and it had no meaning.
and they did not even explain what their interpretation of it was.
Pb, the needed ingredient is honesty. Honesty isn’t a principle now nor a value. The best laid plans..
WW3 officially involves the Houthis now, who are attacking Saudi Arabia and Yemen with massive attacks, including bombing Mecca. Our depraved, well-armed enemies have proven they have no intention of surrendering or collapsing. Just the opposite. Together, there is no question they have access to ready to launch or detonate thermonuclear weapons through a global web of like-minded religious lunatics. They defy Trump’s noble goal to prevent Iran from building one, by supplying one, ready to go.
As the earth cools ten thousand years from now, birthright debates will be relevant again, if they are lucky. But, at least we are on top of these developments.
Houthi fighters have surged past frozen frontlines to capture the strategic port city of Mocha, the Greater and Lesser Hanish islands, and Perim Island. This places the critical Bab al-Mandeb Strait—a maritime chokepoint responsible for 12% of global trade—under direct Houthi control.
Following the Houthi imposition of a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia, intense cross-border hostilities have reignited.
What does that have to do with the Rand Paul amendment? Nothing but you feel you have to celebrate it because you hate America.
Trump won the war in the first hour. Time to celebrate.
As he gambled and lost, we all lose. He tried. The end has to come. Glad you understand.
Trump has Iran right where he wants them. There will soon be statues of Trump all over Tehran.
Iran has lost control of hormuz so Iran has had to switch to another strait in desperation.
That’s right: Iran is asking the rag tag group THEY funded, to help Big Giant Iran now. That’s how far they’ve fallen.
October surprise season is coming and they’ve certainly been working on their desperate schemes.
You mean like the rag-tag bunch, who for some crazy reason, thought they could take on and defeat the greatest power on earth in the late 1700s. Or those little, yellow, poorly equipped, stragglers from S.E. Asia who stood up to and defeated the greatest military the world had ever seen.
True.
Celebrate what?
relevance to the column?
Gosh. Good question. You nailed him.
Birthrights, life, love, living, breathing, or being evaporated. You’re right, again. One ain’t got nothin to do with nuthin.
relevance to the column
Amen. You showed her. I’m out a here. Got to build me a bomb shelter. You save France. I’ll wash up
10,000 years from now all of Canada will be under a sheet of ice a mile thick. I can’t wait!
OT, but some of us called it, it’s net neutrality all over again; the modern left don’t have any issues with technology other than the fact that they aren’t in total control of it:
https://nypost.com/2026/09/15/business/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodeis-handpicked-ai-watchdog-has-deep-ties-to-effective-altruism-movement-a-complete-joke/
ESTOVIR,
From your NY Post article:
“..though the movement suffered a big black eye when one of its most famous proponents, Bankman-Fried, saw his crypto empire collapse amid fraud charges that sent him to prison.”
* * * * * *
Crypto collapsed yet Trump’s still pushing it while claiming AI guardrails aren’t needed.
you have a very simple view of those totally unrelated things
@Anonymous
Nice try (no, not really), but no. Whether you like it or not, a great many of us are a great deal more informed about these matters than the lowest common denominator, or likely you; the dems are (once again) attempting to panic people into submission, nothing more. They know climate change is a dead end, so this is their new bugaboo, and a convenient one, given they hate Elon Musk for taking away their totalitarian control of social media. Go blow.
We, contrary to left-leaning thinking, do not live in a country full of easily manipulated idiots. You might take a look in the mirror in regard to that last.
Rand Paul Kills ‘AI Kill Switch’
Sen. Rand Paul blocked an attempt by fellow Republican Sen. John Kennedy to quickly pass legislation that would require companies to build a “kill switch” into their artificial intelligence model.
Kennedy, of Louisiana, went to the Senate floor Wednesday to try to pass his bill without holding a formal vote — a step that can be prevented by any one of his 99 colleagues. He argued that the measure was effectively a short-term step, with Congress unlikely to pass more sweeping AI legislation in the immediate future even amid fears that technological advancements could spiral out of human control.
Paul, however, blocked Kennedy’s request to pass the bill through a unanimous consent agreement, saying from the Senate floor, “I think we should have as many facts as possible before we dictate rules for the whole economy.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/09/16/congress/paul-kills-kill-switch-bill-01081348
…………………………………………..
If Rand Paul ‘wants all the facts’, he should use AI to gather that information.
Kennedy responded by saying Rand Paul’s proposal to create a committee was just another way of killing the bill.
I am à LA resident and a fan of Sen. Kennedy as most of us are. I often disagree with Sen Paul. (Here comes the “but” if you weren’t expecting it.). However I agree with Sen. Paul. I haven’t heard or read it before, but this sudden fit of panic brought to us by the CEOs who would benefit most by a regulatory fit (notice I didn’t say “fix) reminds me of the panic brought on by the Y2K scare and non-event. I went through the PC transition and may have been the last engineer to switch from DOS to Windows. (My boss was rather frugal at the time.). The panic was similar to this time. We were told that we might be plunged into darkness and lose everything from our utilities to our bank and investment accounts at the stroke of midnight when every computer’s internal clock would strike 2000. No one seemed to be able to predict how computers would react to that very predictable situation. I wasn’t familiar with the term psyop at the time but in retrospect i think it describes the event pretty well. We were all played. This feels like the same thing. I think the stakes are bigger this time though. Reacting based on speculation and hyperbolic predictions is never. a good idea. Placing control in the hands of government is always a bad idea.
Estovir is unadulterated with yet another bogus, first-person testimony.
I am not Estovir but think we have much in common. I think you, Anon, are a bot programmed to disrupt this site with juvenile snarky comments. I still wish for an ignore button on this site
Millions of man-hours were spent to prevent that Y2K buglist from becoming a problem. There were a tremendous number of applications and databases which saved room by storing only 2 digits of the year; had they not been fixed billing could have reported -99 years of consumption, for example. It was pushed as a problem because many companies had kicked that particular can down the road for a decade before rather than deal with making the changes and with validating the software functioned correctly with those changes.
At a company I worked with the badge numbers were 5 digits. Mine was in the mid 90,000 range. I thought they would likely have a plan to deal with that in place as the rate of employment turnover would run through the remainder in under 10 years.
They did not have a plan.
When 99999 came up they tried starting with the 5th character being a letter, but that didn’t last long and they finally went to 6 digits.
The luddites have us surrounded!
A kill switch? you mean like a circuit breaker?
Just turn off AI’s you don’t trust. They ALL have a power switch.
#. Reside, residence , reside for some time of length…
Trump v. Barbara isn’t correct in opinion in part leaving it incorrect as whole. There’s no appeal is there. Blah blah
^^^^ Reside , not passing through. Scotus is bizarre… plain as day.
” congress… through appropriate legislation”? They have if SCOTUS would read it. 🤦♀️
Bye
The below is most likely a false flag by a leftist. If not, then it’s obvious a one-off by a nut case. Predictably the leftist commenters here dishonestly jump on it a supposedly “typical” of PT’s readers.
Read. It’s by the Founders you —-ing idiot. The Naturalization Act of 1802 was never legislatively abrogated. “Crazy Abe” just picked up the guns and started killing people. Secession was fully constitutional and every subsequent act of Lincoln was and remains unconstitutional.
^ This type of thing is why you’re a nut case. You want to relitigate the Civil War and refuse to recognize the post-war amendments. The world has left you behind. You got off the ship of civilization and are stuck on a tiny island in the middle of the ocean, with long wild hair and beard, yelling incoherently at the passing clouds. Perhaps you’re part of a cult that has scrambled your brain into thinking you’re making valid points. Reject that craziness and rejoin the human race.
That’s Crazy George with the Lincoln grievances. He can’t seem to get past them.
Have you noticed? America is fully communist, with $40 trillion in debt resulting from the state redistribution programs Social Security and Medicare, as well as the rest of the communist welfare state. None of this is authorized by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and “Crazy Abe” Lincoln was the American inflection point at which the journey from progressivism to communism began. Communism lasted 75 years in the USSR. How long can it last in America?
CRAZY ABE’S FAULT?? WHAT A DF!!! Lincoln gave us Social Security and Medicare??
ANOTHER I HATE ABE LAME POST AS USUAL FROM ANON!! RELATED TO J W BOOTH ANON???
Estovir, why are you masquerading as ‘Kirk’ while accusing someone else of masquerading??
MORON ANON STFU!!
Kirkstin, whatever do you know about LAME? You seem so well versed, jack—!
I would tell you to FY but you do that 25 times a day!! Kirkstin? NOW THAT SURE IS LAME MORON ANON!!! PSYCHO posts from you 25-30 times per day!!
Thank you for your testimony today.
I rest my case.
PSYCHO MORON ANON!! I REST MY CASE!!! Am I Dustoff or Estovir or someone else PSYCHO ANON??
And a supplemental witness statement.
Thank you indeed.
Civil war ghosts can post here?
No, they’re Constitution and Bill of Rights ghosts.
You know, the once-historic American fundamental law that Lincoln egregiously and high-criminally violated, nullified, and destroyed?
Get a life ANON. Maybe a job too!!!
“If it wasn’t for that damn lincoln we would have gotten away with it!” says Civil War Ghost.
Accept that if a state suceeds, they are no longer ‘under’ the US Constitution and therefore have no state’s rights to protect, only once-protected citizens-rights to defend. That’s required of our Constitution, the defense of the rights of those protected by it.
Now go toward the light.
The stats below are probably true but there’s a caveat to note. WHO we really consider ‘White’ has been changing throughout history.
100 years ago, Irish, Italian, Polish and Jewish people in the United States were thought of as ‘White ethnics’. In other words, they weren’t mainstream Whites. They were something less. And since these White ethnics tended to lean Catholic, Catholics weren’t considered totally mainstream.
Therefore many people we think of as outside the mainstream today, might be thought of as mainstream 30-40 years from now.
“100 years ago, Irish, Italian, Polish and Jewish people in the United States were thought of as ‘White ethnics’.”
There was another name for them at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nigger
or
https://grokipedia.com/page/White_nigger_racial_epithet
-g
90% vs. 57%
________________
AI Overview
The percentage of the White population in the United States was 90% in 1926, and it is 57% in 2026.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wake the —- up and pay attention to what is important.
America is gone.
sooooooooo America should be more “white” then? Like – what’s the white threshold under which we are no longer America? Just curious…
Ask the American Founders.
You mean the guys who bought, sold and owned other people like livestock?
What’s wrong with livestock?
yikes…………classic Turley follower right there. Woooo boy.
He means the African tribal leaders who captured and put their own countrymen on the Arab market, who provided them to British shippers who transported them to British planters in British colonies.
Every nation on earth, every color- it was shockingly an economic system worldwide. Mankind just crawled out of the caves recently. Actually man’s been out of the cave before but all remnants aren’t here.
Thanks to O-dumber. Libya is doing just that… Slaves. Just think about it. A black Prez put black folks back on the livestock list.
What a guy!
The American Founders said:
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802 (four iterations for maximal clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
A constitutional amendment overrides any applicable law.
A constitutional amendment compelled by kinetic military force in an illicit and unconstitutional conflict perpetrated by a criminal of high office?
Secession was unprohibited and fully constitutional.
Can you cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession? No, you cannot because the American Founders who “seceded” from Great Britain declined to include that very prohibition.
Once the south suceeded, they were no longer under the protection of the Constitution and declared themselves enemies of it.
There were people living in those states that had the protection of that Constitution and the USA will always protect the Constitutional rights of it’s citizens over the claims of any state saying they don’t have those rights. supremacy clause. Other wise it would be as if your state can just take away your rights. The feds have a Constitutional duty to act.
I do hope someday that you SUCCEED. Actually, the CSA seceded licitly, legally, and constitutionally, immediately becoming a sovereign foreign nation.
“Crazy Abe” unlawfully refused to remove his illegally and unconstitutionally stationed forces from that sovereign foreign nation.
Crazy Abe?? ha ha ha ANON IS A JOKE!!
you mean those sovereign foreign nations that were refusing Constitutional rights to it’s inhabitants? that’s not a sovereign foreign nation, that’s a cleanup on Aisle 6.
China’s population:
1926: 94% Chinese
2026: 91.1% Chinese
SO??
China needs to be stigmatized and penalized for having a country full of its own citizens.
Oh, my, China is pure evil!
Just curious or just quisling?
It’s funny how every Turley post ends up in a racist screed by one of his loyal followers….
So says the anti-American CCP loyalist!
China? very racist country.
They will point at you and take your picture.
ATS everything that addresses race is not racist.
It’s racist if the main topic has nothing to do with race but the Turley followers bring race into it.
So a person is racist if he loves actual Americans?
“We the People of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY….”
MexAfricAsiArabians good.
Americas bad.
How dare the founders be self-interested in freedom! /s
JT, I am waiting for the first member of the love and tolerance crowd to call you a ‘nazi’ and suggesting that you be fired for saying such. Fortunately you have tenure and I hope you sleep with a gun by your bed (for your own protection).
antonio
He DOES have tenure. In fact, he’s Mike Lindell with tenure.
LAME! MORON ANON
Kirkstin, whatever do you know about LAME? You seem so well versed, jack—!
I know LAME from reading your many daily posts!!!
Thank you for your loyal patronage but you’re not really a competent student, so sorry to say.
I agree that you are so sorry!!
Trump is terrorizing undocumented immigrants – who work a massive diversity of jobs critical to running the country and who pay billions of dollars of taxes every year. Trump decided to bomb Iran and thus screwed the Gulf of Hormuz. Trump decided to have a tariff war with the world – AND our closest ally and neighbor. Trump champions AI and data centers despite warnings from ALL of the tech bros and AGAINST the wishes of everyday Americans. The result? Diesel is now $6.31/gallon, and the Fed just had to increase interest rates, and the market is on pins and needles. If you still support him and his policies at this point……God help you.
“working a massive diversity of jobs critical to running the country” is NO excuse for entering country illegally–even if that is the only crime. Does Robin Hood get off because he made a donation to St. Judes?
I don’t disagree with you. We HAVE to have legitimate immigration reform. I think we ALL agree on that. But when you make your immigration policy simply ignoring it (Biden) OR terrorizing hardworking undocumented folks (Trump) you get chaos. We (and they) deserve better.
Trump’s stated policy and practice is to go after the criminal illegals first. They are the most dangerous among us. They are a legitimate target of a government whose obligation is to serve the interests of people here legally, whether citizens or legal aliens.
Subject to the jurisdiction means “lawful” , lawfully…
This portion also includes “reside” residence is established for some time. It’s specifies x slaves in doing so. These people are lawfully present and subsequent portions had to passed stating x slaves were to have due process etc.
Scotus erred bigly
While I agree with that policy and have sympathy for those who are trying to follow our laws and contribute – there is still no right to be here illegally.
A nation gets to decide who lives in that nation. Otherwise there is no meaning to nation or country or govenrment.
His stated policy is one thing. What ICE does is pick off parents after they drop their kids off at school and kidnap them over state lines and leave no information about what happened to them. The children come out of school at the end of the day and may never see their parent again.
If ICE was going after criminals they would be posting endlessly about their success. Instead they hide their results like they hide their faces to that few know the evil they are up to.
undocumented folks?? UNVETTED ILLEGALS!!!!!
AND terrorists and murderers.
I certainly do not agree with any ‘reform’ of U.S. birthright citizenship.
Not only am I adamantly in favor of U.S. birthright citizenship – to any who want it – I am vehemently opposed to any walls/obstacles to keep the ‘tired huddled masses’ out, or in as the case may be, within the bounds of wise discretion. .. China tried that a thousand years ago without much success.
Where else could people who are born in the U.S. claim to be a citizen?. . and do they have ‘open borders’?
*It’s not unlike the open border between Ohio and Kentucky .. . everybody with any sense knows everybody in Ohio were originally from Kentucky.
You are free to lobby Congress to repeal the Immigration and Naturalization Act. In the meantime, the laws that are on the books should be enforced even if we prefer different laws and work to get the existing ones modified. Otherwise we are a lawless nation.
The “huddled masses” phrase does not appear in any law, but in a poem. Again, we may prefer the public policy reflected in poetry over the laws on the books, but that does not convert the poetry into law or suggest we should become lawless.
If you are consistent and apply your preferred policy in your own life, you’d have to let unvested people, including violent criminals, into your neighborhood and home. Would your family members approve? Our government’s primary responsibility is to us, not the masses in other parts of the world.
#WeAreEstovir
“…the laws that are on the books should be enforced….”
On April 12, 1861, the CSA was a sovereign foreign nation having licitly, legally, and constitutionally seceded from the United States.
On April 12, 1861, Abraham Lincoln had NO legal basis and NO power to deny the licit, legal, and constitutional secession of the CSA from the United States.
On January 1, 1863, the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect.
“The laws that are on the books should be enforced” indeed!
We’re not afraid of you Civil War Ghost!
Stop haunting us!
First of all, I’m not worried about the poor ‘tired huddled masses’ yearning to breathe free. Otoh, I am quite concerned about the filthy rich, no-account, scum-sucking congress bottom dwellers .. . and, obviously, Trump is clearly out of his ever-loving mind.
Secondly, no ‘reforms’ of U.S. birthright citizenship are needed . .. although our present methods of immigration enforcement (i.e. ICE) require urgent adult oversight and clarification.
Lastly, I always consistently apply the principle that one should do unto others as one would have others do unto them.
Are we clear?
*I am Spartacus
Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is a perfectly good moral principle to live by in your personal affairs. It has exactly zero to do with appropriate government policy. The government’s role is not to be a good moral citizen, but to advance the interests of the citizens of its country, who pay for its existence, and by whose consent it governs. It only has legitimate authority to do anything as an agent of the people in serving their interests.
Are we clear?
*I am a rational human being who understands the difference between a private moral code and the limits of government authority, as well as the underlying purpose of a government’s existence.
#WeAreEstovir
The laws say immigrants can apply for asylum and stay in the US until that is adjudicated. Trump has disallowed their ability to apply and has revoked the papers for those who did.
My neighborhood already has home-grown violent criminals; they are American citizens and commit crimes at a higher rate than immigrants do. I’d rather see the American violent criminals diluted with hard working immigrants who came to the US for a better life.
dgsnowden.
GENERALLY I am strongly in favor of birth right citizenship.
I do think SCOTUS got the issue wrong. Trump should have lost, because making immigration laws are a congressional power not a presidential one.
I am not convinced by the good arguments against birth right citizenship for illegal aliens. But I do admit that some of those arguments are good. And that this issues should have gone before CONGRESS before going tot he supreme court.
That said I do not think any rational reading of the 14th amendment deprives congress of the power to deny citizenship to someone who was born here of citizens from other nations who were only visiting the US – so called citizenship tourism.
Finally I do not think Either the citizenship of the children of illegal aliens or citizenship tourists are a consequential issue.
Open Borders is a MASSIVE issue.
While I would CHOOSE to allow substantially more legal immigration, the power to decide who can live in the US belongs to the citizens of the US. There is not some right of people anywhere in the world to decide to live in a completely different country just because they want to.
Mass immigration in the US worked in the past – because we were a VAST country with a small number of people.
It also worked because people DID enter through ports of entry and were required to prove they were not criminals, that they were healthy and that they would not become public charges.
Laws to that effect have ALWAYS been on our books.
I also RESPECT the fact that my WISH for a different system of immigration does NOT override the laws of the land that mostly reflect the will of the majority constrained by the actual individual rights in the constitution.
That is called the rule of law.
NONE of us Gets what we want.
We are still obligated to enforce and follow the law and change it if we do not like it.
The USA is still a vast country.
“That said I do not think any rational reading of the 14th amendment deprives congress of the power to deny citizenship to someone who was born here of citizens from other nations who were only visiting the US – so called citizenship tourism.”
According to the 14th amendment Congress does NOT have the power to deny citizenship to someone who was born here of citizens from other nations. The only ones exempted in the amendment are the children of diplomats born here. The text is crystal clear. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Foreign diplomats have immunity against our laws, even traffic tickets. They are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of this nation’s laws.
The argument from the other side attempted to apply a dishonest interpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction” to mean what it does not clearly mean.
I’m sorry, what do you think “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means? Why didn’t you say? because you are insincere.
Why exclude ONLY diplomats? because they could not easily arrive or depart our shores back then. Do you think this was the intended purpose of the 14th? or is this a ‘loophole’?
We DO have the power to keep birthright citizenship seekers from stepping on our magic soil until we can fix this loophole.
I want the list of those voting pro vs. con on Paul’s amendment so I know who is on the side of American Sovereignty.
I have no problem with Immigration reform – and I think it is a good idea.
I think the US should carefully vet immigrants and allow about double the current number of legal immigrants in per year.
But that is MY VIEW. It is NOT the view of the majority of americans. Just as I DO NOT get to dictate what our immigration will look like – neither do YOU.
We have immigration laws written by elected representatives of both parties, that are a close reflection of the views of the majority of americans.
Whether I like those laws or not. Whether I think they are good choices or not – the laws are themselves constitutional, and they were constitutional enacted, and our executive is OBLIGATED to enforce them – until we chose to change them.
That is what the rule of law means.
Again you are free to try to change immigration or any other laws.
But until you succeed we are REQUIRED to follow the laws we have.
Further NO ONE is using FORCE to take from anyone something that is theirs.
Illegal immigrants do not have the RIGHT to be in this country. Absent that right they are ALWAYS going to live in fear the law will be enforced.
Further I expect – demand, that our law enforcement – starting with the president ENFORCE the laws of this country.
We do not elect presidents to pick and choose which federal laws to enforce.
I have a great deal of sympathy for illegal immigrants
Living in the US is winning the lottery of life.
It is a RIGHT for those who are born here – whether we earned it or not.
It is a RIGHT for those who are here legally.
It is NOT a right for the 3/4Billion people in the world who say they would come to the US if they were able to.
It is NOT a right for those who managed to do so illegally.
My FEELINGS do not change the fact that we are a NATION OF LAWS NOT MEN.,
And that the alternative is dysfunctional anarchy.
Work to change the law – I will join you.
But even then – there is ZERO possibility that the american people are going to accept letting anyone who wishes to come here in.
It is just not happening.
And that means that lots of illegal aliens are going to be deported.
That is not terrorism – it is the rule of law.
Biden let tens of thousands of convicted rapists and murderers into America to terrorize innocent Americans. This also empowered drug trafficking cartels and human traffickers, including child sex traffickers. The additional opioids led to thousands more American deaths. Trump is cleaning up the mess caused by Biden’s crimes against humanity.
Cool story bro! Then why his popularity hovering around 30%?
^ Ding ding ding! We have a winner for stupidest comment of the day. No small feat given that today’s comments from our resident liberal dweebs are stupider than usual.
“Then why his popularity hovering around 30%?”
Because it is not – the lowest poll numbers are 39% and transitory – Trump has been floating between 47% and 42% for more than a year.
And there is no trend in that the variations are just noise.
BTW that is better than Biden and Obama and Bush over the same time.
Biden managed to get down to the low 30’s – in some polls below 30, and rarely was above 40.
Trump is averaging about 1-2pts above Obama over the long term – that is not much but it is also not nothing.,
Donald Trump’s current second-term approval ratings are lower than those of both Joe Biden and Barack Obama at the equivalent point in their respective presidencies.
You’re not even close.
According to tracking data from mid-September 2026, The New York Times Poll Tracker puts Trump’s approval average at 38%, with some high-quality tracking polls like Gallup and YouGov showing it dipping as low as 36%
Biden’s approval average approval for his term was 41-43%.
Obama was higher than both, 46-48%.
Trump’s disapproval ratings are far worse and it’s dragging the Republican Party down with him.
You forgot Joe Biden’s rapidly spreading Measles Deaths!
Tens of thousands? That’s a statistic made up on the spot.
Fun fact – the reason cartels got powerful in the US is because of deporting young adults who were infants when their parents brought them to the USA. They grew up here, learned to blend in, learned the language, learned how to be American. Then the US caught them and sent them to a country where they didn’t know the language, didn’t know how to blend in, and didn’t know how to be that nationality. And the drug gangs offered them the perfect job – to sneak back into America and use the skills they had for existing as Americans, but to use those skills to get revenge for being punished for what their parents did.
Of course there were those who accepted the offer – to become the perfect double-crossers against the country that tried to kill them by tossing them to the wolves. So they became wolves themselves and came back where they can blend in. That’s how MS-13 could enter the US so easily. They recruited people who had been Americans in every sense but one; a sense they had no responsibility for, and that’s where they were born. They loved the country, loved the people, would sign up for the military if needed. And their country stamped a boot in their face.
Wow you got a lot of things going on in that head of yours. I bet there’s a therapist somewhere who could really use someone like you to study for their thesis or something.
So the only way to make a bad guy is to export his ass from the US? Fascinating!
worried about money but you’re a tax and spend democrat.
Paying illegals less than Americans is racist. Thay are not your slaves.
Canada has been tariffing us for decades now and we have a huge bill with them now. They do 75% of their trade with us.
Their GDP is less than NY state with twice as many people meaning they are less than half as productive as the average NY citizen.
We _were_ supporting their socialism.
Gas price? You care about money a lot but what about all those Iranians yearning to be free from tyranny? you don’t care.
How about all those kids dying from fentanyl? You were fine with that.
You only care about yourself.
America may not establish and defend its borders.
Here is a Quisling who is adhering to, aiding, and abetting the direct and mortal enemies of America.
Wait! That makes him a traitor committing treason against America!
While your comment is fully of overly broad and even false claims.
In the end it does not matter.
Whether your claims are true or not – and mostly they are not.
The country is doing fine.
As is typical of left wing nuts you play word games.
It you are in the US and you are not a citizen you are OBLIGATED to be documented.
If you entered the country legally and you can not prove that – you risk deportation.
That is the law. It is the law in the US, it is the law in all the world.
Different presidents have enforced that law to a greater or lessor extent – but it is the law regardless.
If you do not like the law – CHANGE IT – do not pi$$ all over those doing what their oaths require and enforcing the law.
Absolutely some who are here illegally contribute. Some do not. Many citizens who are criminals also contribute – they pay taxes, etc.
We still enforce the law regardless of whether someone breaking the law is purportedly a good person or a bad person.
Do drug dealers, and organized crime get to buy their way out of obeying the law because they pay taxes, contribute to charity, invest, and employ people ?
If you do not like the law – change it.
The rule of law requires that we make enforcement and prosecution decisions based on the laws that we as a people have enacted, and the facts. NOT feelings.
Those who are not in the US legally can return home and have no fear of Trump or ICE.
It is not terrorism when you are in fear of government taking from you something that is not yours by right.
But god forbid a left wing nut should use words correctly.
Regardless, the jobs that illegal aliens do will be done by someone, and whoever does them will have to pay taxes on their income.
Regardless of whether you are happy about the conflict with Iran – the decision to “bomb” the regime was not arbitrary.
Every single US president since Carter has dictated that the US will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.
While Obama’s JCPOA was an abject failure reminiscent of Chamberlains Munich Accords, It was still an effort to ENFORCE long standing US policy that Iran will not get nuclear weapons.
With respect to the consequences of this conflict – they were inevitable.
Right now Iran is refusing to agree to not develop nuclear weapons, Not engage in piracy – that is what the US has called holding trade hostage since the Adam’s administration. The US navy was formed almost 250 years ago SPECIFICALLY to go to war with Mediterranean nations that were holding Trade hostage.
You can not rant about tariffs while at the same time accepting Iran to control Trade without being a massive hypocrite.
So lets say Trump chose not to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions – why do you think that would have accomplished anything beyond delaying this conflict ? Iran has openly been at War with the US for 50 years. They are also openly at war with their neighbors.
If they get nukes – they will either use them in fact, or use them to leverage other nations to bend to their will. Just as they have done with terrorism for the past 50 years. Nothing that is happening right now was avoidable in any way – beyond delying it in time until Iran was in an even stronger position.
Those of you on the left were Fine with Biden and Europe provoking Putin to invade Ukraine by proposing Ukrainian NATO membership.
But you are not OK with conflict with Iran – that is providing Putin with 40% of his munitions, and funding terrorism throughout the world ?
How long do you think the straits of Hormuz would stay open after Iran had a nuclear weapon ?
There are many ways for govenrments to raise money to pay for govenrment.
All are damaging, but not all are equally damaging. The worst ways are taxes on wealth and investment
The least damaging are sales taxes. Tariffs are a form of sales tax.
Prior to Trump virtually the entire world had significantly higher tarrifs than the US.
George Washington warn us against entangling ourselves to much with other countries.
You rant about the Gulf – but Iran is a NATO problem – long before it is a US problem.
Europe has has almost no energy resources. That nearly proved disasterous int he conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
The US produces more energy that it consumes. The western hemisphere as a whole produces massively more energy than it consumes.
The nations dependant on Energy from the Gulf are China and Europe.
Why aren’t those nations working to ensure freedom of navigation ?
Also to AI. Grow up – it is coming whether you like it or not. The Luddites did not prevent the industrial revolution.
AI is going to cost many people their jobs – just as the industiral revolution did.
That frees those human resources up for other jobs – just like the industrial revolution did.
In the end we will all be substantially better off.
improvements in standard of living ALWAYS come at the cost of losing existing jobs and finding new ones – BY DEFINITION.
Regardless, you can not stop this. Just as you could not stop the industrial revolution or the computer revolution or the smart phone revolution.
It is irelevant whether Trump likes AI Data centers or not – they are happening.
No ALL the Tech Bros are not warning us. Some are – and just like those who warned us about the industrial revolution and myriads of other major disruptive productivity improvements of the past – they were both wrong and impotent.
AI is not going to exterminate humans. But it is going to change things so that fewer humans are needed to perform current jobs – Freeing millions of people to do something new and boosting standard of living for all. Just as the industrial revolution did.
Everyday Americans want both to keep their jobs and have a constantly rising standard of living.
That is literally impossible. Higher standard of living by definition is producing MORE of what humans want with LESS human effort.
If you do not accomplish that – standard of living does not rise.
“The result? Diesel is now $6.31/gallon”
Left wing nuts under Obama and Biden were PROMISING to make fuel costs that high and higher. Current prices are lower than the average under Biden and more importantly can not remain high for long.
Either the conflict will end – pretty much certain only a question of when.
Or alternative means of obtaining and transporting energy will occur.
The Fed did not “have” to raise interest rates – and with near certainty that was a mistake. We are not facing rising inflation, the Economy is not over heating. And all too many people FAIL to understand as Nobel winner Miton Friedman noted that Inflation is ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE a monetary phenomena.
Nor is the market on “pins and needles”
The economy is doing fine – wages are up – particularly for the working class. GDP is up – the 2nd qtr GDP was revised top an anualized growth of 3.8% – that is a BOOM.
No one supports all Trump polices. No one supports all of any presidents policies.
But Trump is doing fine. Nor do we need God’s help.
The Ukraine conflict will end – that is BY FAR more destructive in every way than anything currently in the mideast.
It will end more favorably for Ukraine than it would have at any time since it started prior to now – and Trump is a major factor in that.
In fact the current conflict with Iran is a major factor in that.
Nearly every sane geopolitical analyst will tell you this conflict has also radically reduced the odds that Xi tries to take Taiwan by force.
China has only a few more years before the doors are locked on that option and the conflict with Iran has made it many things clear to china.
The US military is far more capable than the Chinese imagined.
That China’;s economy is incredibly fragile and the US can tank the entire Chinese economy anytime we want – and will absolutely do so in any military conflict.
The conflict in Gaza is pretty much over – and likely over permanently.
Hezbollah is being exterminated in Lebanon – and the lebanese government is cooperating.
Pretty much ALL Mideastern nations grasp that:
The Europeans are not friends or allies – nor are the chinese or russians.
That the US is – but that is dependent on the current president and Trump will not be arround forever.
That Israel is their ally and Israel is going to be a force int eh mideast – whether the US is not.
Whether you grasp it or not – those are the preconditions for last in peace in the mideast.
While this may change – Trump has told the Saudi’s to seek help dealing with the Houthis from Israel.
Further the Houthis are negatively impacting not just the Saudi’s and not just Gulf nations – but the entire mideast including Israel and Egypt.
Just as Iran is a disruptive force in the Mideast – so are the Houthis – and it is near certain that something will be done about them – and likely without the US – Egypt, Israel and the Saudis are perfectly capable of dealing with them
Again. getting the nations of the Mideast to work together – and With Israel for the peace and stability of the region is the recipe for lasting peace in the region.
What we are seeing is the last stand of consequential terrorism in the mideast. Iran has been the font of mideastern and global terrorism and mideastern instability for a long long time. This conflict MORE that Trump’s prior accomplishment – the abraham accords has brought the mideast together in dealing with the threat to mideastern peace and stability THEMSELVES.
“Jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment is unqualified and therefore means full jurisdiction.
Illegal aliens are subject only to territorial jurisdiction; they are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.
Therefore, illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
If everyone born in the United States were automatically a citizen, the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would be unnecessary. Their inclusion must therefore have a purpose.
The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is necessary precisely because birth within the United States alone is not sufficient. It excludes persons who, although born within U.S. territory, are not subject to the United States’ unqualified, full jurisdiction.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment
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.
Hang on, if “jurisdiction” is unqualified, then it cannot be qualified by you as “full jurisdiction.”
If these non-citizens of whom you are so terrified are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then you cannot go around arresting and deporting them. The fact that you can and do proves that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Sorry if either of those points confuses your tiny brain.
They are subject only to the territorial jurisdiction which means they can be prosecuted for illegal border crossing and all other crimes.
Jurisdiction in the 14th is unqualified and, therefore, FULL jurisdiction.
Illegal aliens are NOT subject to the jurisdiction (full for those of you in Rio Linda) and are not citizens.
If the word is not qualified, you cannot qualify it with “full”. You just cannot accept that your partial and ignorant interpretation is wrong. Is your surname Alito or Thomas?
It means lawfully, subject to the jurisdiction…they are lawfully present and residing over time.
Reside, living in residence over time. IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
To subject yourself to the jurisdiction means you agree to follow it’s laws and agree you are subject to them. Someone who does not respect the laws and has broken them has not subjected themselves to the law or it’s jurisdiction. They in effect said “uh uh, I’m going to break that law and not subject myself to it because i don’t like it.”
It means lawfully, subject to the jurisdiction…they are lawfully present and residing over time.
No, it does not. You are simply lying.
If they are not lawfully here and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the US then killing them is not murder and raping them is not a crime.
Likewise, them killing or raping Americans would also not be a crime; they could not be tried in any court as the US has no jurisdiction over them.
“Subject to the jurisdiction of” requires an individual to subject themselves to the jurisdiction, meaning respect the jurisdiction of it’s laws; Accepting their applicability to yourself.
Breaking the law of the jurisdiction is NOT being subject to the jurisdiction it’s the opposite; being defiant of that jurisdiction. Isn’t that what subjects do? they subject themselves, in this case ‘to the jurisdiction’. SCOTUS got it wrong.
Therefore anyone committing any crime cannot break the law because they don’t respect the jurisdiction of the US?
Tell me you are a sovereign citizen.
I don’t think that is how the jurisdiction works. By being in the country, alone, makes you subject to the laws but not the full jurisdiction thereof.
.
“Subject to the jurisdiction of” requires an individual to subject themselves to the jurisdiction,
That is an outright LIE. You have no say in whether you are subject to a country’s jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with what you have “accepted”. Everyone in the USA, except those with diplomatic immunity, is subject to US jurisdiction.
“Jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment is unqualified and therefore means full jurisdiction.
Illegal aliens are subject only to territorial jurisdiction; they are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.
That is outright bullsh*t. NO ONE honestly believes this line. It’s not possible to believe it.
Turley Writes:
“Both sides have good-faith arguments, but the time for that debate is long overdue.”
* * * * * * *
Both sides have good arguments. But Trump’s mass deportations have probably poisoned the well on this issue for at least 10 years.
Only for the mentally ill. The rest of us will be able to debate it rationally.
Estovir, ‘the rest of us’ meaning you and all your puppets?
Meaning non mentally ill people. Go back and learn basic English, moron.
Estovir, one could argue that fielding 20 puppets per day in an effort to dominate comment threads borders on mentally ill.
your childish and redundant reference to “Estovir” shows us all what your intelligence quotient is, and you don’t even belong on this blog accordingly. Are you here illegally?
100% accurate
Hmmm, how about binning 1A and 2A. Binning 1A would put Turley out of a job, and make him rage even more about rage. 2A would save thousands of lives, which might be more important than counting angels on pinhead issues such as birthright citizenship.
Just a thought. Toodles.
That makes no sense at all. Plus 2A saves lives. Eliminating it would only promote more crime.
Yes, all those lives saved in high schools…
In gun free zones, moron.
Oh for pity’s sake. Not a single person in the USA, outside of the armed forces, needs access to an AR-15 variant. If you want to hunt, use a bolt action rifle, more accurate anyway, or a shotgun. Your daughters do not need pink Glocks. No one outside of the armed forces needs a high capacity magazine or bump stocks, or red dot scopes. And your marksmanship is appalling…
Oh for pity’s sake, just admit that if the documented fact that in municipalities where there are more (legal) guns there is less crime makes you uncomfortable, it is not a valid or logical response to claim that *some* crime is committed in *some* places, and then stress that *some* types of guns aren’t needed by everyone.
So your argument is that because criminals have guns so easily because of the 2A, everyone needs them? If you did not have the 2A, and actually made an effort to rid yourselves of your gun obsession, then more people would be alive. But as Charlie Kirk stated, in your crazed mentality, some gun deaths are an acceptable price to pay for the Second Amendment. Does that mean his death was acceptable?
Complete and total BS. I have no gun obsession. I don’t even own a gun. But I’m safer because other people do. That is a documented fact, one you have not even bothered to deny. There are close to half a billion guns in the US, mostly in the hands of law abiding citizens. You are the one who suggested repealing 2A. If we took your advice it would increase gun deaths. That’s the issue at hand, not whether sometimes bad people misuse guns. They do, but that doesn’t contradict my point.
Fine, carry on murdering yourselves. Where I live, we don’t have 2A, firearms are strictly controlled, and guess what? We have far, far fewer murders per capita.
Another non-responsive emotional flame. You’ve had like five chances to deny the documented fact that more guns generally leads to less crime, but you obviously do not deny it. Your only basis for wanting to repeal 2A is some kind of emotional non-argument. Typical mindless liberal.
Where I live, we don’t have 2A
So you’re not in the US, where there are over 400,000,000 guns out in society. That means anything you say about where you live has zero bearing on the wisdom of firearms policy in the US. Yet, you think the US should repeal 2A. Sheesh!
Of course you don’t even say where you live because then you’d have to admit that stabbings, rapes, and hot burglaries are out of control in your neck of the woods.
@Anonymous–
Ahh, yes–another foreigner telling us how to run OUR country.
My guess is that this is yet another Limey trying to tell us off.
Funny, but I think that we kicked you guys out of here back in 1782 or 1783. And good riddance to a country that is now doing its very best to even eliminate free speech, and which has already eliminated the natural right to self-defense!
Suicidal socialist pansies!
No wonder that your once-great country is now on the verge of collapse. And to think that we once called you our “mother country.”
1 Murders. What about other crimes?
2. I bet you’re in Europe, which until recently has had very different demographics from the USA. THAT is why your crime rate has historically been lower than ours. But now that you’ve invited all of the world’s trash to come colonize your countries, your crime rate has suddenly spiraled and is rivaling or exceeding ours. And there’s nothing you can do about it BECAUSE your laws don’t let you arm yourself to defend yourself, not even with knives, so you’re a sitting duck just waiting to be robbed, beaten, raped, or killed.
THAT’s what the 2A is about. It’s not there just to let us defend ourselves from criminals with guns; it’s also there to let us defend ourselves from criminals with knives, or just with bare hands. A gun is the only answer to criminals, the only way to protect innocent people from them.
The fact is that in the USA guns are used more often to prevent crimes than to commit them. Most of the time the gun doesn’t even have to be drawn; just letting the criminal know that you’re armed is enough to deter them. But if it isn’t, then it’s there to be drawn and used, because we have a 2A to prevent the government from disarming us and leaving us vulnerable like you have been. So when you are the victim of a violent crime, know that you brought it on yourself and you deserve it.
You mean like Illinois? Chicago alone is the Muder capiatl of the midwest.
And you are not a free man either. You are a serf of the state. Do you realize, the issue that set the revoultion against Britian into action? It was a move by the British to confiscate firearms.
@Anonymous–
And just who are YOU to tell me what I “need?” While I love shotgun sports that only require expensive breech-loading Berettas, I also happen to live in a crime-ridden southwestern city.
Using my properly licensed concealed-carry permit, I often carry Glocks–not “pink,” though!–equipped with 15-round magazines, plus one in the chamber. Is THAT too high a magazine capacity for YOU?
And if so, what is the “right” number that would please you? I suspect that it’s about zero. AMMIRITE?
(And for personal defense in my home, I have a handgun with an even higher magazine capacity than that. Although my first choice is a semi-automatic Mossberg shotgun loaded with birdshot.)
When the firebombs come through your window that Glock will do you no good as you run into gunfire while exiting your burning home. How many rounds does it take to put out a quart of gasoline that has exploded in your house? Will that Glock help you breathe the superheated air and toxic smoke filling your house?
You may dream of killing someone for jiggling a door handle in the middle of the night, but consider that guy who managed to kill a number of college students while they slept. After that they can get all the guns you have at hand and go kill someone else with the weapons that didn’t save you.
That is stupidest argument against guns I have heard over the years. Would you be any safer without the gun and the answer is no.
43,000 killed on American highways annually.
BAN CARS!
Oh for pity’s sake. Not a single person in the USA, outside of the armed forces, needs access to an AR-15 variant.
1. It’s got nothing to do with “need”. It’s a fundamental right. Merely wanting it is enough.
2. More importantly, what do you mean by “outside the armed forces”? The AR-15 is a civilian weapon. It was not designed for military use, and has never been used by any military. Some Democrat politicians have claimed to have carried an AR-15 in combat; they are all LYING LIARS WHO LIE. They have either never been in combat, or else they know dam well which weapons they were issued, and that the AR-15 was not one of them, because it is not a military weapon.
Next you’ll tell us that the AR-15 is an assault rifle! Even if you won’t admit it now that I’ve pointed it out, I bet you are so ignorant that you think “AR” stands for “assault rifle”.
3. The AR-15 and its variants are the best suited weapons for hunting, target shooting, and home defense, in part because they are suitable for use by women and people with small frames, because they’re recoilless. Your recommended weapons would break many people’s shoulders. Also they can be fitted with a smaller stock suited to people with smaller hands. And they can be adjusted so every member of the family can use the same rifle instead of buying each one their own. So yes, in fact people DO “need” the AR-15.
The Seccond Amendment says nothing about need. I have ther right to own guns and I fuly excercise that right.
Typical leftsist deciding for other people what is Constitutional. I think I want too take your First Amndment rights aways so I don’t have to listen to you foolishness. No I really don’t want to eliminate your rights just making a point.
When police take guns off the street – the police later sell the guns so they go back onto the street. Great racket to be in.
This is how you fix a really dangerous situation. You don’t keep debating 100 year old amendments that were clearly aimed at dealing only with freed slaves. You create a brand new one and let the people of today decide the future of this pernicious practice of silent invasion.
You seat a judicial branch that can read and assimilate law and its “manifest tenor.”
You seat a judicial branch that AMENDS ON THE RUN at its peril, suggesting impeachment and conviction for their egregious high crimes and misdemeanors.
I’d rather deal with the fact that Melania apparently lied on her visa application and should be stripped of naturalization and deported, along with her anchor-baby parents.
Oh, really?! “Apparently” to whom? Not one person who’s slinging such wild accusations around has ever seen the application, so how could they possibly know? They don’t; they’re just lying their lying faces off, and should be punched in those same faces.
Amendments are virtually impossible to pass in these times. There are many others that are needed to prevent the US from collapsing, including a balanced budget amendment, probably the most drastically needed one of all.
For the Constitution to get the necessary updates, probably only a constitutional convention would be required. But that too is unlikely because each side is too afraid that it will be misused by the other side.
So . . . stymied.
#WeAreEstovir
The budget is not balanced due to unconstitutional individual, specific, and particular welfare state and charitable expenditures from Social Security and Medicare to SNAP, WIC, TANF, and school lunch.
Congress has the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare,” or ALL WELL PROCEED, which consists of security and basic infrastructure that facilitate the progress and advancement of the entire population and the nation, not one, some, or a few.
Social Security and Medicare address merely 18.7% of the population.
What America needs is a judicial branch that reads, comprehends, and implements the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights severely limit and restrict government while they provide maximal freedom to individuals.
Your personal welfare is aided by not having 100 homeless starving people breaking into your house every week looking for a scrap of food or stealing the copper wiring because they are getting some Welfare benefits.
And… there we go again with the FLUKING LIE that crime is caused by poverty. Everyone knows it’s a lie. Everyone has known it for the better part of a century. And yet we still hear it.
Poverty does not cause crime. Criminals cause crime, and the solution to criminals is to lock them up, expel them, or kill them. It’s the same small number of criminals committing ALL the crimes, because they’re not normal people who happen to commit crimes, they’re inherently different from normal people. Criminality is part of their nature.
Amendments are virtually impossible to pass in these times.
Yup. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote as such in her excellent book Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution
https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868
There are many others that are needed to prevent the US from collapsing, including a balanced budget amendment, probably the most drastically needed one of all.
Our society is not a thinking, reflective, self-restrained group. Even those with advanced degrees show us daily how Americans have the attention span of a squirrel. We are on overload with stimulation. Only those few who embrace true freedom – saying “no” to our impulses and appetites – will be left.
Through discipline comes freedom
Estovir,
Well said and I agree.
Some of us do have the critical thinking, the self-reflection, self-restraint and discipline to live within our means and to save and prepare for an emergency.
Unfortunately, there are many who do not. They want someone else, or the government to be the ones to bail them out. Gen Z I think are the worst. Not all of them, but from what I have seen . . .
You seat a judicial branch that can read and assimilate law and its “manifest tenor.”
The Great American Communist Welfare State with its $40 trillion in debt and its Social Security, Medicare et al. does not exist in Article 1, Section 8, nor does the American regulatory administrative state.
And the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property keeps the government out of free enterprises industries completely and totally.
Simple as that.
You seat a judicial branch that AMENDS ON THE RUN at its peril, suggesting impeachment and conviction for their egregious high crimes and misdemeanors.
Cut the communism; obey the Constitution.
Simple as that.
OldManFromKS,
Personally I am of the opinion the debt crisis started with when Nixon took America off the gold standard. Once it got started, the debt crisis was baked into the cake no matter who was in the WH, or Congress. In the distant past, Republicans tried to meaningfully do something about it or at least talk about it. Democrats, when is there not a debt they dont like? Regardless, it has gotten too big to really do anything about and no matter who is in office, it will just keep getting bigger.
Buy PMs.
Upstate, regardless, we need a BBE.
Separately, here is one rational explanation for why Nixon took us off the gold standard:
https://youtu.be/u9MbexXL_4s?is=6k5sC65b51xNM-70
A convention is no easier than the normal route for amendments. Even if you get the states to request a convention you still need both houses of Congress to vote to call it, and then you need the same 38 state legislatures to pass the amendments it proposes. That’s still impossible to do without broad bipartisan support for the amendments.