Immigration in the US


That’s the part you found implausible?


I mean, it’s Yglesias. I just took the first angle.

To be honest my eyes glazed over past first moronic words.

It could have been a joke, but if it was Yglesias needs to remember his “serious” shit sounds exactly as stupid most of the time.

  • "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order
  • When told that’s very much in dispute, Trump replied: “You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”

"We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States … with all of those benefits," Trump continued. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”


Yep… The only country in the world where babies born here are essentially US Citizens. It’s just crazy how rare we are.


It was obviously a joke.

Examples? I find Matt to be pretty on-the-spot almost all of the time.


Well we’re now halfway to the conceptual space of stripping me of my citizenship. Wonder if dad gets thrown out with mom for harboring an immigrant in his home for all those years?


For those who haven’t read about it yet, here’s the context of Armando’s post: this morning Trump said he’s going to end birthright citizenship by executive order, even though it’s specified by the 14th Amendment. (And there’s no wiggle room for originalists to claim the rule was made up by judges: the consequences of it were debated by Congress when it was enacted.)

If the NY Daily News doesn’t make their headline for this TRUMP TO CONSTITUTION: DROP DEAD, I will be very disappointed.


The constitution is the enemy of we the people.

My life-long best friend (going on 32 years now!) was born here, to parents that illegally entered by swimming across the Rio Grand. I can’t imagine life for him if Trump’s dream of deporting people like him to Mexico ever came to fruition.


Well, there is some wiggle room, but you have to be pretty intellectually dishonest to use it.


Everyone knows only the 2nd Amendment counts.


So what you’re saying is it’s a Republican party talking point.



So, instead of behind the back Fascism, he’s decided to go full on with it in public. It’s official folks, the Trump party is now akin to that of the National Fascist Party. Trump-olini.


Now they are? :)


I feel like Trump has always leaned in that direction, but he has apparently passed the point of giving a shit about how it looks to just be up front about it.

This timeline sucks.


I figured this out the other day. It’s because for some people, they are worried that when they are the minority they’ll get treated the same way they currently treat minorities. ie some people are real assholes.


And yet…

Actually, we’ve been through this somewhere upthread, I think, because it came up over the summer. Some ‘conservatives’ (Trumpists) want to say that the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th can be read to mean that people in the US illegally don’t count.

Not clear how one would argue both that an illegal immigrant is “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the US and that they can be detained / deported for being here illegally.

(obligatory:) Remember the good old days when Republicans screamed that Obama was illegally exceeding presidential executive authority by declaring it OK for a president to wear a tan suit whilst saluting the military, coffee cup in hand?

Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”


Cool! I like where this is going.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia,

IE, regulated IE, Militia (not rando citizens, although probably need to look at Anglo-Saxon definitions here)

being necessary to the security of a free State

IE, not to overthrow the state, IE not for the people to defend themselves from the state.

We can play this game.


So maybe we could trade birthright citizenship (and lose Armando) for a Dem president changing the right to own guns via executive order. I think even Armando might go along with that one.


For sure. I should probably have moved to Sweden ~17 years ago :)