Discussion:
USA TODAY: Trump should end birthright citizenship. It shouldn't have existed in the first place.
Add Reply
mg
2018-11-04 06:31:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Trump should end birthright citizenship. It shouldn't have existed in
the first place.

Michael Anton, Opinion contributor Published 7:00 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
| Updated 8:42 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018

We should protect our borders and our country by ending birthright
citizenship. The framers never intended for it, anyway.

Birthright citizenship is foolish, uncommon and unconstitutional.
Let’s take those in reverse order.

Many assume that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires
granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
That’s wrong.

The 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee the citizenship of freed
black slaves and their descendants. Before the Civil War, there had
been no federal definition of citizenship. After the war, some states
tried to use that fact to deny citizenship to freed slaves. In
response, Congress first passed a law and later the amendment —
subsequently ratified by all then-existing states — to clarify the
issue forever.

Framers didn't intend for birthright citizenship

The amendment specifies that “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.” If the
framers simply intended to make citizens of any person born in U.S.
territory, then that central clause has no purpose.

But they didn’t, and it does. It’s there to clarify that simply being
born here is not enough. An early draft of the amendment lacked the
jurisdiction clause, prompting some to ask whether the amendment
amounted to a grant of citizenship to anyone born here regardless of
status. The drafters immediately answered no: Only those “not owing
allegiance to anybody else” and “not subject to some foreign power”are
automatically granted birthright citizenship.

Hence the Constitution sets two criteria for citizenship: birth or
naturalization, and subject to our jurisdiction. Ignoring the latter
is therefore unconstitutional.

So how did we get where we are? It’s a long story but in brief, one
side of the political debate long ago decided, for its own advantage,
to pretend as if the amendment doesn’t mean what it says. There is
nothing in the Constitution or in statute law that gives the federal
government authority to grant citizenship to people not entitled to
it. Federal agencies simply do it, the same way they do so many things
they have no authority to do. It’s one of thousands of examples of our
runaway, undemocratic, unelected bureaucracy acting in concert with
liberal interests. There’s no reason why the elected president
couldn’t tell the agencies that report to him to stop doing something
nobody ever told them to do in the first place.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it's foolish

Birthright citizenship is not common. Of the 197 countries in the
world, only 33 honor birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship is rare because it is foolish. In our country,
for instance, it has led to ridiculous abuses such as “birth tourism.”
Relatively affluent women spend tens of thousands of dollars to have
their babies in America so they can take junior home with a U.S.
passport and citizenship, guaranteeing the whole family American
residency whenever they want it. Partially in response to this abuse,
eight countries have curtailed or ended the practice in recent years;
zero has adopted it. Canada — the only other wealthy country that
allows birthright citizenship — is debating it just as we are.

President Trump has wisely said that “if you don’t have borders, you
don’t have a country.” Similarly, if breaking our law is sufficient to
make someone a citizen, then the citizenship of all lawful citizens is
weakened and the meaning of citizenship is trivialized.

Michael Anton is a lecturer in politics and research fellow at the
Hillsdale College Kirby Center and a former national security official
in the Trump administration.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/01/framers-never-wanted-birthright-citizenship/1831577002/
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-04 15:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 11/3/2018 11:31 PM, mg wrote:

{snip}
Post by mg
Hence the Constitution sets two criteria for citizenship: birth or
naturalization, and subject to our jurisdiction. Ignoring the latter
is therefore unconstitutional.
The current law does not ignore "subject to the jurisdiction." There
are three classes of people born in the USA who do not receive
birthright citizenship from the 14th Amendment because they are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the USA: 1) the children of diplomats,
2) the children of invading armies, and 3) people born on Indian
reservations. The last class was granted birthright citizenship by statute.
Post by mg
Birthright citizenship is not common. Of the 197 countries in the
world, only 33 honor birthright citizenship.
It's a New World versus Old World thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#/media/File:Jus_soli_world.svg
El Castor
2018-11-04 20:39:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Hence the Constitution sets two criteria for citizenship: birth or
naturalization, and subject to our jurisdiction. Ignoring the latter
is therefore unconstitutional.
The current law does not ignore "subject to the jurisdiction." There
are three classes of people born in the USA who do not receive
birthright citizenship from the 14th Amendment because they are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the USA: 1) the children of diplomats,
2) the children of invading armies, and 3) people born on Indian
reservations. The last class was granted birthright citizenship by statute.
Post by mg
Birthright citizenship is not common. Of the 197 countries in the
world, only 33 honor birthright citizenship.
It's a New World versus Old World thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#/media/File:Jus_soli_world.svg
The current Left leaning fascination with birthright clearly is caused
by a perception on both sides of the aisle that a tidal wave of
potential Democrat votes is pouring over the border, and anchor babies
grease the skids of that illegal immigration. Personally, I hope Trump
succeeds in his efforts, else the problems and culture of Central
America will be transplanted here. Just reading yesterday that El
Salvador is the murder capital of the Planet. Does that fact confer a
right to US citizenship on the people of El Salvador? I hope not.
CLOISTER
2018-11-04 16:21:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
"Trump should end birthright citizenship. It shouldn't have existed in
the first place.
Michael Anton, Opinion contributor Published 7:00 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
| Updated 8:42 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
We should protect our borders and our country by ending birthright
citizenship. The framers never intended for it, anyway.
Birthright citizenship is foolish, uncommon and unconstitutional.
Let’s take those in reverse order.
Many assume that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires
granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
That’s wrong.
The 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee the citizenship of freed
black slaves and their descendants. Before the Civil War, there had
been no federal definition of citizenship. After the war, some states
tried to use that fact to deny citizenship to freed slaves. In
response, Congress first passed a law and later the amendment —
subsequently ratified by all then-existing states — to clarify the
issue forever.
Framers didn't intend for birthright citizenship
The amendment specifies that “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.” If the
framers simply intended to make citizens of any person born in U.S.
territory, then that central clause has no purpose.
But they didn’t, and it does. It’s there to clarify that simply being
born here is not enough. An early draft of the amendment lacked the
jurisdiction clause, prompting some to ask whether the amendment
amounted to a grant of citizenship to anyone born here regardless of
status. The drafters immediately answered no: Only those “not owing
allegiance to anybody else” and “not subject to some foreign power”are
automatically granted birthright citizenship.
Hence the Constitution sets two criteria for citizenship: birth or
naturalization, and subject to our jurisdiction. Ignoring the latter
is therefore unconstitutional.
So how did we get where we are? It’s a long story but in brief, one
side of the political debate long ago decided, for its own advantage,
to pretend as if the amendment doesn’t mean what it says. There is
nothing in the Constitution or in statute law that gives the federal
government authority to grant citizenship to people not entitled to
it. Federal agencies simply do it, the same way they do so many things
they have no authority to do. It’s one of thousands of examples of our
runaway, undemocratic, unelected bureaucracy acting in concert with
liberal interests. There’s no reason why the elected president
couldn’t tell the agencies that report to him to stop doing something
nobody ever told them to do in the first place.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it's foolish
Birthright citizenship is not common. Of the 197 countries in the
world, only 33 honor birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it is foolish. In our country,
for instance, it has led to ridiculous abuses such as “birth tourism.”
Relatively affluent women spend tens of thousands of dollars to have
their babies in America so they can take junior home with a U.S.
passport and citizenship, guaranteeing the whole family American
residency whenever they want it. Partially in response to this abuse,
eight countries have curtailed or ended the practice in recent years;
zero has adopted it. Canada — the only other wealthy country that
allows birthright citizenship — is debating it just as we are.
President Trump has wisely said that “if you don’t have borders, you
don’t have a country.” Similarly, if breaking our law is sufficient to
make someone a citizen, then the citizenship of all lawful citizens is
weakened and the meaning of citizenship is trivialized.
Michael Anton is a lecturer in politics and research fellow at the
Hillsdale College Kirby Center and a former national security official
in the Trump administration.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/01/framers-never-wanted-birthright-citizenship/1831577002/
It really only pertained to freed slaves...no one else
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-05 00:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
"Trump should end birthright citizenship. It shouldn't have existed in
the first place.
Michael Anton, Opinion contributor Published 7:00 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
| Updated 8:42 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
We should protect our borders and our country by ending birthright
citizenship. The framers never intended for it, anyway.
Birthright citizenship is foolish, uncommon and unconstitutional.
Let’s take those in reverse order.
Many assume that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires
granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
That’s wrong.
The 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee the citizenship of freed
black slaves and their descendants. Before the Civil War, there had
been no federal definition of citizenship. After the war, some states
tried to use that fact to deny citizenship to freed slaves. In
response, Congress first passed a law and later the amendment —
subsequently ratified by all then-existing states — to clarify the
issue forever.
Framers didn't intend for birthright citizenship
The amendment specifies that “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.” If the
framers simply intended to make citizens of any person born in U.S.
territory, then that central clause has no purpose.
But they didn’t, and it does. It’s there to clarify that simply being
born here is not enough. An early draft of the amendment lacked the
jurisdiction clause, prompting some to ask whether the amendment
amounted to a grant of citizenship to anyone born here regardless of
status. The drafters immediately answered no: Only those “not owing
allegiance to anybody else” and “not subject to some foreign power”are
automatically granted birthright citizenship.
Hence the Constitution sets two criteria for citizenship: birth or
naturalization, and subject to our jurisdiction. Ignoring the latter
is therefore unconstitutional.
So how did we get where we are? It’s a long story but in brief, one
side of the political debate long ago decided, for its own advantage,
to pretend as if the amendment doesn’t mean what it says. There is
nothing in the Constitution or in statute law that gives the federal
government authority to grant citizenship to people not entitled to
it. Federal agencies simply do it, the same way they do so many things
they have no authority to do. It’s one of thousands of examples of our
runaway, undemocratic, unelected bureaucracy acting in concert with
liberal interests. There’s no reason why the elected president
couldn’t tell the agencies that report to him to stop doing something
nobody ever told them to do in the first place.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it's foolish
Birthright citizenship is not common. Of the 197 countries in the
world, only 33 honor birthright citizenship.
I have to renew my alien registration, which I plan to finish
starting next week. I already paid $540 for it, and a blurb
about that mentioned that one of the benefits of becoming a
U.S. Citizen is that the alien renewal cost keeps going up,
but once you're a US citizen you won't have to renew
anymore. I'll ask about it when I go to do the biometrics for
the alien renewal, even though the renewal only comes up
every ten years so I'll probably be dead before I have to do
it again. I never thought I'd become a US citizen, but lately
I've been thinking that I might as well. Despite what some
in this newsgroup might think, I imagine I'd be looked on as
a highly qualified candidate, with no criminal record and
financially secure for life without having to work anymore.
Post by mg
Birthright citizenship is rare because it is foolish. In our country,
for instance, it has led to ridiculous abuses such as “birth tourism.”
Relatively affluent women spend tens of thousands of dollars to have
their babies in America so they can take junior home with a U.S.
passport and citizenship, guaranteeing the whole family American
residency whenever they want it. Partially in response to this abuse,
eight countries have curtailed or ended the practice in recent years;
zero has adopted it. Canada — the only other wealthy country that
allows birthright citizenship — is debating it just as we are.
President Trump has wisely said that “if you don’t have borders, you
don’t have a country.” Similarly, if breaking our law is sufficient to
make someone a citizen, then the citizenship of all lawful citizens is
weakened and the meaning of citizenship is trivialized.
Michael Anton is a lecturer in politics and research fellow at the
Hillsdale College Kirby Center and a former national security official
in the Trump administration.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/01/framers-never-wanted-birthright-citizenship/1831577002/
w***@gmail.com
2018-11-05 00:48:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
"Trump should end birthright citizenship. It shouldn't have existed in
the first place.
Michael Anton, Opinion contributor Published 7:00 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
| Updated 8:42 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
We should protect our borders and our country by ending birthright
citizenship. The framers never intended for it, anyway.
Birthright citizenship is foolish, uncommon and unconstitutional.
Let’s take those in reverse order.
Many assume that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires
granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
That’s wrong.
The 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee the citizenship of freed
black slaves and their descendants. Before the Civil War, there had
been no federal definition of citizenship. After the war, some states
tried to use that fact to deny citizenship to freed slaves. In
response, Congress first passed a law and later the amendment —
subsequently ratified by all then-existing states — to clarify the
issue forever.
Framers didn't intend for birthright citizenship
The amendment specifies that “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.” If the
framers simply intended to make citizens of any person born in U.S.
territory, then that central clause has no purpose.
But they didn’t, and it does. It’s there to clarify that simply being
born here is not enough. An early draft of the amendment lacked the
jurisdiction clause, prompting some to ask whether the amendment
amounted to a grant of citizenship to anyone born here regardless of
status. The drafters immediately answered no: Only those “not owing
allegiance to anybody else” and “not subject to some foreign power”are
automatically granted birthright citizenship.
Hence the Constitution sets two criteria for citizenship: birth or
naturalization, and subject to our jurisdiction. Ignoring the latter
is therefore unconstitutional.
So how did we get where we are? It’s a long story but in brief, one
side of the political debate long ago decided, for its own advantage,
to pretend as if the amendment doesn’t mean what it says. There is
nothing in the Constitution or in statute law that gives the federal
government authority to grant citizenship to people not entitled to
it. Federal agencies simply do it, the same way they do so many things
they have no authority to do. It’s one of thousands of examples of our
runaway, undemocratic, unelected bureaucracy acting in concert with
liberal interests. There’s no reason why the elected president
couldn’t tell the agencies that report to him to stop doing something
nobody ever told them to do in the first place.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it's foolish
Birthright citizenship is not common. Of the 197 countries in the
world, only 33 honor birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it is foolish. In our country,
for instance, it has led to ridiculous abuses such as “birth tourism.”
Relatively affluent women spend tens of thousands of dollars to have
their babies in America so they can take junior home with a U.S.
passport and citizenship, guaranteeing the whole family American
residency whenever they want it. Partially in response to this abuse,
eight countries have curtailed or ended the practice in recent years;
zero has adopted it. Canada — the only other wealthy country that
allows birthright citizenship — is debating it just as we are.
President Trump has wisely said that “if you don’t have borders, you
don’t have a country.” Similarly, if breaking our law is sufficient to
make someone a citizen, then the citizenship of all lawful citizens is
weakened and the meaning of citizenship is trivialized.
Michael Anton is a lecturer in politics and research fellow at the
Hillsdale College Kirby Center and a former national security official
in the Trump administration.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/01/framers-never-wanted-birthright-citizenship/1831577002/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-constitution/574381/


excerpt:

No matter which of these options Trump pursues, the news is very somber. A nation that can rid itself of groups it dislikes has journeyed far down the road to authoritarian rule.

The idea behind the attack on birthright citizenship is often obscured by a wall of dubious originalist rhetoric and legalese. At its base, the claim is that children born in the U.S. are not citizens if they are born to noncitizen parents. The idea contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, it flies in the face of more than a century of practice, and it would create a shadow population of American-born people who have no state, no legal protection, and no real rights that the government is bound to respect.

It would set the stage for an internal witch hunt worse than almost anything since the anti-immigrant rage of the 1920s .... (cont)
me
2018-11-05 03:34:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The idea that someone born to people illegal in the country has citizenship is absurd.
mg
2018-11-05 18:49:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by me
The idea that someone born to people illegal in the country has citizenship is absurd.
Yes it is, but that's politics for you. Someone ought to write a book.
They could entitle it "Political Absurdities", for instance.

One thing that I've been wondering about is which president can we
give credit to for fabricating that absurd interpretation of an
amendment that was actually only created to guaranty the citizenship
of former black slaves. My knee-jerk guess would be LBJ in about the
same time period in which he managed to cram through the disasterous
Immigration Act of 1965.



-----------------------------------
His grandfather's last words, "just
before they sprung the trap" were,
"You can't cheat an honest man;
never give a sucker an even break,
or smarten up a chump."
-- W.C. Fields, "You Can't Cheat an Honest Man" (1939)
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-05 18:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
Post by me
The idea that someone born to people illegal in the country has citizenship is absurd.
Yes it is, but that's politics for you. Someone ought to write a book.
They could entitle it "Political Absurdities", for instance.
One thing that I've been wondering about is which president can we
give credit to for fabricating that absurd interpretation of an
amendment that was actually only created to guaranty the citizenship
of former black slaves. My knee-jerk guess would be LBJ in about the
same time period in which he managed to cram through the disasterous
Immigration Act of 1965.
The "absurd" interpretation dates back to an 1898 landmark Supreme Court
case during the McKinley administration. The administration lost when
it denied entrance to a man who was born in the USA of two non-citizen
parents.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

Also, the argument that the 14th Amendment only applies to the former
slaves is undercut by the plain text pf the Amendment.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-05 20:49:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
Post by me
The idea that someone born to people illegal in the country has citizenship is absurd.
Yes it is, but that's politics for you. Someone ought to write a book.
They could entitle it "Political Absurdities", for instance.
I don't see how it's so different from somebody born to
people legal in the country has citizenship.
Post by mg
One thing that I've been wondering about is which president can we
give credit to for fabricating that absurd interpretation of an
amendment that was actually only created to guaranty the citizenship
of former black slaves. My knee-jerk guess would be LBJ in about the
same time period in which he managed to cram through the disasterous
Immigration Act of 1965.
Originally slaves were not citizens and the children of slaves
were also not citizens. That's where the absurdity comes in.
Once the slaves were freed and granted citizenship under the
Civil Rights act of 1866, it would be have been absurd to deny
citizenship to the children of former slaves now citizens, ISTM.
Post by mg
-----------------------------------
His grandfather's last words, "just
before they sprung the trap" were,
"You can't cheat an honest man;
never give a sucker an even break,
or smarten up a chump."
-- W.C. Fields, "You Can't Cheat an Honest Man" (1939)
mg
2018-11-06 16:55:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by me
The idea that someone born to people illegal in the country has citizenship is absurd.
Yes it is, but that's politics for you. Someone ought to write a book.
They could entitle it "Political Absurdities", for instance.
I don't see how it's so different from somebody born to
people legal in the country has citizenship.
Post by mg
One thing that I've been wondering about is which president can we
give credit to for fabricating that absurd interpretation of an
amendment that was actually only created to guaranty the citizenship
of former black slaves. My knee-jerk guess would be LBJ in about the
same time period in which he managed to cram through the disasterous
Immigration Act of 1965.
Originally slaves were not citizens and the children of slaves
were also not citizens. That's where the absurdity comes in.
Once the slaves were freed and granted citizenship under the
Civil Rights act of 1866, it would be have been absurd to deny
citizenship to the children of former slaves now citizens, ISTM.
As I recall, there were some states that were refusing citizenship to
former slaves and that's why they created the amendment.

"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s when
I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the problem
with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half when they
created the jurisdictional language with the constitutional amendment.
They should have simply said what they wanted to say in a plain and
simple fashion.

My guess is that they wanted the amendment to sound professional and
to sort of mimic the style of the constitution itself and they wound
up with something controversial and confusing.

One of the things that was interesting about Joseph Smith,
incidentally, was that he wrote the Book of Mormon (and some other
books) in the same style that the Bible was written in and
demonstrated a fantasti scope and depth of knowledge, in the process,
and leaving people wondering to this day (including me) whether he
really wrote it, or someone else wrote it.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-06 18:03:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 11/6/2018 8:55 AM, mg wrote:

{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s when
I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the problem
with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half when they
created the jurisdictional language with the constitutional amendment.
They should have simply said what they wanted to say in a plain and
simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
El Castor
2018-11-06 18:08:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s when
I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the problem
with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half when they
created the jurisdictional language with the constitutional amendment.
They should have simply said what they wanted to say in a plain and
simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-06 18:30:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s when
I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the problem
with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half when they
created the jurisdictional language with the constitutional amendment.
They should have simply said what they wanted to say in a plain and
simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
That's not settled law. But if "subject to the jurisdiction" means you
have to obey our laws, then I would think the children of unauthorized
aliens born in the USA are citizens at birth.

SCOTUS did hold in Plyler that unauthorized aliens are "within the
jurisdiction" as required b the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
El Castor
2018-11-06 21:47:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s when
I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the problem
with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half when they
created the jurisdictional language with the constitutional amendment.
They should have simply said what they wanted to say in a plain and
simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
That's not settled law. But if "subject to the jurisdiction" means you
have to obey our laws, then I would think the children of unauthorized
aliens born in the USA are citizens at birth.
SCOTUS did hold in Plyler that unauthorized aliens are "within the
jurisdiction" as required b the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Just looked up diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic exemption from law
enforcement is far from total, and varies depending on the duties and
status of the diplomat. Their status differs from that of a citizen,
but the same could be said of an illegal alien. It is hard to believe
that the current SC would confer the birthright privilege to illegal
mothers, but we shall see. (-8
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-06 23:00:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s when
I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the problem
with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half when they
created the jurisdictional language with the constitutional amendment.
They should have simply said what they wanted to say in a plain and
simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
That's not settled law. But if "subject to the jurisdiction" means you
have to obey our laws, then I would think the children of unauthorized
aliens born in the USA are citizens at birth.
SCOTUS did hold in Plyler that unauthorized aliens are "within the
jurisdiction" as required b the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Just looked up diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic exemption from law
enforcement is far from total, and varies depending on the duties and
status of the diplomat. Their status differs from that of a citizen,
but the same could be said of an illegal alien. It is hard to believe
that the current SC would confer the birthright privilege to illegal
mothers, but we shall see. (-8
Of course the mother wouldn't be a citizen. She wasn't born here. The
question is whether the child would be. They are under current law.
Gary
2018-11-06 23:25:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s when
I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the problem
with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half when they
created the jurisdictional language with the constitutional amendment.
They should have simply said what they wanted to say in a plain and
simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
That's not settled law. But if "subject to the jurisdiction" means you
have to obey our laws, then I would think the children of unauthorized
aliens born in the USA are citizens at birth.
SCOTUS did hold in Plyler that unauthorized aliens are "within the
jurisdiction" as required b the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Just looked up diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic exemption from law
enforcement is far from total, and varies depending on the duties and
status of the diplomat. Their status differs from that of a citizen,
but the same could be said of an illegal alien. It is hard to believe
that the current SC would confer the birthright privilege to illegal
mothers, but we shall see. (-8
Nothing this group would do would surprise me. They might declare all Mexicans to be
American citizens.
El Castor
2018-11-07 07:05:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s when
I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the problem
with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half when they
created the jurisdictional language with the constitutional amendment.
They should have simply said what they wanted to say in a plain and
simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
That's not settled law. But if "subject to the jurisdiction" means you
have to obey our laws, then I would think the children of unauthorized
aliens born in the USA are citizens at birth.
SCOTUS did hold in Plyler that unauthorized aliens are "within the
jurisdiction" as required b the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Just looked up diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic exemption from law
enforcement is far from total, and varies depending on the duties and
status of the diplomat. Their status differs from that of a citizen,
but the same could be said of an illegal alien. It is hard to believe
that the current SC would confer the birthright privilege to illegal
mothers, but we shall see. (-8
Nothing this group would do would surprise me. They might declare all Mexicans to be
American citizens.
After today's vote it looks like the Senate will be more solidly
Republican. If another seat opens up, there will be no more Kavanaugh
fiascos. With the presidential election in two years, I doubt that
Democrats will want to be known as the party of open borders.
Immigration deals may be possible. And Trump will always have his
executive orders.

Looks like you have a Republican governor out there in Georgia. (-8
Gary
2018-11-07 12:47:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
That's not settled law. But if "subject to the jurisdiction" means you
have to obey our laws, then I would think the children of unauthorized
aliens born in the USA are citizens at birth.
SCOTUS did hold in Plyler that unauthorized aliens are "within the
jurisdiction" as required b the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Just looked up diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic exemption from law
enforcement is far from total, and varies depending on the duties and
status of the diplomat. Their status differs from that of a citizen,
but the same could be said of an illegal alien. It is hard to believe
that the current SC would confer the birthright privilege to illegal
mothers, but we shall see. (-8
Nothing this group would do would surprise me. They might declare all Mexicans to be
American citizens.
After today's vote it looks like the Senate will be more solidly
Republican. If another seat opens up, there will be no more Kavanaugh
fiascos. With the presidential election in two years, I doubt that
Democrats will want to be known as the party of open borders.
Immigration deals may be possible. And Trump will always have his
executive orders.
Looks like you have a Republican governor out there in Georgia. (-8
I feel like I did the day Trump won. I wasn't all that crazy about him, but he sure
was better than the alternative :-)

There is one problem. With a race this close, the loser may demand a recount -- and
who knows what will happen ? In Georgia -- the winner must get 50% plus one vote.
And with a third candidate in the race -- we are very close to UNDER 50%. Which could
force a run-off.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-07 13:08:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
That's not settled law. But if "subject to the jurisdiction" means you
have to obey our laws, then I would think the children of unauthorized
aliens born in the USA are citizens at birth.
SCOTUS did hold in Plyler that unauthorized aliens are "within the
jurisdiction" as required b the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Just looked up diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic exemption from law
enforcement is far from total, and varies depending on the duties and
status of the diplomat. Their status differs from that of a citizen,
but the same could be said of an illegal alien. It is hard to believe
that the current SC would confer the birthright privilege to illegal
mothers, but we shall see. (-8
Nothing this group would do would surprise me. They might declare all Mexicans to be
American citizens.
After today's vote it looks like the Senate will be more solidly
Republican. If another seat opens up, there will be no more Kavanaugh
fiascos. With the presidential election in two years, I doubt that
Democrats will want to be known as the party of open borders.
Immigration deals may be possible. And Trump will always have his
executive orders.
Looks like you have a Republican governor out there in Georgia. (-8
I feel like I did the day Trump won. I wasn't all that crazy about him, but he sure
was better than the alternative :-)
There is one problem. With a race this close, the loser may demand a recount -- and
who knows what will happen ? In Georgia -- the winner must get 50% plus one vote.
And with a third candidate in the race -- we are very close to UNDER 50%. Which could
force a run-off.
Oh bummer, the black lady didn't win outright, eh?
It is an eyebrow-raiser that the other guy was both
a candidate and the supervisor of the election, though.
We may not have heard the end of this.

What do you have against the black lady, other than
that she's black?
Gary
2018-11-07 15:11:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
That's not settled law. But if "subject to the jurisdiction" means you
have to obey our laws, then I would think the children of unauthorized
aliens born in the USA are citizens at birth.
SCOTUS did hold in Plyler that unauthorized aliens are "within the
jurisdiction" as required b the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Just looked up diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic exemption from law
enforcement is far from total, and varies depending on the duties and
status of the diplomat. Their status differs from that of a citizen,
but the same could be said of an illegal alien. It is hard to believe
that the current SC would confer the birthright privilege to illegal
mothers, but we shall see. (-8
Nothing this group would do would surprise me. They might declare all Mexicans to be
American citizens.
After today's vote it looks like the Senate will be more solidly
Republican. If another seat opens up, there will be no more Kavanaugh
fiascos. With the presidential election in two years, I doubt that
Democrats will want to be known as the party of open borders.
Immigration deals may be possible. And Trump will always have his
executive orders.
Looks like you have a Republican governor out there in Georgia. (-8
I feel like I did the day Trump won. I wasn't all that crazy about him, but he sure
was better than the alternative :-)
There is one problem. With a race this close, the loser may demand a recount -- and
who knows what will happen ? In Georgia -- the winner must get 50% plus one vote.
And with a third candidate in the race -- we are very close to UNDER 50%. Which could
force a run-off.
Oh bummer, the black lady didn't win outright, eh?
It is an eyebrow-raiser that the other guy was both
a candidate and the supervisor of the election, though.
We may not have heard the end of this.
The guy is totally honest. Otherwise he would not be holding office in Georgia.

I understand the voters in Atlanta (Harlem south) are questioning the vote. But not us
more educated citizens.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
What do you have against the black lady, other than
that she's black?
Black lady ? You don't seem to understand the traditions and values of us Southerners.
Let me tell you a little story to explain.

One day -- when I was about seven years old -- I was walking with my mother in town. She
was window shopping and I was standing near a black woman. I overheard the woman say
something I thought interesting. So I went to mother and said:

"Mother, that colored lady said ....... "

She cut me off. She looked down at me and explained:

"Gary -- there is no such thing as a 'colored LADY'. Never has been and never will be."

She was simply passing down a 300 year old Anglo-Saxon Southern truth.

BTW, she didn't say so -- but I assumed there was also no such thing as a "colored
gentleman". Which is why I always thought of Obama as a "boy".
Weatherman
2018-11-07 15:15:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
I understand the voters in Atlanta (Harlem south) are questioning the vote. But not us
more educated citizens.
You consider yourself educated? LOL! That's really funny!
Gary
2018-11-07 17:05:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Weatherman
Post by Gary
I understand the voters in Atlanta (Harlem south) are questioning the vote. But not us
more educated citizens.
You consider yourself educated? LOL! That's really funny!
Actually, I meant to say "intelligent" rather than educated. Some 1st graders have a
higher IQ than many Harvard graduates.
Weatherman
2018-11-07 20:06:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by Weatherman
Post by Gary
I understand the voters in Atlanta (Harlem south) are questioning the vote. But not us
more educated citizens.
You consider yourself educated? LOL! That's really funny!
Actually, I meant to say "intelligent" rather than educated.
That's much funnier, racist turd.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-07 17:11:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
That's not settled law. But if "subject to the jurisdiction" means you
have to obey our laws, then I would think the children of unauthorized
aliens born in the USA are citizens at birth.
SCOTUS did hold in Plyler that unauthorized aliens are "within the
jurisdiction" as required b the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Just looked up diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic exemption from law
enforcement is far from total, and varies depending on the duties and
status of the diplomat. Their status differs from that of a citizen,
but the same could be said of an illegal alien. It is hard to believe
that the current SC would confer the birthright privilege to illegal
mothers, but we shall see. (-8
Nothing this group would do would surprise me. They might declare all Mexicans to be
American citizens.
After today's vote it looks like the Senate will be more solidly
Republican. If another seat opens up, there will be no more Kavanaugh
fiascos. With the presidential election in two years, I doubt that
Democrats will want to be known as the party of open borders.
Immigration deals may be possible. And Trump will always have his
executive orders.
Looks like you have a Republican governor out there in Georgia. (-8
I feel like I did the day Trump won. I wasn't all that crazy about him, but he sure
was better than the alternative :-)
There is one problem. With a race this close, the loser may demand a recount -- and
who knows what will happen ? In Georgia -- the winner must get 50% plus one vote.
And with a third candidate in the race -- we are very close to UNDER 50%. Which could
force a run-off.
Oh bummer, the black lady didn't win outright, eh?
It is an eyebrow-raiser that the other guy was both
a candidate and the supervisor of the election, though.
We may not have heard the end of this.
The guy is totally honest. Otherwise he would not be holding office in Georgia.
Hee hee!
Post by Gary
I understand the voters in Atlanta (Harlem south) are questioning the vote. But not us
more educated citizens.
I had to check the demographics because I thought there
were more black than white people in Georgia, but I found
to my surprise that it's about 50% to 33%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Georgia_(U.S._state)

I was in Atlanta on business once in the 1970's, and
don't recall seeing any black people at all in the office
building. There probably were some and I just don't
remember, but everybody I was dealing with was white.
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
What do you have against the black lady, other than
that she's black?
Black lady ? You don't seem to understand the traditions and values of us Southerners.
Unfortunately, I do.
Post by Gary
Let me tell you a little story to explain.
One day -- when I was about seven years old -- I was walking with my mother in town. She
was window shopping and I was standing near a black woman. I overheard the woman say
"Mother, that colored lady said ....... "
"Gary -- there is no such thing as a 'colored LADY'. Never has been and never will be."
She was simply passing down a 300 year old Anglo-Saxon Southern truth.
BTW, she didn't say so -- but I assumed there was also no such thing as a "colored
gentleman". Which is why I always thought of Obama as a "boy".
As a Northerner, I grew up thinking that white "gentlemen" in
the South referred to all black men as "boy", as an insult.

I got to the Georgia Wiki article in a roundabout way as I was
looking up Trayvon Martin, whom I misremembered was murdered
in Georgia but that was Florida. The Martin article mentioned
Obama saying that if he had a son he would probably look like
Trayvon Martin. (I remember Obama saying that at the time.)

Along the way, I was looking at images of Martins and found
this rocker who's hot enough that I mentioned the picture to
my son to whom I was writing at the moment:
https://tinyurl.com/y8slfqj6
He looks great in the main picture though not quite as good in
some of the other pictures.
Gary
2018-11-07 19:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
I feel like I did the day Trump won. I wasn't all that crazy about him, but he sure
was better than the alternative :-)
There is one problem. With a race this close, the loser may demand a recount -- and
who knows what will happen ? In Georgia -- the winner must get 50% plus one vote.
And with a third candidate in the race -- we are very close to UNDER 50%. Which could
force a run-off.
Oh bummer, the black lady didn't win outright, eh?
It is an eyebrow-raiser that the other guy was both
a candidate and the supervisor of the election, though.
We may not have heard the end of this.
The guy is totally honest. Otherwise he would not be holding office in Georgia.
Hee hee!
Aren't honest politicians common in all states :-)
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
I understand the voters in Atlanta (Harlem south) are questioning the vote. But not us
more educated citizens.
I had to check the demographics because I thought there
were more black than white people in Georgia, but I found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Georgia_(U.S._state)
Sounds about right. When I was young, and segregation was in force -- unless we
were in the city slums or on a farm -- we seldom ever saw a black person. They kept to
themselves very tightly. Now --- they don't !
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I was in Atlanta on business once in the 1970's, and
don't recall seeing any black people at all in the office
building. There probably were some and I just don't
remember, but everybody I was dealing with was white.
Blacks were probably by still recovering from their liquid drinks of the previous night.

Believe it or not --- except to drive through -- I've not been in Atlanta since the 1970s.
I loved the town in the early 1960s -- when I was in my early 20s. But it began to
change in the late 1960s and I (and most white people) had no use for it. In the past 30
years, I've known white people who would drive over 100 miles out of their way to avoid
passing though Atlanta.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
What do you have against the black lady, other than
that she's black?
Black lady ? You don't seem to understand the traditions and values of us Southerners.
Unfortunately, I do.
Oh, now ! And here I have always loved England -- their people and customs. I even
like New England. At least ..... from a distance. It is funny that the South kept
their Anglo traditions a lot longer than the New Englanders did.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Let me tell you a little story to explain.
One day -- when I was about seven years old -- I was walking with my mother in town. She
was window shopping and I was standing near a black woman. I overheard the woman say
"Mother, that colored lady said ....... "
"Gary -- there is no such thing as a 'colored LADY'. Never has been and never will be."
She was simply passing down a 300 year old Anglo-Saxon Southern truth.
BTW, she didn't say so -- but I assumed there was also no such thing as a "colored
gentleman". Which is why I always thought of Obama as a "boy".
As a Northerner, I grew up thinking that white "gentlemen" in
the South referred to all black men as "boy", as an insult.
It was never meant as an insult. You must recall that in the days before integration
many white families were very close to some black people. They really liked each other
and to keep from getting whites and blacks mixed up -- adults referred to black friends as
"Uncle" and "Aunt" so children would not get them mixed up with white friends. If they
were not family friends -- adult blacks were referred to as "boys and girls". So as
not to get them mixed up. I still miss "Aunt" Bessie who died in the 1960s. She was
my aunt's house keeper and I loved her almost as much as I did my aunt.

I think the terms dated back to slavery days. Old Master figured if he referred to
slaves as "men and women" -- they would get the idea they were as good as he was. So
from the 1600s until the 1960s -- to Southerners -- adult blacks were "boys and girls".

Oh, woe is me ! How terrible to be descended from a family of slave owners :-)
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I got to the Georgia Wiki article in a roundabout way as I was
looking up Trayvon Martin, whom I misremembered was murdered
in Georgia but that was Florida. The Martin article mentioned
Obama saying that if he had a son he would probably look like
Trayvon Martin. (I remember Obama saying that at the time.)
I only have vague memories of the Martin affair -- but I do recall it was very interesting
at the time. I followed it quite closely.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Along the way, I was looking at images of Martins and found
this rocker who's hot enough that I mentioned the picture to
https://tinyurl.com/y8slfqj6
He looks great in the main picture though not quite as good in
some of the other pictures.
I have never kept up with any rockers.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-07 23:39:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
I feel like I did the day Trump won. I wasn't all that crazy about him, but he sure
was better than the alternative :-)
There is one problem. With a race this close, the loser may demand a recount -- and
who knows what will happen ? In Georgia -- the winner must get 50% plus one vote.
And with a third candidate in the race -- we are very close to UNDER 50%. Which could
force a run-off.
Oh bummer, the black lady didn't win outright, eh?
It is an eyebrow-raiser that the other guy was both
a candidate and the supervisor of the election, though.
We may not have heard the end of this.
The guy is totally honest. Otherwise he would not be holding office in Georgia.
Hee hee!
Aren't honest politicians common in all states :-)
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
I understand the voters in Atlanta (Harlem south) are questioning the vote. But not us
more educated citizens.
I had to check the demographics because I thought there
were more black than white people in Georgia, but I found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Georgia_(U.S._state)
Sounds about right. When I was young, and segregation was in force -- unless we
were in the city slums or on a farm -- we seldom ever saw a black person. They kept to
themselves very tightly. Now --- they don't !
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I was in Atlanta on business once in the 1970's, and
don't recall seeing any black people at all in the office
building. There probably were some and I just don't
remember, but everybody I was dealing with was white.
Blacks were probably by still recovering from their liquid drinks of the previous night.
Believe it or not --- except to drive through -- I've not been in Atlanta since the 1970s.
I loved the town in the early 1960s -- when I was in my early 20s. But it began to
change in the late 1960s and I (and most white people) had no use for it. In the past 30
years, I've known white people who would drive over 100 miles out of their way to avoid
passing though Atlanta.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
What do you have against the black lady, other than
that she's black?
Black lady ? You don't seem to understand the traditions and values of us Southerners.
Unfortunately, I do.
Oh, now ! And here I have always loved England -- their people and customs. I even
like New England. At least ..... from a distance. It is funny that the South kept
their Anglo traditions a lot longer than the New Englanders did.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Let me tell you a little story to explain.
One day -- when I was about seven years old -- I was walking with my mother in town. She
was window shopping and I was standing near a black woman. I overheard the woman say
"Mother, that colored lady said ....... "
"Gary -- there is no such thing as a 'colored LADY'. Never has been and never will be."
She was simply passing down a 300 year old Anglo-Saxon Southern truth.
BTW, she didn't say so -- but I assumed there was also no such thing as a "colored
gentleman". Which is why I always thought of Obama as a "boy".
As a Northerner, I grew up thinking that white "gentlemen" in
the South referred to all black men as "boy", as an insult.
It was never meant as an insult. You must recall that in the days before integration
many white families were very close to some black people.
It's an insult. There can't be any doubt about that.
Post by Gary
They really liked each other
and to keep from getting whites and blacks mixed up -- adults referred to black friends as
"Uncle" and "Aunt" so children would not get them mixed up with white friends. If they
were not family friends -- adult blacks were referred to as "boys and girls". So as
not to get them mixed up. I still miss "Aunt" Bessie who died in the 1960s. She was
my aunt's house keeper and I loved her almost as much as I did my aunt.
I think the terms dated back to slavery days. Old Master figured if he referred to
slaves as "men and women" -- they would get the idea they were as good as he was. So
from the 1600s until the 1960s -- to Southerners -- adult blacks were "boys and girls".
You just confirmed that it's an insult and you know it is.
Post by Gary
Oh, woe is me ! How terrible to be descended from a family of slave owners :-)
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I got to the Georgia Wiki article in a roundabout way as I was
looking up Trayvon Martin, whom I misremembered was murdered
in Georgia but that was Florida. The Martin article mentioned
Obama saying that if he had a son he would probably look like
Trayvon Martin. (I remember Obama saying that at the time.)
I only have vague memories of the Martin affair -- but I do recall it was very interesting
at the time. I followed it quite closely.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Along the way, I was looking at images of Martins and found
this rocker who's hot enough that I mentioned the picture to
https://tinyurl.com/y8slfqj6
He looks great in the main picture though not quite as good in
some of the other pictures.
I have never kept up with any rockers.
I'd never heard of this guy before, but there aren't a
whole lot of Rockers I have heard of. I just got some
mail today with a John Lennon stamp on it, which was
a surprise because I didn't know there was such a
stamp. I intend to pick up a few at the post office.
Gary
2018-11-08 12:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
I feel like I did the day Trump won. I wasn't all that crazy about him, but he sure
was better than the alternative :-)
There is one problem. With a race this close, the loser may demand a recount -- and
who knows what will happen ? In Georgia -- the winner must get 50% plus one vote.
And with a third candidate in the race -- we are very close to UNDER 50%. Which could
force a run-off.
Oh bummer, the black lady didn't win outright, eh?
It is an eyebrow-raiser that the other guy was both
a candidate and the supervisor of the election, though.
We may not have heard the end of this.
The guy is totally honest. Otherwise he would not be holding office in Georgia.
As a Northerner, I grew up thinking that white "gentlemen" in
the South referred to all black men as "boy", as an insult.
It was never meant as an insult. You must recall that in the days before integration
many white families were very close to some black people.
It's an insult. There can't be any doubt about that.
NO. It was a sign of affection. "Tell them boys to come get them some watermelons !"
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
I think the terms dated back to slavery days. Old Master figured if he referred to
slaves as "men and women" -- they would get the idea they were as good as he was. So
from the 1600s until the 1960s -- to Southerners -- adult blacks were "boys and girls".
You just confirmed that it's an insult and you know it is.
It would only be an insult if the colored folks were offended. They weren't -- and it
wasn't.

BTW, if they were offended by being called "boy" -- wouldn't they also be offended by
being referred to as "uncle" ? I don't think so.

Oh, well. Times and things change. Can you imagine Obama and his wife coming to
Georgia and being greeted by the governor with a hearty -- "Hello there Uncle Barry !
So good to meet you ! Here's a chair for the First Girl to sit in. "
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-08 14:01:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
I feel like I did the day Trump won. I wasn't all that crazy about him, but he sure
was better than the alternative :-)
There is one problem. With a race this close, the loser may demand a recount -- and
who knows what will happen ? In Georgia -- the winner must get 50% plus one vote.
And with a third candidate in the race -- we are very close to UNDER 50%. Which could
force a run-off.
Oh bummer, the black lady didn't win outright, eh?
It is an eyebrow-raiser that the other guy was both
a candidate and the supervisor of the election, though.
We may not have heard the end of this.
The guy is totally honest. Otherwise he would not be holding office in Georgia.
As a Northerner, I grew up thinking that white "gentlemen" in
the South referred to all black men as "boy", as an insult.
It was never meant as an insult. You must recall that in the days before integration
many white families were very close to some black people.
It's an insult. There can't be any doubt about that.
NO. It was a sign of affection. "Tell them boys to come get them some watermelons !"
That sentence is not affectionate. It's classic southern
bigotry. If you don't know that, you're being stupid, and
it's hard to see how that can be any other kind of stupid
than "deliberately stupid".
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
I think the terms dated back to slavery days. Old Master figured if he referred to
slaves as "men and women" -- they would get the idea they were as good as he was. So
from the 1600s until the 1960s -- to Southerners -- adult blacks were "boys and girls".
You just confirmed that it's an insult and you know it is.
It would only be an insult if the colored folks were offended. They weren't -- and it
wasn't.
They were, and it was. They were just too intimidated by the
culture of southern bigotry to dare to stand up against it.
Post by Gary
BTW, if they were offended by being called "boy" -- wouldn't they also be offended by
being referred to as "uncle" ? I don't think so.
If a person is intimidated, they don't speak up. I know that
from my own early teenage years as a secret homosexual.
Post by Gary
Oh, well. Times and things change. Can you imagine Obama and his wife coming to
Georgia and being greeted by the governor with a hearty -- "Hello there Uncle Barry !
So good to meet you ! Here's a chair for the First Girl to sit in. "
Times change, and insults that people wouldn't dare speak
up against in the bad old days don't pass without comment
these days by the newer generations that have a bit more
confidence that the world isn't as totally against them as it
was against their ancestors in those bad old days.
Gary
2018-11-08 15:00:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
As a Northerner, I grew up thinking that white "gentlemen" in
the South referred to all black men as "boy", as an insult.
It was never meant as an insult. You must recall that in the days before integration
many white families were very close to some black people.
It's an insult. There can't be any doubt about that.
NO. It was a sign of affection. "Tell them boys to come get them some watermelons !"
That sentence is not affectionate. It's classic southern
bigotry. If you don't know that, you're being stupid, and
it's hard to see how that can be any other kind of stupid
than "deliberately stupid".
When my grandpa offered blacks watermelons in the 1920s -- it was like some modern kids
being offered some marijuana. They really liked it -- and were grateful.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
I think the terms dated back to slavery days. Old Master figured if he referred to
slaves as "men and women" -- they would get the idea they were as good as he was. So
from the 1600s until the 1960s -- to Southerners -- adult blacks were "boys and girls".
You just confirmed that it's an insult and you know it is.
It would only be an insult if the colored folks were offended. They weren't -- and it
wasn't.
They were, and it was. They were just too intimidated by the
culture of southern bigotry to dare to stand up against it.
That ... and Great-grandpa's whip
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
BTW, if they were offended by being called "boy" -- wouldn't they also be offended by
being referred to as "uncle" ? I don't think so.
If a person is intimidated, they don't speak up. I know that
from my own early teenage years as a secret homosexual.
Teenage years ? I met my first gay friend when I was nine. I was in England and Jimmy
lived down the street. We became good friends. Back then -- I had no idea what a
homo was. It was only when a neighbor warned me to stay away from Jimmy -- that I
learned. But we stayed friends. Hell, I didn't even know what sex was.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Oh, well. Times and things change. Can you imagine Obama and his wife coming to
Georgia and being greeted by the governor with a hearty -- "Hello there Uncle Barry !
So good to meet you ! Here's a chair for the First Girl to sit in. "
Times change, and insults that people wouldn't dare speak
up against in the bad old days don't pass without comment
these days by the newer generations that have a bit more
confidence that the world isn't as totally against them as it
was against their ancestors in those bad old days.
That may be part of it. Of course it may also be because the "newer" generations are too
damn dumb and stupid to understand anything they are not involved in. That -- and they
believe everything they hear on TV. If TV tells them that a rabbit is just as smart as
they are --- they would believe it.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-08 15:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
As a Northerner, I grew up thinking that white "gentlemen" in
the South referred to all black men as "boy", as an insult.
It was never meant as an insult. You must recall that in the days before integration
many white families were very close to some black people.
It's an insult. There can't be any doubt about that.
NO. It was a sign of affection. "Tell them boys to come get them some watermelons !"
That sentence is not affectionate. It's classic southern
bigotry. If you don't know that, you're being stupid, and
it's hard to see how that can be any other kind of stupid
than "deliberately stupid".
When my grandpa offered blacks watermelons in the 1920s -- it was like some modern kids
being offered some marijuana. They really liked it -- and were grateful.
You can't know the depths of how they felt. Very likely they
didn't know it either, at the time, but they knew it later. Once
again I'm drawing on my own experiences as a secret
homosexual, though there is a difference since one can't
usually hide being black, but most gay people can hide being
gay.
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
I think the terms dated back to slavery days. Old Master figured if he referred to
slaves as "men and women" -- they would get the idea they were as good as he was. So
from the 1600s until the 1960s -- to Southerners -- adult blacks were "boys and girls".
You just confirmed that it's an insult and you know it is.
It would only be an insult if the colored folks were offended. They weren't -- and it
wasn't.
They were, and it was. They were just too intimidated by the
culture of southern bigotry to dare to stand up against it.
That ... and Great-grandpa's whip
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
BTW, if they were offended by being called "boy" -- wouldn't they also be offended by
being referred to as "uncle" ? I don't think so.
If a person is intimidated, they don't speak up. I know that
from my own early teenage years as a secret homosexual.
Teenage years ? I met my first gay friend when I was nine. I was in England and Jimmy
lived down the street. We became good friends. Back then -- I had no idea what a
homo was.
I knew from an early age what a bigot was: even before I
"came out".
Post by Gary
It was only when a neighbor warned me to stay away from Jimmy -- that I
learned. But we stayed friends. Hell, I didn't even know what sex was.
I had a friend in early high school who was always playing around
with me. I'm sure he must have ended up being gay, though I lost
contact with him later in high school. He was better looking than
myself, but I wasn't attracted to him. I was strongly attracted to my
best friend later in high school, but he was completely straight.
He got married and had two kids. I've never told him I'm gay, since
I don't see that any good would come of that. The last time I saw
him was when I stayed overnight in his house in Ohio when I was
driving my dead mom's car across country. We exchanged letters
briefly for a while after that. Earlier this year, he phoned me, I
guess to see if I was still alive. He's a weight-lifter and a biker,
and the last time I saw him he'd just gotten back from a
Harley-Davidson rally in the Dakotas with his wife. That's not
usually my "type" at all. My all time-favourite boyfriend looked and
acted strikingly like River Phoenix in "My Own Private Idaho", as
I've mentioned before. My best friend who went to see that movie
with me agreed that he did.
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Oh, well. Times and things change. Can you imagine Obama and his wife coming to
Georgia and being greeted by the governor with a hearty -- "Hello there Uncle Barry !
So good to meet you ! Here's a chair for the First Girl to sit in. "
Times change, and insults that people wouldn't dare speak
up against in the bad old days don't pass without comment
these days by the newer generations that have a bit more
confidence that the world isn't as totally against them as it
was against their ancestors in those bad old days.
That may be part of it. Of course it may also be because the "newer" generations are too
damn dumb and stupid to understand anything they are not involved in. That -- and they
believe everything they hear on TV. If TV tells them that a rabbit is just as smart as
they are --- they would believe it.
Gary
2018-11-08 18:10:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
As a Northerner, I grew up thinking that white "gentlemen" in
the South referred to all black men as "boy", as an insult.
It was never meant as an insult. You must recall that in the days before integration
many white families were very close to some black people.
It's an insult. There can't be any doubt about that.
NO. It was a sign of affection. "Tell them boys to come get them some watermelons !"
That sentence is not affectionate. It's classic southern
bigotry. If you don't know that, you're being stupid, and
it's hard to see how that can be any other kind of stupid
than "deliberately stupid".
When my grandpa offered blacks watermelons in the 1920s -- it was like some modern kids
being offered some marijuana. They really liked it -- and were grateful.
You can't know the depths of how they felt. Very likely they
didn't know it either, at the time, but they knew it later. Once
again I'm drawing on my own experiences as a secret
homosexual, though there is a difference since one can't
usually hide being black, but most gay people can hide being
gay.
Back in the old days, blacks did what any sane human would do. They accepted life as
they found it -- and tried to make the most of it.

When talking or thinking about slavery -- I'm faced with two facts. Which cause me to
try to see the slave life as "not too bad". One -- not many slaves were mistreated.
Despite what some liberals try to say. Why would an owner be cruel to one -- unless it
was in self defense ? To brutalize a slave - whose average value in 1860 was about
$900 -- would be like you or I taking a hammer and beating the hell out of a new $40,000
car we just bought. Only crazies do that. (it did happen, but not often)

The other thought is that no matter how well they were treated -- they spent their life
being at the beck and call of a group of white people. That is terrible ! But look
at all the white humans who do that now. How many people spend their lives in prison ?
Oh, well ! Just a thought -- or two.

<snip>
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I had a friend in early high school who was always playing around
with me. I'm sure he must have ended up being gay, though I lost
contact with him later in high school. He was better looking than
myself, but I wasn't attracted to him. I was strongly attracted to my
best friend later in high school, but he was completely straight.
He got married and had two kids. I've never told him I'm gay, since
I don't see that any good would come of that. The last time I saw
him was when I stayed overnight in his house in Ohio when I was
driving my dead mom's car across country. We exchanged letters
briefly for a while after that. Earlier this year, he phoned me, I
guess to see if I was still alive. He's a weight-lifter and a biker,
and the last time I saw him he'd just gotten back from a
Harley-Davidson rally in the Dakotas with his wife. That's not
usually my "type" at all. My all time-favourite boyfriend looked and
acted strikingly like River Phoenix in "My Own Private Idaho", as
I've mentioned before. My best friend who went to see that movie
with me agreed that he did.
Your friend reminds me of one of mine.

I got out of high school and took my first serious job. For a large company with
office in Atlanta. I was the youngest guy there. There was one guy who was about 23
and single. The guy was gay. We became pretty close friends. After work, we'd
visit local eating places and spend the evening talking and listening to the juke box.
I liked him a lot, but we never talked about sex. (He didn't want girls and I didn't
want boys).

He had one problem that I doubt most gays have. He wanted to have children. I don't
know why -- but that was a big desire in his life. So -- he married a girl. They
had two children. Then he transferred to a town out west. I lost track of him, but I
did like him and we were buddies for two years. I've always wondered what happened to
him.

Sometimes -- opposites do attract :-)
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-08 22:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
As a Northerner, I grew up thinking that white "gentlemen" in
the South referred to all black men as "boy", as an insult.
It was never meant as an insult. You must recall that in the days before integration
many white families were very close to some black people.
It's an insult. There can't be any doubt about that.
NO. It was a sign of affection. "Tell them boys to come get them some watermelons !"
That sentence is not affectionate. It's classic southern
bigotry. If you don't know that, you're being stupid, and
it's hard to see how that can be any other kind of stupid
than "deliberately stupid".
When my grandpa offered blacks watermelons in the 1920s -- it was like some modern kids
being offered some marijuana. They really liked it -- and were grateful.
You can't know the depths of how they felt. Very likely they
didn't know it either, at the time, but they knew it later. Once
again I'm drawing on my own experiences as a secret
homosexual, though there is a difference since one can't
usually hide being black, but most gay people can hide being
gay.
Back in the old days, blacks did what any sane human would do. They accepted life as
they found it -- and tried to make the most of it.
So the American Revolution was a mistake. People should
just have accepted life as they found it -- and tried to make the
most of it.
Post by Gary
When talking or thinking about slavery -- I'm faced with two facts. Which cause me to
try to see the slave life as "not too bad".
That would be funny if it weren't so disgusting. Maybe you
should volunteer to be a slave, since it's "not too bad".
Post by Gary
One -- not many slaves were mistreated.
They were ALL mistreated, just as you would be if you
were enslaved. Just being a slave is mistreatment already.
Post by Gary
Despite what some liberals try to say. Why would an owner be cruel to one -- unless it
was in self defense ?
He could do what he wanted, and the slave had no say.
Post by Gary
To brutalize a slave - whose average value in 1860 was about
$900 -- would be like you or I taking a hammer and beating the hell out of a new $40,000
car we just bought. Only crazies do that. (it did happen, but not often)
Well, I wouldn't want YOU as a slave, not even for free.
I will grant you that.
Post by Gary
The other thought is that no matter how well they were treated -- they spent their life
being at the beck and call of a group of white people. That is terrible ! But look
at all the white humans who do that now. How many people spend their lives in prison ?
Oh, well ! Just a thought -- or two.
<snip>
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I had a friend in early high school who was always playing around
with me. I'm sure he must have ended up being gay, though I lost
contact with him later in high school. He was better looking than
myself, but I wasn't attracted to him. I was strongly attracted to my
best friend later in high school, but he was completely straight.
He got married and had two kids. I've never told him I'm gay, since
I don't see that any good would come of that. The last time I saw
him was when I stayed overnight in his house in Ohio when I was
driving my dead mom's car across country. We exchanged letters
briefly for a while after that. Earlier this year, he phoned me, I
guess to see if I was still alive. He's a weight-lifter and a biker,
and the last time I saw him he'd just gotten back from a
Harley-Davidson rally in the Dakotas with his wife. That's not
usually my "type" at all. My all time-favourite boyfriend looked and
acted strikingly like River Phoenix in "My Own Private Idaho", as
I've mentioned before. My best friend who went to see that movie
with me agreed that he did.
Your friend reminds me of one of mine.
I got out of high school and took my first serious job. For a large company with
office in Atlanta. I was the youngest guy there. There was one guy who was about 23
and single. The guy was gay. We became pretty close friends. After work, we'd
visit local eating places and spend the evening talking and listening to the juke box.
I liked him a lot, but we never talked about sex. (He didn't want girls and I didn't
want boys).
He had one problem that I doubt most gays have. He wanted to have children. I don't
know why -- but that was a big desire in his life. So -- he married a girl. They
had two children. Then he transferred to a town out west. I lost track of him, but I
did like him and we were buddies for two years. I've always wondered what happened to
him.
Sometimes -- opposites do attract :-)
islander
2018-11-07 19:53:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
That's not settled law. But if "subject to the jurisdiction" means you
have to obey our laws, then I would think the children of unauthorized
aliens born in the USA are citizens at birth.
SCOTUS did hold in Plyler that unauthorized aliens are "within the
jurisdiction" as required b the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Just looked up diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic exemption from law
enforcement is far from total, and varies depending on the duties and
status of the diplomat. Their status differs from that of a citizen,
but the same could be said of an illegal alien. It is hard to believe
that the current SC would confer the birthright privilege to illegal
mothers, but we shall see. (-8
Nothing this group would do would surprise me. They might declare all Mexicans to be
American citizens.
After today's vote it looks like the Senate will be more solidly
Republican. If another seat opens up, there will be no more Kavanaugh
fiascos. With the presidential election in two years, I doubt that
Democrats will want to be known as the party of open borders.
Immigration deals may be possible. And Trump will always have his
executive orders.
Looks like you have a Republican governor out there in Georgia. (-8
I feel like I did the day Trump won. I wasn't all that crazy about him, but he sure
was better than the alternative :-)
There is one problem. With a race this close, the loser may demand a recount -- and
who knows what will happen ? In Georgia -- the winner must get 50% plus one vote.
And with a third candidate in the race -- we are very close to UNDER 50%. Which could
force a run-off.
Oh bummer, the black lady didn't win outright, eh?
It is an eyebrow-raiser that the other guy was both
a candidate and the supervisor of the election, though.
We may not have heard the end of this.
What do you have against the black lady, other than
that she's black?
It isn't over yet. Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots recorded.
There are still provisional ballots to count as well as absentee ballots
which have a week to find their way through the mail. In addition there
are 53K mail-in ballots that were rejected by Kemp because the signature
did not "appear" to be the same as that found in other records such as
on the driver license or because the name on the voter registration did
not exactly match that on previous registrations. The legal cases are
still being fought over this, but a few thousand specific voter
registrations have been ordered to be accepted by the courts. It will
take time to sort this all out. Abrams is refusing to concede until
every vote is counted. If the returns still out reduce Kemp's lead to
less than 50%, there will be a run-off.

Admittedly, a win by Abrams is a long shot, but it is good to see that
she is still fighting. A Democrat with a spine! Imagine that!
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-08 09:05:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 11/7/2018 11:53 AM, islander wrote:

{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots recorded.
There are still provisional ballots to count as well as absentee ballots
which have a week to find their way through the mail.  In addition there
are 53K mail-in ballots that were rejected by Kemp because the signature
did not "appear" to be the same as that found in other records such as
on the driver license or because the name on the voter registration did
not exactly match that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots. If anyone on this
list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
islander
2018-11-10 16:01:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots recorded.
There are still provisional ballots to count as well as absentee
ballots which have a week to find their way through the mail.  In
addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were rejected by Kemp
because the signature did not "appear" to be the same as that found in
other records such as on the driver license or because the name on the
voter registration did not exactly match that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on this
list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are counted
last. Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were
not informed that their registration was rejected. It will take a while
to sort that out.
El Castor
2018-11-10 19:37:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots recorded.
There are still provisional ballots to count as well as absentee
ballots which have a week to find their way through the mail.  In
addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were rejected by Kemp
because the signature did not "appear" to be the same as that found in
other records such as on the driver license or because the name on the
voter registration did not exactly match that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on this
list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are counted
last. Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were
not informed that their registration was rejected. It will take a while
to sort that out.
Last August I renewed my drivers license. I requested, and received, a
"Real ID" license -- a California license that verifies my identity
and citizenship at the airport. Unbeknownst to me, despite the fact
that I was already registered to vote, I was re-registered by the DMV,
and to add insult to injury, only allowed to vote by mail. A couple of
weeks later I got a card in the mail confirming the issuance of my
"Real ID", and in very fine print, mentioning that I had been
registered to vote, and only by mail. WTF! I called the registrars
office, explained the problem, and was assured it was fixed -- no more
vote by mail. I could vote in person. A couple of weeks later comes
the absentee ballot in the mail. WTF! So I called the office again and
spoke to a different woman. She told me nothing could be changed 90
days before the election. I could only vote in person if I brought
with me the blank ballot, and the envelope it was to be mailed in. I
did and after some discussion at the polling place, I was allowed to
vote.
islander
2018-11-11 14:55:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots recorded.
There are still provisional ballots to count as well as absentee
ballots which have a week to find their way through the mail.  In
addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were rejected by Kemp
because the signature did not "appear" to be the same as that found in
other records such as on the driver license or because the name on the
voter registration did not exactly match that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on this
list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are counted
last. Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were
not informed that their registration was rejected. It will take a while
to sort that out.
Last August I renewed my drivers license. I requested, and received, a
"Real ID" license -- a California license that verifies my identity
and citizenship at the airport. Unbeknownst to me, despite the fact
that I was already registered to vote, I was re-registered by the DMV,
and to add insult to injury, only allowed to vote by mail. A couple of
weeks later I got a card in the mail confirming the issuance of my
"Real ID", and in very fine print, mentioning that I had been
registered to vote, and only by mail. WTF! I called the registrars
office, explained the problem, and was assured it was fixed -- no more
vote by mail. I could vote in person. A couple of weeks later comes
the absentee ballot in the mail. WTF! So I called the office again and
spoke to a different woman. She told me nothing could be changed 90
days before the election. I could only vote in person if I brought
with me the blank ballot, and the envelope it was to be mailed in. I
did and after some discussion at the polling place, I was allowed to
vote.
This is what happens when there is local control of the voting process.
Personally, I think we need a national standard for voting procedures.
When we lived in CA, we voted at the local polling place, the garage at
a neighbor's home. It was fun. But, there were no hours long lines or
polling places that were difficult to get to, especially for those who
didn't have transportation or had mobility problems. Here in WA, we
have only vote-by-mail which is convenient for everyone. Not as much
fun, but we can take as much time as we need and the system seems to
work pretty well.
El Castor
2018-11-11 22:28:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots recorded.
There are still provisional ballots to count as well as absentee
ballots which have a week to find their way through the mail.  In
addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were rejected by Kemp
because the signature did not "appear" to be the same as that found in
other records such as on the driver license or because the name on the
voter registration did not exactly match that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on this
list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are counted
last. Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were
not informed that their registration was rejected. It will take a while
to sort that out.
Last August I renewed my drivers license. I requested, and received, a
"Real ID" license -- a California license that verifies my identity
and citizenship at the airport. Unbeknownst to me, despite the fact
that I was already registered to vote, I was re-registered by the DMV,
and to add insult to injury, only allowed to vote by mail. A couple of
weeks later I got a card in the mail confirming the issuance of my
"Real ID", and in very fine print, mentioning that I had been
registered to vote, and only by mail. WTF! I called the registrars
office, explained the problem, and was assured it was fixed -- no more
vote by mail. I could vote in person. A couple of weeks later comes
the absentee ballot in the mail. WTF! So I called the office again and
spoke to a different woman. She told me nothing could be changed 90
days before the election. I could only vote in person if I brought
with me the blank ballot, and the envelope it was to be mailed in. I
did and after some discussion at the polling place, I was allowed to
vote.
This is what happens when there is local control of the voting process.
Personally, I think we need a national standard for voting procedures.
When we lived in CA, we voted at the local polling place, the garage at
a neighbor's home. It was fun. But, there were no hours long lines or
polling places that were difficult to get to, especially for those who
didn't have transportation or had mobility problems. Here in WA, we
have only vote-by-mail which is convenient for everyone. Not as much
fun, but we can take as much time as we need and the system seems to
work pretty well.
I suppose we should do the same, but there is something special about
going to the polling place and casting a ballot. I feel like a
participant in a real act of democracy.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-10 22:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots recorded.
There are still provisional ballots to count as well as absentee
ballots which have a week to find their way through the mail.  In
addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were rejected by Kemp
because the signature did not "appear" to be the same as that found
in other records such as on the driver license or because the name on
the voter registration did not exactly match that on previous
registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on this
list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are counted
last.
If they had a valid ID, they could cast regular ballots. If not they
could cast provisional ballots.
Post by islander
Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were
not informed that their registration was rejected.  It will take a while
to sort that out.
The courts issued an injunction that prevented Georgia from rejecting
mail-in votes over signature mismatches.
islander
2018-11-11 14:46:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots
recorded. There are still provisional ballots to count as well as
absentee ballots which have a week to find their way through the
mail.  In addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were rejected
by Kemp because the signature did not "appear" to be the same as
that found in other records such as on the driver license or because
the name on the voter registration did not exactly match that on
previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on this
list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are
counted last.
If they had a valid ID, they could cast regular ballots.  If not they
could cast provisional ballots.
Post by islander
Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were not
informed that their registration was rejected.  It will take a while
to sort that out.
The courts issued an injunction that prevented Georgia from rejecting
mail-in votes over signature mismatches.
Which would explain why "It isn't over yet."

"It specifically orders the Secretary of State’s office to inform local
elections offices that they should not reject absentee ballots due to
alleged signature mismatches. Instead, they’re ordered to mark the
ballots as provisional and give voters a “pre-rejection notice” via
first-class mail and email, when possible, as well as an opportunity to
resolve the discrepancy."
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/appeals-court-also-declines-stop-georgia-absentee-ballot-injunction/txmNkZiVsk6ekR5VVlKpaJ/

The votes are not automatically counted and the procedure takes time.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-11 22:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots
recorded. There are still provisional ballots to count as well as
absentee ballots which have a week to find their way through the
mail.  In addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were rejected
by Kemp because the signature did not "appear" to be the same as
that found in other records such as on the driver license or
because the name on the voter registration did not exactly match
that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on
this list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are
counted last.
If they had a valid ID, they could cast regular ballots.  If not they
could cast provisional ballots.
Post by islander
Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were not
informed that their registration was rejected.  It will take a while
to sort that out.
The courts issued an injunction that prevented Georgia from rejecting
mail-in votes over signature mismatches.
Which would explain why "It isn't over yet."
"It specifically orders the Secretary of State’s office to inform local
elections offices that they should not reject absentee ballots due to
alleged signature mismatches. Instead, they’re ordered to mark the
ballots as provisional and give voters a “pre-rejection notice” via
first-class mail and email, when possible, as well as an opportunity to
resolve the discrepancy."
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/appeals-court-also-declines-stop-georgia-absentee-ballot-injunction/txmNkZiVsk6ekR5VVlKpaJ/
The votes are not automatically counted and the procedure takes time.
My point was the number of rejected mail-in votes was fairly small, I
think a thousand or two. Correcting those mistakes won't likely change
the result.
islander
2018-11-12 01:27:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots
recorded. There are still provisional ballots to count as well as
absentee ballots which have a week to find their way through the
mail.  In addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were
rejected by Kemp because the signature did not "appear" to be the
same as that found in other records such as on the driver license
or because the name on the voter registration did not exactly
match that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on
this list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are
counted last.
If they had a valid ID, they could cast regular ballots.  If not they
could cast provisional ballots.
Post by islander
Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were not
informed that their registration was rejected.  It will take a while
to sort that out.
The courts issued an injunction that prevented Georgia from rejecting
mail-in votes over signature mismatches.
Which would explain why "It isn't over yet."
"It specifically orders the Secretary of State’s office to inform
local elections offices that they should not reject absentee ballots
due to alleged signature mismatches. Instead, they’re ordered to mark
the ballots as provisional and give voters a “pre-rejection notice”
via first-class mail and email, when possible, as well as an
opportunity to resolve the discrepancy."
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/appeals-court-also-declines-stop-georgia-absentee-ballot-injunction/txmNkZiVsk6ekR5VVlKpaJ/
The votes are not automatically counted and the procedure takes time.
My point was the number of rejected mail-in votes was fairly small, I
think a thousand or two.  Correcting those mistakes won't likely change
the result.
You are correct in that the court ruling applied to only about 3K
mail-in ballots from what I read. That is only part of the problem in
the rejection of the 53K registrations. This was in GA and a
consequence of the "exact match" verification system. This was
addressed by the courts and voters are allowed to fill out provisional
ballots. Dealing with the provisional ballots is what is taking so much
time in GA. The problem with mail-in ballots that applied to about 3K
voters was in FL and the courts ruled that they could not be rejected
out of hand based on supposed signature mismatches, but it still takes
time to verify that they were actually submitted by the voter. This is
only part of the problem with mail-in ballots in FL where rejection
rates are about 1 in 100. That is exceptionally high. Even if they are
retained, they are not included in the counts until the rejection is
verified. That could be in the tens of thousands and checking them all
out is going to take time.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-12 01:58:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots
recorded. There are still provisional ballots to count as well as
absentee ballots which have a week to find their way through the
mail.  In addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were
rejected by Kemp because the signature did not "appear" to be the
same as that found in other records such as on the driver license
or because the name on the voter registration did not exactly
match that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on
this list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are
counted last.
If they had a valid ID, they could cast regular ballots.  If not they
could cast provisional ballots.
Post by islander
Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were not
informed that their registration was rejected.  It will take a while
to sort that out.
The courts issued an injunction that prevented Georgia from rejecting
mail-in votes over signature mismatches.
Which would explain why "It isn't over yet."
"It specifically orders the Secretary of State’s office to inform
local elections offices that they should not reject absentee ballots
due to alleged signature mismatches. Instead, they’re ordered to mark
the ballots as provisional and give voters a “pre-rejection notice”
via first-class mail and email, when possible, as well as an
opportunity to resolve the discrepancy."
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/appeals-court-also-declines-stop-georgia-absentee-ballot-injunction/txmNkZiVsk6ekR5VVlKpaJ/
The votes are not automatically counted and the procedure takes time.
My point was the number of rejected mail-in votes was fairly small, I
think a thousand or two.  Correcting those mistakes won't likely change
the result.
You are correct in that the court ruling applied to only about 3K
mail-in ballots from what I read. That is only part of the problem in
the rejection of the 53K registrations. This was in GA and a
consequence of the "exact match" verification system. This was
addressed by the courts and voters are allowed to fill out provisional
ballots. Dealing with the provisional ballots is what is taking so much
time in GA. The problem with mail-in ballots that applied to about 3K
voters was in FL and the courts ruled that they could not be rejected
out of hand based on supposed signature mismatches, but it still takes
time to verify that they were actually submitted by the voter. This is
only part of the problem with mail-in ballots in FL where rejection
rates are about 1 in 100. That is exceptionally high. Even if they are
retained, they are not included in the counts until the rejection is
verified. That could be in the tens of thousands and checking them all
out is going to take time.
I'm thinking of becoming a US citizen - just thinking, and only
because it's becoming so expensive to be a resident alien. That
cost more than $400 last cycle (ten years ago), and $540 this
cycle. It only costs about $500 to become a US citizen, as long
as the rules don't change as they changed for resident-alienship,
which used to be a permanent one-time thing until the rules
were changed and one had to renew every ten years, with the
costs increasing exorbitantly the last two ten-year cycles. I'm
73 now though, so there's a very good chance I won't be alive
for the next cycle when I'd be 83. Nobody knows who my
biological father was, but my mom lived to 79, my maternal
grandmother to 75, and my maternal grandfather to about 82.
I feel that I could live to age 100 at the moment, but things
can change quickly. I've never been arrested or gone on
public assistance, so now that there's no longer any demerit
for being gay nor (I think) for refusing to profess any belief
in magical beings, it seems to me that I could become a US
citizen without any trouble beyond the unavoidable
bureaucratic horror-show (given that all bureaucracy
routinely gets more and more horrible as time goes on).
b***@gmail.com
2018-11-12 03:32:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
You are correct in that the court ruling applied to only about 3K
mail-in ballots from what I read. That is only part of the problem in
the rejection of the 53K registrations. This was in GA and a
consequence of the "exact match" verification system. This was
addressed by the courts and voters are allowed to fill out provisional
ballots. Dealing with the provisional ballots is what is taking so much
time in GA. The problem with mail-in ballots that applied to about 3K
voters was in FL and the courts ruled that they could not be rejected
out of hand based on supposed signature mismatches, but it still takes
time to verify that they were actually submitted by the voter. This is
only part of the problem with mail-in ballots in FL where rejection
rates are about 1 in 100. That is exceptionally high. Even if they are
retained, they are not included in the counts until the rejection is
verified. That could be in the tens of thousands and checking them all
out is going to take time.
I'm thinking of becoming a US citizen - just thinking, and only
because it's becoming so expensive to be a resident alien. That
cost more than $400 last cycle (ten years ago), and $540 this
cycle. It only costs about $500 to become a US citizen, as long
as the rules don't change as they changed for resident-alienship,
which used to be a permanent one-time thing until the rules
were changed and one had to renew every ten years, with the
costs increasing exorbitantly the last two ten-year cycles. I'm
73 now though, so there's a very good chance I won't be alive
for the next cycle when I'd be 83. Nobody knows who my
biological father was, but my mom lived to 79, my maternal
grandmother to 75, and my maternal grandfather to about 82.
I feel that I could live to age 100 at the moment, but things
can change quickly. I've never been arrested or gone on
public assistance, so now that there's no longer any demerit
for being gay nor (I think) for refusing to profess any belief
in magical beings, it seems to me that I could become a US
citizen without any trouble beyond the unavoidable
bureaucratic horror-show (given that all bureaucracy
routinely gets more and more horrible as time goes on).
You should become a citizen so you can vote. I spent about 2 hours walking to my polling place. They were nice to me and gave me a chair to sit in and cast my ballot. I only waited about 10 minutes. I'm posting this message with a on-screen keyboard since I spilled a glass of wine on the keyboard and my notebook computer didn't work anymore. It's fun taking these things apart with a dozen tiny screws.
islander
2018-11-12 16:07:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots
recorded. There are still provisional ballots to count as well as
absentee ballots which have a week to find their way through the
mail.  In addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were
rejected by Kemp because the signature did not "appear" to be the
same as that found in other records such as on the driver license
or because the name on the voter registration did not exactly
match that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on
this list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are
counted last.
If they had a valid ID, they could cast regular ballots.  If not they
could cast provisional ballots.
Post by islander
Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were not
informed that their registration was rejected.  It will take a while
to sort that out.
The courts issued an injunction that prevented Georgia from rejecting
mail-in votes over signature mismatches.
Which would explain why "It isn't over yet."
"It specifically orders the Secretary of State’s office to inform
local elections offices that they should not reject absentee ballots
due to alleged signature mismatches. Instead, they’re ordered to mark
the ballots as provisional and give voters a “pre-rejection notice”
via first-class mail and email, when possible, as well as an
opportunity to resolve the discrepancy."
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/appeals-court-also-declines-stop-georgia-absentee-ballot-injunction/txmNkZiVsk6ekR5VVlKpaJ/
The votes are not automatically counted and the procedure takes time.
My point was the number of rejected mail-in votes was fairly small, I
think a thousand or two.  Correcting those mistakes won't likely change
the result.
You are correct in that the court ruling applied to only about 3K
mail-in ballots from what I read. That is only part of the problem in
the rejection of the 53K registrations. This was in GA and a
consequence of the "exact match" verification system. This was
addressed by the courts and voters are allowed to fill out provisional
ballots. Dealing with the provisional ballots is what is taking so much
time in GA. The problem with mail-in ballots that applied to about 3K
voters was in FL and the courts ruled that they could not be rejected
out of hand based on supposed signature mismatches, but it still takes
time to verify that they were actually submitted by the voter. This is
only part of the problem with mail-in ballots in FL where rejection
rates are about 1 in 100. That is exceptionally high. Even if they are
retained, they are not included in the counts until the rejection is
verified. That could be in the tens of thousands and checking them all
out is going to take time.
I'm thinking of becoming a US citizen - just thinking, and only
because it's becoming so expensive to be a resident alien. That
cost more than $400 last cycle (ten years ago), and $540 this
cycle. It only costs about $500 to become a US citizen, as long
as the rules don't change as they changed for resident-alienship,
which used to be a permanent one-time thing until the rules
were changed and one had to renew every ten years, with the
costs increasing exorbitantly the last two ten-year cycles. I'm
73 now though, so there's a very good chance I won't be alive
for the next cycle when I'd be 83. Nobody knows who my
biological father was, but my mom lived to 79, my maternal
grandmother to 75, and my maternal grandfather to about 82.
I feel that I could live to age 100 at the moment, but things
can change quickly. I've never been arrested or gone on
public assistance, so now that there's no longer any demerit
for being gay nor (I think) for refusing to profess any belief
in magical beings, it seems to me that I could become a US
citizen without any trouble beyond the unavoidable
bureaucratic horror-show (given that all bureaucracy
routinely gets more and more horrible as time goes on).
I don't think that there is any down-side to getting US citizenship and
perhaps the prudent thing to do is to do it while you still can. Who
knows what changes will be made in the near future? There may be other
restrictions placed on resident-aliens if Trump has his way.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-12 17:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots
recorded. There are still provisional ballots to count as well as
absentee ballots which have a week to find their way through the
mail.  In addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were
rejected by Kemp because the signature did not "appear" to be the
same as that found in other records such as on the driver license
or because the name on the voter registration did not exactly
match that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on
this list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are
counted last.
If they had a valid ID, they could cast regular ballots.  If not they
could cast provisional ballots.
Post by islander
Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were not
informed that their registration was rejected.  It will take a while
to sort that out.
The courts issued an injunction that prevented Georgia from rejecting
mail-in votes over signature mismatches.
Which would explain why "It isn't over yet."
"It specifically orders the Secretary of State’s office to inform
local elections offices that they should not reject absentee ballots
due to alleged signature mismatches. Instead, they’re ordered to mark
the ballots as provisional and give voters a “pre-rejection notice”
via first-class mail and email, when possible, as well as an
opportunity to resolve the discrepancy."
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/appeals-court-also-declines-stop-georgia-absentee-ballot-injunction/txmNkZiVsk6ekR5VVlKpaJ/
The votes are not automatically counted and the procedure takes time.
My point was the number of rejected mail-in votes was fairly small, I
think a thousand or two.  Correcting those mistakes won't likely change
the result.
You are correct in that the court ruling applied to only about 3K
mail-in ballots from what I read. That is only part of the problem in
the rejection of the 53K registrations. This was in GA and a
consequence of the "exact match" verification system. This was
addressed by the courts and voters are allowed to fill out provisional
ballots. Dealing with the provisional ballots is what is taking so much
time in GA. The problem with mail-in ballots that applied to about 3K
voters was in FL and the courts ruled that they could not be rejected
out of hand based on supposed signature mismatches, but it still takes
time to verify that they were actually submitted by the voter. This is
only part of the problem with mail-in ballots in FL where rejection
rates are about 1 in 100. That is exceptionally high. Even if they are
retained, they are not included in the counts until the rejection is
verified. That could be in the tens of thousands and checking them all
out is going to take time.
I'm thinking of becoming a US citizen - just thinking, and only
because it's becoming so expensive to be a resident alien. That
cost more than $400 last cycle (ten years ago), and $540 this
cycle. It only costs about $500 to become a US citizen, as long
as the rules don't change as they changed for resident-alienship,
which used to be a permanent one-time thing until the rules
were changed and one had to renew every ten years, with the
costs increasing exorbitantly the last two ten-year cycles. I'm
73 now though, so there's a very good chance I won't be alive
for the next cycle when I'd be 83. Nobody knows who my
biological father was, but my mom lived to 79, my maternal
grandmother to 75, and my maternal grandfather to about 82.
I feel that I could live to age 100 at the moment, but things
can change quickly. I've never been arrested or gone on
public assistance, so now that there's no longer any demerit
for being gay nor (I think) for refusing to profess any belief
in magical beings, it seems to me that I could become a US
citizen without any trouble beyond the unavoidable
bureaucratic horror-show (given that all bureaucracy
routinely gets more and more horrible as time goes on).
I don't think that there is any down-side to getting US citizenship and
perhaps the prudent thing to do is to do it while you still can. Who
knows what changes will be made in the near future? There may be other
restrictions placed on resident-aliens if Trump has his way.
I'm going to ask about it when I go in for my alien
registration renewal appointment on Wednesday.
I probably should have done it a lot sooner. If I'd
gotten drafted, I'd automatically have been put up
for US citizenship. I was morally unacceptable to
go off and kill people in Vietnam, though, since I
was homosexual, not that I regret at all not being
allowed to kill or be killed in Vietnam though I do
feel guilty that other people did get drafted and
had to fight against their will and their moral
compass. Like most people of my generation,
at least whom I knew, I was strongly opposed to
that war. I've mentioned before that the draft
interview was the first time I ever told any
heterosexual that I was homosexual.

I'll wait a few years before applying for US
citizenship, to see how my health holds up. My
main reason for becoming a citizen would be to
avoid continuing to pay the now-quite-expensive
applications every ten years to continue my
alien registrationship. It would be nice to vote
for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren though,
and I wonder if in that case I could have a copy
of my ballot sent to El Castor.
Gary
2018-11-13 17:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
You are correct in that the court ruling applied to only about 3K
mail-in ballots from what I read. That is only part of the problem in
the rejection of the 53K registrations. This was in GA and a
consequence of the "exact match" verification system. This was
addressed by the courts and voters are allowed to fill out provisional
ballots. Dealing with the provisional ballots is what is taking so much
time in GA. The problem with mail-in ballots that applied to about 3K
voters was in FL and the courts ruled that they could not be rejected
out of hand based on supposed signature mismatches, but it still takes
time to verify that they were actually submitted by the voter. This is
only part of the problem with mail-in ballots in FL where rejection
rates are about 1 in 100. That is exceptionally high. Even if they are
retained, they are not included in the counts until the rejection is
verified. That could be in the tens of thousands and checking them all
out is going to take time.
I'm thinking of becoming a US citizen - just thinking, and only
because it's becoming so expensive to be a resident alien. That
cost more than $400 last cycle (ten years ago), and $540 this
cycle. It only costs about $500 to become a US citizen, as long
as the rules don't change as they changed for resident-alienship,
which used to be a permanent one-time thing until the rules
were changed and one had to renew every ten years, with the
costs increasing exorbitantly the last two ten-year cycles. I'm
73 now though, so there's a very good chance I won't be alive
for the next cycle when I'd be 83. Nobody knows who my
biological father was, but my mom lived to 79, my maternal
grandmother to 75, and my maternal grandfather to about 82.
I feel that I could live to age 100 at the moment, but things
can change quickly. I've never been arrested or gone on
public assistance, so now that there's no longer any demerit
for being gay nor (I think) for refusing to profess any belief
in magical beings, it seems to me that I could become a US
citizen without any trouble beyond the unavoidable
bureaucratic horror-show (given that all bureaucracy
routinely gets more and more horrible as time goes on).
I don't think that there is any down-side to getting US citizenship and
perhaps the prudent thing to do is to do it while you still can. Who
knows what changes will be made in the near future? There may be other
restrictions placed on resident-aliens if Trump has his way.
I'm going to ask about it when I go in for my alien
registration renewal appointment on Wednesday.
I probably should have done it a lot sooner. If I'd
gotten drafted, I'd automatically have been put up
for US citizenship. I was morally unacceptable to
go off and kill people in Vietnam, though, since I
was homosexual, not that I regret at all not being
allowed to kill or be killed in Vietnam though I do
feel guilty that other people did get drafted and
had to fight against their will and their moral
compass. Like most people of my generation,
at least whom I knew, I was strongly opposed to
that war. I've mentioned before that the draft
interview was the first time I ever told any
heterosexual that I was homosexual.
I never will forget the time I was called to be classified as to my draft status. There
was a roomful (about 20-30) of us young fellows all about age 18 to 22. There was a
army sergeant there explaining to us all the various classes that we might end up being.
(1-A to 4-F) At the end he said something like this:

"Now, if any of you are homosexual -- you will be exempted. But only if you admit you
are that way." He then looked around the room at all us and said:

"But why would anybody who is queer -- not want to be with all these young fellows ?"

He then asked for a show of hands from the homosexuals -- and not a single hand went up.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-13 18:43:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
You are correct in that the court ruling applied to only about 3K
mail-in ballots from what I read. That is only part of the problem in
the rejection of the 53K registrations. This was in GA and a
consequence of the "exact match" verification system. This was
addressed by the courts and voters are allowed to fill out provisional
ballots. Dealing with the provisional ballots is what is taking so much
time in GA. The problem with mail-in ballots that applied to about 3K
voters was in FL and the courts ruled that they could not be rejected
out of hand based on supposed signature mismatches, but it still takes
time to verify that they were actually submitted by the voter. This is
only part of the problem with mail-in ballots in FL where rejection
rates are about 1 in 100. That is exceptionally high. Even if they are
retained, they are not included in the counts until the rejection is
verified. That could be in the tens of thousands and checking them all
out is going to take time.
I'm thinking of becoming a US citizen - just thinking, and only
because it's becoming so expensive to be a resident alien. That
cost more than $400 last cycle (ten years ago), and $540 this
cycle. It only costs about $500 to become a US citizen, as long
as the rules don't change as they changed for resident-alienship,
which used to be a permanent one-time thing until the rules
were changed and one had to renew every ten years, with the
costs increasing exorbitantly the last two ten-year cycles. I'm
73 now though, so there's a very good chance I won't be alive
for the next cycle when I'd be 83. Nobody knows who my
biological father was, but my mom lived to 79, my maternal
grandmother to 75, and my maternal grandfather to about 82.
I feel that I could live to age 100 at the moment, but things
can change quickly. I've never been arrested or gone on
public assistance, so now that there's no longer any demerit
for being gay nor (I think) for refusing to profess any belief
in magical beings, it seems to me that I could become a US
citizen without any trouble beyond the unavoidable
bureaucratic horror-show (given that all bureaucracy
routinely gets more and more horrible as time goes on).
I don't think that there is any down-side to getting US citizenship and
perhaps the prudent thing to do is to do it while you still can. Who
knows what changes will be made in the near future? There may be other
restrictions placed on resident-aliens if Trump has his way.
I'm going to ask about it when I go in for my alien
registration renewal appointment on Wednesday.
I probably should have done it a lot sooner. If I'd
gotten drafted, I'd automatically have been put up
for US citizenship. I was morally unacceptable to
go off and kill people in Vietnam, though, since I
was homosexual, not that I regret at all not being
allowed to kill or be killed in Vietnam though I do
feel guilty that other people did get drafted and
had to fight against their will and their moral
compass. Like most people of my generation,
at least whom I knew, I was strongly opposed to
that war. I've mentioned before that the draft
interview was the first time I ever told any
heterosexual that I was homosexual.
I never will forget the time I was called to be classified as to my draft status. There
was a roomful (about 20-30) of us young fellows all about age 18 to 22. There was a
army sergeant there explaining to us all the various classes that we might end up being.
"Now, if any of you are homosexual -- you will be exempted. But only if you admit you
"But why would anybody who is queer -- not want to be with all these young fellows ?"
He then asked for a show of hands from the homosexuals -- and not a single hand went up.
I remember from when I was draft-age, that one guy I knew
told the officer in charge that he was gay, and they could draft
him if they wanted, but it would be one swinging barracks.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-12 22:31:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 11/12/2018 8:07 AM, islander wrote:

{snip}
Post by islander
I don't think that there is any down-side to getting US citizenship
Hello jury duty (could be positive or negative)! Also, you will be able
to leave the USA for an unlimited time and still be able to come back
whenever you want (positive, I think).
b***@gmail.com
2018-11-13 02:55:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
I don't think that there is any down-side to getting US citizenship
Hello jury duty (could be positive or negative)! Also, you will be able
to leave the USA for an unlimited time and still be able to come back
whenever you want (positive, I think).
Jury duty is fun. My last case was 12 days and they paid me $200. And I can only make $5 a day collecting cans and bottles.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-13 03:46:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:31:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
I don't think that there is any down-side to getting US citizenship
Hello jury duty (could be positive or negative)! Also, you will be able
to leave the USA for an unlimited time and still be able to come back
whenever you want (positive, I think).
I don't really expect ever to leave the USA again before I die.
though a trip to Tahiti might be possible. My son is more
interested in travel than I am. We've gone to Hawaii a couple
of times together, but that's still the USA of course.

Naturalization costs $500, which is a down-side, thought
that's more than balanced by the cost of re-registering as a
resident alien every ten years. As I mentioned, the cost was
about $400 last cycle, and was up to $540 that I paid this year.

Originally, my alien registration card may have cost my
parents something, but not much, and then I was never going
to have to bother with it again. That remained true at first,
but at some time 20 or 30 years later, the government decided
it was vital to have people re-register every ten years, since
it's the nature of bureaucracy to get more and more horrible
as time goes on. The first re-registrations didn't cost much
and weren't too tedious, but as time went on they've continued
to follow the nature of bureaucracy, such that they're expensive
now and also a royal pain in the ass. That inevitability is why
I suggested in a post in this thread that government
bureaucracy might at some time decide that it's vital to make
naturalized citizens re-register every ten years too, with
constantly increasing cost and pain-in-the-ass-ness. The next
step might be to make native-born citizens do the same thing
ever ten years. Since they're the majority, the public outcry
against that might stop the bureaucracy from doing it at least
for a while. I certainly wouldn't put it past the bureaucracy to
try, and to repeatedly keep trying, to push it through though.
If you think that can't happen, I never would have guessed
that the rule that once one registered as an alien, one was
done with it, wouldn't get overturned by some future
bureaucratic establishment.

As bureaucracy becomes more and more of a pain in the
ass, that increases its sense of self-importance, which makes
its evolving procedures very hard trains to dock permanently
on the side-tracks to rust away quietly.

A little more dramatic in the 1950's Soviet Union for, perhaps,
but we maybe should pay attention to where we're heading:

islander
2018-11-13 15:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:31:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
I don't think that there is any down-side to getting US citizenship
Hello jury duty (could be positive or negative)! Also, you will be able
to leave the USA for an unlimited time and still be able to come back
whenever you want (positive, I think).
I don't really expect ever to leave the USA again before I die.
though a trip to Tahiti might be possible. My son is more
interested in travel than I am. We've gone to Hawaii a couple
of times together, but that's still the USA of course.
Naturalization costs $500, which is a down-side, thought
that's more than balanced by the cost of re-registering as a
resident alien every ten years. As I mentioned, the cost was
about $400 last cycle, and was up to $540 that I paid this year.
Originally, my alien registration card may have cost my
parents something, but not much, and then I was never going
to have to bother with it again. That remained true at first,
but at some time 20 or 30 years later, the government decided
it was vital to have people re-register every ten years, since
it's the nature of bureaucracy to get more and more horrible
as time goes on. The first re-registrations didn't cost much
and weren't too tedious, but as time went on they've continued
to follow the nature of bureaucracy, such that they're expensive
now and also a royal pain in the ass. That inevitability is why
I suggested in a post in this thread that government
bureaucracy might at some time decide that it's vital to make
naturalized citizens re-register every ten years too, with
constantly increasing cost and pain-in-the-ass-ness. The next
step might be to make native-born citizens do the same thing
ever ten years. Since they're the majority, the public outcry
against that might stop the bureaucracy from doing it at least
for a while. I certainly wouldn't put it past the bureaucracy to
try, and to repeatedly keep trying, to push it through though.
If you think that can't happen, I never would have guessed
that the rule that once one registered as an alien, one was
done with it, wouldn't get overturned by some future
bureaucratic establishment.
As bureaucracy becomes more and more of a pain in the
ass, that increases its sense of self-importance, which makes
its evolving procedures very hard trains to dock permanently
on the side-tracks to rust away quietly.
A little more dramatic in the 1950's Soviet Union for, perhaps,
http://youtu.be/AIB9cGlLkm0
I agree that we should be paying attention to where we're heading,
especially in view of the increasingly hostile treatment of immigrants
by the Trump administration. White house advisor Stephen Miller seems
to be pushing policy that would penalize legal immigrants and make it
more difficult to get citizenship.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/now-trump-administration-wants-limit-citizenship-legal-immigrants-n897931
Gary
2018-11-13 17:29:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
My point was the number of rejected mail-in votes was fairly small, I
think a thousand or two.  Correcting those mistakes won't likely change
the result.
You are correct in that the court ruling applied to only about 3K
mail-in ballots from what I read. That is only part of the problem in
the rejection of the 53K registrations. This was in GA and a
consequence of the "exact match" verification system. This was
addressed by the courts and voters are allowed to fill out provisional
ballots. Dealing with the provisional ballots is what is taking so much
time in GA. The problem with mail-in ballots that applied to about 3K
voters was in FL and the courts ruled that they could not be rejected
out of hand based on supposed signature mismatches, but it still takes
time to verify that they were actually submitted by the voter. This is
only part of the problem with mail-in ballots in FL where rejection
rates are about 1 in 100. That is exceptionally high. Even if they are
retained, they are not included in the counts until the rejection is
verified. That could be in the tens of thousands and checking them all
out is going to take time.
I'm thinking of becoming a US citizen - just thinking, and only
because it's becoming so expensive to be a resident alien. That
cost more than $400 last cycle (ten years ago), and $540 this
cycle. It only costs about $500 to become a US citizen, as long
as the rules don't change as they changed for resident-alienship,
which used to be a permanent one-time thing until the rules
were changed and one had to renew every ten years, with the
costs increasing exorbitantly the last two ten-year cycles. I'm
73 now though, so there's a very good chance I won't be alive
for the next cycle when I'd be 83. Nobody knows who my
biological father was, but my mom lived to 79, my maternal
grandmother to 75, and my maternal grandfather to about 82.
I feel that I could live to age 100 at the moment, but things
can change quickly. I've never been arrested or gone on
public assistance, so now that there's no longer any demerit
for being gay nor (I think) for refusing to profess any belief
in magical beings, it seems to me that I could become a US
citizen without any trouble beyond the unavoidable
bureaucratic horror-show (given that all bureaucracy
routinely gets more and more horrible as time goes on).
Sounds like you come from some pretty long lived people. If you inherited their better
genes -- you may very well live past 90. My family is sort of funny that way. Most
of my women relatives and their ancestors lived long lives -- into the late 80s and early
90s. But not many of the men seem to make it past age 70. I'm hoping that maybe I
have a lot of female genes :-)
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-13 18:43:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
My point was the number of rejected mail-in votes was fairly small, I
think a thousand or two.  Correcting those mistakes won't likely change
the result.
You are correct in that the court ruling applied to only about 3K
mail-in ballots from what I read. That is only part of the problem in
the rejection of the 53K registrations. This was in GA and a
consequence of the "exact match" verification system. This was
addressed by the courts and voters are allowed to fill out provisional
ballots. Dealing with the provisional ballots is what is taking so much
time in GA. The problem with mail-in ballots that applied to about 3K
voters was in FL and the courts ruled that they could not be rejected
out of hand based on supposed signature mismatches, but it still takes
time to verify that they were actually submitted by the voter. This is
only part of the problem with mail-in ballots in FL where rejection
rates are about 1 in 100. That is exceptionally high. Even if they are
retained, they are not included in the counts until the rejection is
verified. That could be in the tens of thousands and checking them all
out is going to take time.
I'm thinking of becoming a US citizen - just thinking, and only
because it's becoming so expensive to be a resident alien. That
cost more than $400 last cycle (ten years ago), and $540 this
cycle. It only costs about $500 to become a US citizen, as long
as the rules don't change as they changed for resident-alienship,
which used to be a permanent one-time thing until the rules
were changed and one had to renew every ten years, with the
costs increasing exorbitantly the last two ten-year cycles. I'm
73 now though, so there's a very good chance I won't be alive
for the next cycle when I'd be 83. Nobody knows who my
biological father was, but my mom lived to 79, my maternal
grandmother to 75, and my maternal grandfather to about 82.
I feel that I could live to age 100 at the moment, but things
can change quickly. I've never been arrested or gone on
public assistance, so now that there's no longer any demerit
for being gay nor (I think) for refusing to profess any belief
in magical beings, it seems to me that I could become a US
citizen without any trouble beyond the unavoidable
bureaucratic horror-show (given that all bureaucracy
routinely gets more and more horrible as time goes on).
Sounds like you come from some pretty long lived people. If you inherited their better
genes -- you may very well live past 90. My family is sort of funny that way. Most
of my women relatives and their ancestors lived long lives -- into the late 80s and early
90s. But not many of the men seem to make it past age 70. I'm hoping that maybe I
have a lot of female genes :-)
I don't think of 75, 79, and 82 as being long-lived. I'm 73
already. I was thinking yesterday that last year I met a guy
who was 90 and hung around the coffee shop with outdoor
tables on Castro near market very frequently. I haven't seen
him at all for a long time now. I guess he's gone.

Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-12 07:23:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots
recorded. There are still provisional ballots to count as well as
absentee ballots which have a week to find their way through the
mail.  In addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were
rejected by Kemp because the signature did not "appear" to be the
same as that found in other records such as on the driver license
or because the name on the voter registration did not exactly
match that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on
this list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are
counted last.
If they had a valid ID, they could cast regular ballots.  If not
they could cast provisional ballots.
Post by islander
Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were not
informed that their registration was rejected.  It will take a
while to sort that out.
The courts issued an injunction that prevented Georgia from
rejecting mail-in votes over signature mismatches.
Which would explain why "It isn't over yet."
"It specifically orders the Secretary of State’s office to inform
local elections offices that they should not reject absentee ballots
due to alleged signature mismatches. Instead, they’re ordered to mark
the ballots as provisional and give voters a “pre-rejection notice”
via first-class mail and email, when possible, as well as an
opportunity to resolve the discrepancy."
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/appeals-court-also-declines-stop-georgia-absentee-ballot-injunction/txmNkZiVsk6ekR5VVlKpaJ/
The votes are not automatically counted and the procedure takes time.
My point was the number of rejected mail-in votes was fairly small, I
think a thousand or two.  Correcting those mistakes won't likely
change the result.
You are correct in that the court ruling applied to only about 3K
mail-in ballots from what I read.  That is only part of the problem in
the rejection of the 53K registrations.  This was in GA and a
consequence of the "exact match" verification system.  This was
addressed by the courts and voters are allowed to fill out provisional
ballots.  Dealing with the provisional ballots is what is taking so much
time in GA.  The problem with mail-in ballots that applied to about 3K
voters was in FL and the courts ruled that they could not be rejected
out of hand based on supposed signature mismatches, but it still takes
time to verify that they were actually submitted by the voter.  This is
only part of the problem with mail-in ballots in FL where rejection
rates are about 1 in 100.  That is exceptionally high.  Even if they are
retained, they are not included in the counts until the rejection is
verified.  That could be in the tens of thousands and checking them all
out is going to take time.
I'm not following the math on the tens of thousands. You've got maybe
three thousand rejected mail-in votes, and I'm not seeing even seven
more thousand out of the 53K or anywhere else. For Kemp to drop below
50%, Abrams will have to add over 21K votes while Kemp adds none.
islander
2018-11-12 16:14:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
It isn't over yet.  Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots
recorded. There are still provisional ballots to count as well
as absentee ballots which have a week to find their way through
the mail.  In addition there are 53K mail-in ballots that were
rejected by Kemp because the signature did not "appear" to be
the same as that found in other records such as on the driver
license or because the name on the voter registration did not
exactly match that on previous registrations.
The 53K were new voter registrations, not ballots.  If anyone on
this list showed up to vote, they were permitted to do so.
They were permitted to do so with provisional ballots which are
counted last.
If they had a valid ID, they could cast regular ballots.  If not
they could cast provisional ballots.
Post by islander
Unfortunately those of the 53K who elected to vote by mail were
not informed that their registration was rejected.  It will take a
while to sort that out.
The courts issued an injunction that prevented Georgia from
rejecting mail-in votes over signature mismatches.
Which would explain why "It isn't over yet."
"It specifically orders the Secretary of State’s office to inform
local elections offices that they should not reject absentee ballots
due to alleged signature mismatches. Instead, they’re ordered to
mark the ballots as provisional and give voters a “pre-rejection
notice” via first-class mail and email, when possible, as well as an
opportunity to resolve the discrepancy."
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/appeals-court-also-declines-stop-georgia-absentee-ballot-injunction/txmNkZiVsk6ekR5VVlKpaJ/
The votes are not automatically counted and the procedure takes time.
My point was the number of rejected mail-in votes was fairly small, I
think a thousand or two.  Correcting those mistakes won't likely
change the result.
You are correct in that the court ruling applied to only about 3K
mail-in ballots from what I read.  That is only part of the problem in
the rejection of the 53K registrations.  This was in GA and a
consequence of the "exact match" verification system.  This was
addressed by the courts and voters are allowed to fill out provisional
ballots.  Dealing with the provisional ballots is what is taking so
much time in GA.  The problem with mail-in ballots that applied to
about 3K voters was in FL and the courts ruled that they could not be
rejected out of hand based on supposed signature mismatches, but it
still takes time to verify that they were actually submitted by the
voter.  This is only part of the problem with mail-in ballots in FL
where rejection rates are about 1 in 100.  That is exceptionally
high.  Even if they are retained, they are not included in the counts
until the rejection is verified.  That could be in the tens of
thousands and checking them all out is going to take time.
I'm not following the math on the tens of thousands.  You've got maybe
three thousand rejected mail-in votes, and I'm not seeing even seven
more thousand out of the 53K or anywhere else.  For Kemp to drop below
50%, Abrams will have to add over 21K votes while Kemp adds none.
Not my math, but Abrams team seems to think that the votes are there. I
applaud her for fighting until every vote is counted, at least to the
extent that is possible. But, even if Kemp falls below 50% that only
means that Abrams has to win over 50% in a run-off. It is going to be
difficult because voters who voted for the Libertarian candidate will
probably vote for Kemp, if they bother to vote. If we get to that
point, it is going to be a battle for turnout, IMV.
Gary
2018-11-08 12:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
After today's vote it looks like the Senate will be more solidly
Republican. If another seat opens up, there will be no more Kavanaugh
fiascos. With the presidential election in two years, I doubt that
Democrats will want to be known as the party of open borders.
Immigration deals may be possible. And Trump will always have his
executive orders.
Looks like you have a Republican governor out there in Georgia. (-8
I feel like I did the day Trump won. I wasn't all that crazy about him, but he sure
was better than the alternative :-)
There is one problem. With a race this close, the loser may demand a recount -- and
who knows what will happen ? In Georgia -- the winner must get 50% plus one vote.
And with a third candidate in the race -- we are very close to UNDER 50%. Which could
force a run-off.
Oh bummer, the black lady didn't win outright, eh?
It is an eyebrow-raiser that the other guy was both
a candidate and the supervisor of the election, though.
We may not have heard the end of this.
What do you have against the black lady, other than
that she's black?
It isn't over yet. Kemp presently has 50.3% of the ballots recorded.
There are still provisional ballots to count as well as absentee ballots
which have a week to find their way through the mail. In addition there
are 53K mail-in ballots that were rejected by Kemp because the signature
did not "appear" to be the same as that found in other records such as
on the driver license or because the name on the voter registration did
not exactly match that on previous registrations. The legal cases are
still being fought over this, but a few thousand specific voter
registrations have been ordered to be accepted by the courts. It will
take time to sort this all out. Abrams is refusing to concede until
every vote is counted. If the returns still out reduce Kemp's lead to
less than 50%, there will be a run-off.
Admittedly, a win by Abrams is a long shot, but it is good to see that
she is still fighting. A Democrat with a spine! Imagine that!
A Democrat who is black and .. wants something. Imagine that :-)
w***@gmail.com
2018-11-07 20:00:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
That's not settled law. But if "subject to the jurisdiction" means you
have to obey our laws, then I would think the children of unauthorized
aliens born in the USA are citizens at birth.
SCOTUS did hold in Plyler that unauthorized aliens are "within the
jurisdiction" as required b the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Just looked up diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic exemption from law
enforcement is far from total, and varies depending on the duties and
status of the diplomat. Their status differs from that of a citizen,
but the same could be said of an illegal alien. It is hard to believe
that the current SC would confer the birthright privilege to illegal
mothers, but we shall see. (-8
Nothing this group would do would surprise me. They might declare all Mexicans to be
American citizens.
After today's vote it looks like the Senate will be more solidly
Republican. If another seat opens up, there will be no more Kavanaugh
fiascos. With the presidential election in two years, I doubt that
Democrats will want to be known as the party of open borders.
Immigration deals may be possible. And Trump will always have his
executive orders.
Looks like you have a Republican governor out there in Georgia. (-8
I feel like I did the day Trump won. I wasn't all that crazy about him, but he sure
was better than the alternative :-)
There is one problem. With a race this close, the loser may demand a recount -- and
who knows what will happen ? In Georgia -- the winner must get 50% plus one vote.
And with a third candidate in the race -- we are very close to UNDER 50%. Which could
force a run-off.
Oh bummer, the black lady didn't win outright, eh?
It is an eyebrow-raiser that the other guy was both
a candidate and the supervisor of the election, though.
We may not have heard the end of this.
And voter suppression should be checked!
Johnny
2018-11-06 20:32:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:08:15 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s
when I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the
problem with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half
when they created the jurisdictional language with the
constitutional amendment. They should have simply said what they
wanted to say in a plain and simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
According to Senator Jacob Howard the author of the Fourteenth
Amendment, this is how it applies.


Speech on the proposed 14th Amendment

During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Howard argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof:"

...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and
subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and
national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of
course, include persons born in the United States who are
foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or
foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United
States, but will include every other class of person.[9]


...several legal scholars and commentators argued that a close reading
of Howard's statement reveals that he meant one class of persons -- the
children of ambassadors at posts in the United States at the time their
children were born -- because ambassadors to the U.S. would be
foreigners, and since they weren't permanent residents, they were
aliens.[11][12] In their view, Howard was not describing three classes
-- the children born of ambassadors and foreigners and aliens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#Speech_on_the_proposed_14th_Amendment
El Castor
2018-11-06 21:51:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:08:15 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s
when I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the
problem with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half
when they created the jurisdictional language with the
constitutional amendment. They should have simply said what they
wanted to say in a plain and simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
According to Senator Jacob Howard the author of the Fourteenth
Amendment, this is how it applies.
Speech on the proposed 14th Amendment
During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Howard argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof:"
...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and
subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and
national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of
course, include persons born in the United States who are
foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or
foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United
States, but will include every other class of person.[9]
...several legal scholars and commentators argued that a close reading
of Howard's statement reveals that he meant one class of persons -- the
children of ambassadors at posts in the United States at the time their
children were born -- because ambassadors to the U.S. would be
foreigners, and since they weren't permanent residents, they were
aliens.[11][12] In their view, Howard was not describing three classes
-- the children born of ambassadors and foreigners and aliens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#Speech_on_the_proposed_14th_Amendment
Well, sooner, rather than later, it will all be up to the current
Supreme Court.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-06 22:58:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:08:15 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s
when I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the
problem with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half
when they created the jurisdictional language with the
constitutional amendment. They should have simply said what they
wanted to say in a plain and simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
According to Senator Jacob Howard the author of the Fourteenth
Amendment, this is how it applies.
Speech on the proposed 14th Amendment
During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Howard argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof:"
...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and
subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and
national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of
course, include persons born in the United States who are
foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or
foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United
States, but will include every other class of person.[9]
...several legal scholars and commentators argued that a close reading
of Howard's statement reveals that he meant one class of persons -- the
children of ambassadors at posts in the United States at the time their
children were born -- because ambassadors to the U.S. would be
foreigners, and since they weren't permanent residents, they were
aliens.[11][12] In their view, Howard was not describing three classes
-- the children born of ambassadors and foreigners and aliens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#Speech_on_the_proposed_14th_Amendment
Well, sooner, rather than later, it will all be up to the current
Supreme Court.
I don't think it will be sooner. Trump is just bullshitting with his
promise. And even if he isn't, an executive order will be struck down
by lower courts without SCOTUS weighing in. The only way to get the
case to SCOTUS is for Congress to pass a law, and that's not happening.
El Castor
2018-11-07 08:25:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:08:15 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s
when I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the
problem with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half
when they created the jurisdictional language with the
constitutional amendment. They should have simply said what they
wanted to say in a plain and simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
According to Senator Jacob Howard the author of the Fourteenth
Amendment, this is how it applies.
Speech on the proposed 14th Amendment
During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Howard argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof:"
...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and
subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and
national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of
course, include persons born in the United States who are
foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or
foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United
States, but will include every other class of person.[9]
...several legal scholars and commentators argued that a close reading
of Howard's statement reveals that he meant one class of persons -- the
children of ambassadors at posts in the United States at the time their
children were born -- because ambassadors to the U.S. would be
foreigners, and since they weren't permanent residents, they were
aliens.[11][12] In their view, Howard was not describing three classes
-- the children born of ambassadors and foreigners and aliens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#Speech_on_the_proposed_14th_Amendment
Well, sooner, rather than later, it will all be up to the current
Supreme Court.
I don't think it will be sooner. Trump is just bullshitting with his
promise. And even if he isn't, an executive order will be struck down
by lower courts without SCOTUS weighing in. The only way to get the
case to SCOTUS is for Congress to pass a law, and that's not happening.
Here's a description of how it might happen ...

"President Trump knows his Executive Order would be lucky to remain in
effect for 48 hours before being enjoined.
Then it will go to an appellate court — likely the Ninth Circuit —
that the newborn’s lawyers chose as a matter of strategy. Again,
President Trump, like everyone else, expects the injunction to stand.
That paves the way for a government appeal to the Supreme Court. If
the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, no problem! The president
will issue a modified Executive Order. The process will play itself
out again. And again and again until the Supreme Court rules."
https://www.newsmax.com/abramsonandballabon/birthright-citizenship-trump-supreme-court/2018/11/02/id/889158/
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-11-07 12:35:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:08:15 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s
when I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the
problem with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half
when they created the jurisdictional language with the
constitutional amendment. They should have simply said what they
wanted to say in a plain and simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
According to Senator Jacob Howard the author of the Fourteenth
Amendment, this is how it applies.
Speech on the proposed 14th Amendment
During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Howard argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof:"
...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and
subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and
national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of
course, include persons born in the United States who are
foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or
foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United
States, but will include every other class of person.[9]
...several legal scholars and commentators argued that a close reading
of Howard's statement reveals that he meant one class of persons -- the
children of ambassadors at posts in the United States at the time their
children were born -- because ambassadors to the U.S. would be
foreigners, and since they weren't permanent residents, they were
aliens.[11][12] In their view, Howard was not describing three classes
-- the children born of ambassadors and foreigners and aliens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#Speech_on_the_proposed_14th_Amendment
Well, sooner, rather than later, it will all be up to the current
Supreme Court.
I don't think it will be sooner. Trump is just bullshitting with his
promise. And even if he isn't, an executive order will be struck down
by lower courts without SCOTUS weighing in. The only way to get the
case to SCOTUS is for Congress to pass a law, and that's not happening.
Here's a description of how it might happen ...
"President Trump knows his Executive Order would be lucky to remain in
effect for 48 hours before being enjoined.
Then it will go to an appellate court — likely the Ninth Circuit —
that the newborn’s lawyers chose as a matter of strategy. Again,
President Trump, like everyone else, expects the injunction to stand.
That paves the way for a government appeal to the Supreme Court. If
the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, no problem! The president
will issue a modified Executive Order. The process will play itself
out again. And again and again until the Supreme Court rules."
https://www.newsmax.com/abramsonandballabon/birthright-citizenship-trump-supreme-court/2018/11/02/id/889158/
... again and again until Trump leaves office.
El Castor
2018-11-07 16:19:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:08:15 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
"Too clever by half" was a popular saying back in the 70s and 80s
when I worked at the steel plant and it looks like that was the
problem with the amendment. The writers were too clever by half
when they created the jurisdictional language with the
constitutional amendment. They should have simply said what they
wanted to say in a plain and simple fashion.
Without the jurisdictional language, then everybody born in the USA
would be citizens including the children of foreign diplomats.
How does the jurisdictional language apply to illegal aliens who are
here without the consent, or knowledge, of the US government?
According to Senator Jacob Howard the author of the Fourteenth
Amendment, this is how it applies.
Speech on the proposed 14th Amendment
During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Howard argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof:"
...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and
subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and
national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of
course, include persons born in the United States who are
foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or
foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United
States, but will include every other class of person.[9]
...several legal scholars and commentators argued that a close reading
of Howard's statement reveals that he meant one class of persons -- the
children of ambassadors at posts in the United States at the time their
children were born -- because ambassadors to the U.S. would be
foreigners, and since they weren't permanent residents, they were
aliens.[11][12] In their view, Howard was not describing three classes
-- the children born of ambassadors and foreigners and aliens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#Speech_on_the_proposed_14th_Amendment
Well, sooner, rather than later, it will all be up to the current
Supreme Court.
I don't think it will be sooner. Trump is just bullshitting with his
promise. And even if he isn't, an executive order will be struck down
by lower courts without SCOTUS weighing in. The only way to get the
case to SCOTUS is for Congress to pass a law, and that's not happening.
Here's a description of how it might happen ...
"President Trump knows his Executive Order would be lucky to remain in
effect for 48 hours before being enjoined.
Then it will go to an appellate court — likely the Ninth Circuit —
that the newborn’s lawyers chose as a matter of strategy. Again,
President Trump, like everyone else, expects the injunction to stand.
That paves the way for a government appeal to the Supreme Court. If
the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, no problem! The president
will issue a modified Executive Order. The process will play itself
out again. And again and again until the Supreme Court rules."
https://www.newsmax.com/abramsonandballabon/birthright-citizenship-trump-supreme-court/2018/11/02/id/889158/
... again and again until Trump leaves office.
If you Democrats insist on fighting for open borders and a socialist
agenda, he may not be leaving office for another 6 years. Republicans
did better than expected in Ohio and Florida -- two states that are
keys to the presidential election, so we shall see.

BTW --
"U.S. Added 250,000 Jobs in October; Unemployment at 3.7%"
"Last week, the government estimated that the economy grew at a hearty
annualized rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter. Confidence
remains high among consumers and business leaders. Over the past year,
employers have added an average of 210,000 jobs a month."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/business/economy/jobs-report.html
Gary
2018-11-08 12:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by me
The idea that someone born to people illegal in the country has citizenship is absurd.
Yes it is, but that's politics for you. Someone ought to write a book.
They could entitle it "Political Absurdities", for instance.
I don't see how it's so different from somebody born to
people legal in the country has citizenship.
Post by mg
One thing that I've been wondering about is which president can we
give credit to for fabricating that absurd interpretation of an
amendment that was actually only created to guaranty the citizenship
of former black slaves. My knee-jerk guess would be LBJ in about the
same time period in which he managed to cram through the disasterous
Immigration Act of 1965.
Originally slaves were not citizens and the children of slaves
were also not citizens. That's where the absurdity comes in.
Once the slaves were freed and granted citizenship under the
Civil Rights act of 1866, it would be have been absurd to deny
citizenship to the children of former slaves now citizens, ISTM.
You have to look at things like the slave owners did.

If all the (other) farm animals were suddenly freed to roam around -- would you have any
trouble with them becoming citizens and getting the vote ?
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-08 14:01:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by me
The idea that someone born to people illegal in the country has citizenship is absurd.
Yes it is, but that's politics for you. Someone ought to write a book.
They could entitle it "Political Absurdities", for instance.
I don't see how it's so different from somebody born to
people legal in the country has citizenship.
Post by mg
One thing that I've been wondering about is which president can we
give credit to for fabricating that absurd interpretation of an
amendment that was actually only created to guaranty the citizenship
of former black slaves. My knee-jerk guess would be LBJ in about the
same time period in which he managed to cram through the disasterous
Immigration Act of 1965.
Originally slaves were not citizens and the children of slaves
were also not citizens. That's where the absurdity comes in.
Once the slaves were freed and granted citizenship under the
Civil Rights act of 1866, it would be have been absurd to deny
citizenship to the children of former slaves now citizens, ISTM.
You have to look at things like the slave owners did.
If all the (other) farm animals were suddenly freed to roam around -- would you have any
trouble with them becoming citizens and getting the vote ?
"The other farm animals", eh?
Gary
2018-11-08 15:00:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by me
The idea that someone born to people illegal in the country has citizenship is absurd.
Yes it is, but that's politics for you. Someone ought to write a book.
They could entitle it "Political Absurdities", for instance.
I don't see how it's so different from somebody born to
people legal in the country has citizenship.
Post by mg
One thing that I've been wondering about is which president can we
give credit to for fabricating that absurd interpretation of an
amendment that was actually only created to guaranty the citizenship
of former black slaves. My knee-jerk guess would be LBJ in about the
same time period in which he managed to cram through the disasterous
Immigration Act of 1965.
Originally slaves were not citizens and the children of slaves
were also not citizens. That's where the absurdity comes in.
Once the slaves were freed and granted citizenship under the
Civil Rights act of 1866, it would be have been absurd to deny
citizenship to the children of former slaves now citizens, ISTM.
You have to look at things like the slave owners did.
If all the (other) farm animals were suddenly freed to roam around -- would you have any
trouble with them becoming citizens and getting the vote ?
"The other farm animals", eh?
That's the way the slave owners looked at it. How else could they justify buying and
selling (almost) fellow humans ?
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-08 15:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by me
The idea that someone born to people illegal in the country has citizenship is absurd.
Yes it is, but that's politics for you. Someone ought to write a book.
They could entitle it "Political Absurdities", for instance.
I don't see how it's so different from somebody born to
people legal in the country has citizenship.
Post by mg
One thing that I've been wondering about is which president can we
give credit to for fabricating that absurd interpretation of an
amendment that was actually only created to guaranty the citizenship
of former black slaves. My knee-jerk guess would be LBJ in about the
same time period in which he managed to cram through the disasterous
Immigration Act of 1965.
Originally slaves were not citizens and the children of slaves
were also not citizens. That's where the absurdity comes in.
Once the slaves were freed and granted citizenship under the
Civil Rights act of 1866, it would be have been absurd to deny
citizenship to the children of former slaves now citizens, ISTM.
You have to look at things like the slave owners did.
If all the (other) farm animals were suddenly freed to roam around -- would you have any
trouble with them becoming citizens and getting the vote ?
"The other farm animals", eh?
That's the way the slave owners looked at it. How else could they justify buying and
selling (almost) fellow humans ?
I don't see how you can reconcile that with your assertion that the
black people didn't mind being treated the way they were treated by
southern white people, but I can't see into your brain.
Gary
2018-11-08 18:15:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by me
The idea that someone born to people illegal in the country has citizenship is absurd.
Yes it is, but that's politics for you. Someone ought to write a book.
They could entitle it "Political Absurdities", for instance.
I don't see how it's so different from somebody born to
people legal in the country has citizenship.
Post by mg
One thing that I've been wondering about is which president can we
give credit to for fabricating that absurd interpretation of an
amendment that was actually only created to guaranty the citizenship
of former black slaves. My knee-jerk guess would be LBJ in about the
same time period in which he managed to cram through the disasterous
Immigration Act of 1965.
Originally slaves were not citizens and the children of slaves
were also not citizens. That's where the absurdity comes in.
Once the slaves were freed and granted citizenship under the
Civil Rights act of 1866, it would be have been absurd to deny
citizenship to the children of former slaves now citizens, ISTM.
You have to look at things like the slave owners did.
If all the (other) farm animals were suddenly freed to roam around -- would you have any
trouble with them becoming citizens and getting the vote ?
"The other farm animals", eh?
That's the way the slave owners looked at it. How else could they justify buying and
selling (almost) fellow humans ?
I don't see how you can reconcile that with your assertion that the
black people didn't mind being treated the way they were treated by
southern white people, but I can't see into your brain.
They did not like it -- but they accepted it. It was better than spending their lives in
a constant turmoil. White folks (my ancestors) did the same thing in England 500 years
ago. They accepted it. Did his Lordship Count (whatever) treat my peasant ancestors
any better or worse than the plantation master treated his slaves ? I doubt it.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-08 22:33:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by me
The idea that someone born to people illegal in the country has citizenship is absurd.
Yes it is, but that's politics for you. Someone ought to write a book.
They could entitle it "Political Absurdities", for instance.
I don't see how it's so different from somebody born to
people legal in the country has citizenship.
Post by mg
One thing that I've been wondering about is which president can we
give credit to for fabricating that absurd interpretation of an
amendment that was actually only created to guaranty the citizenship
of former black slaves. My knee-jerk guess would be LBJ in about the
same time period in which he managed to cram through the disasterous
Immigration Act of 1965.
Originally slaves were not citizens and the children of slaves
were also not citizens. That's where the absurdity comes in.
Once the slaves were freed and granted citizenship under the
Civil Rights act of 1866, it would be have been absurd to deny
citizenship to the children of former slaves now citizens, ISTM.
You have to look at things like the slave owners did.
If all the (other) farm animals were suddenly freed to roam around -- would you have any
trouble with them becoming citizens and getting the vote ?
"The other farm animals", eh?
That's the way the slave owners looked at it. How else could they justify buying and
selling (almost) fellow humans ?
I don't see how you can reconcile that with your assertion that the
black people didn't mind being treated the way they were treated by
southern white people, but I can't see into your brain.
They did not like it -- but they accepted it. It was better than spending their lives in
a constant turmoil. White folks (my ancestors) did the same thing in England 500 years
ago. They accepted it. Did his Lordship Count (whatever) treat my peasant ancestors
any better or worse than the plantation master treated his slaves ? I doubt it.
Once again today, you're in effect saying that the American
Revolution was a mistake, and adding into it a contention that
the end of serfdom in England was a mistake.
Gary
2018-11-09 18:08:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
"The other farm animals", eh?
That's the way the slave owners looked at it. How else could they justify buying and
selling (almost) fellow humans ?
I don't see how you can reconcile that with your assertion that the
black people didn't mind being treated the way they were treated by
southern white people, but I can't see into your brain.
They did not like it -- but they accepted it. It was better than spending their lives in
a constant turmoil. White folks (my ancestors) did the same thing in England 500 years
ago. They accepted it. Did his Lordship Count (whatever) treat my peasant ancestors
any better or worse than the plantation master treated his slaves ? I doubt it.
Once again today, you're in effect saying that the American
Revolution was a mistake, and adding into it a contention that
the end of serfdom in England was a mistake.
To tell the truth, I've never given the Revolution much thought. I do like the country
we now have. But would things today be terrible had there been no revolution ? England
and America are all the product of Anglo-Saxon culture. I am happy with that. If I
didn't live in America -- my other choice would be to live in England.

Do you know why the Revolution was fought ? Because the most powerful leaders in the
colonies in the 1770s were in the South. And when England decided to outlaw slavery --
America said --- "Hell no !". Had England not abolished slavery -- I'd be living in
Georgiashire right now :-)
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-09 23:01:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
"The other farm animals", eh?
That's the way the slave owners looked at it. How else could they justify buying and
selling (almost) fellow humans ?
I don't see how you can reconcile that with your assertion that the
black people didn't mind being treated the way they were treated by
southern white people, but I can't see into your brain.
They did not like it -- but they accepted it. It was better than spending their lives in
a constant turmoil. White folks (my ancestors) did the same thing in England 500 years
ago. They accepted it. Did his Lordship Count (whatever) treat my peasant ancestors
any better or worse than the plantation master treated his slaves ? I doubt it.
Once again today, you're in effect saying that the American
Revolution was a mistake, and adding into it a contention that
the end of serfdom in England was a mistake.
To tell the truth, I've never given the Revolution much thought. I do like the country
we now have. But would things today be terrible had there been no revolution ? England
and America are all the product of Anglo-Saxon culture. I am happy with that. If I
didn't live in America -- my other choice would be to live in England.
Do you know why the Revolution was fought ? Because the most powerful leaders in the
colonies in the 1770s were in the South. And when England decided to outlaw slavery --
America said --- "Hell no !". Had England not abolished slavery -- I'd be living in
Georgiashire right now :-)
On a similar note, I'm right now dealing with renewing my resident
alien status. When I first came to the USA at age 6 in 1951 (my card
says permanent resident since 8/16/52)), one got one's permanent
resident card and that was it, one never had to think about it again.
Then some years later, one had to renew it every ten years, and the
last few times the price has been skyrocketing, It was over $400
ten years ago, and this most recent one was over $500. Of course
the process gets more complicated and more baffling, as well as
more expensive, every time. That's the nature of bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy is a non-living beast whose cells are the humans
working in the bureaucracy. It's in the interest of those cells to
keep making things more complicated and more expensive in order
to justify the existence of the jobs and salaries of the employees.

I've never been arrested and never been in need of charity, so
why do I have to go through this? If I live another ten years,
maybe I should just become a U.S.Citizen, because that only
costs $500, and one only has to do it once. Or at least one only
has to do it once right now. In ten years the naturalization people
might figure that to protect their own bureaucracy and thereby their
own jobs, they'll set up a mandatory ten year renewal process for
that too. That cherry is just too tempting to leave on the tree. It
does tick me off that I have to keep paying more and more money
and putting up with more and more bullshit and aggravation just
to support the salaries of people engaged in a process that gets
continually more and more pointless for anything except keeping
the employees occupied.
Gary
2018-11-09 23:28:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Once again today, you're in effect saying that the American
Revolution was a mistake, and adding into it a contention that
the end of serfdom in England was a mistake.
To tell the truth, I've never given the Revolution much thought. I do like the country
we now have. But would things today be terrible had there been no revolution ? England
and America are all the product of Anglo-Saxon culture. I am happy with that. If I
didn't live in America -- my other choice would be to live in England.
Do you know why the Revolution was fought ? Because the most powerful leaders in the
colonies in the 1770s were in the South. And when England decided to outlaw slavery --
America said --- "Hell no !". Had England not abolished slavery -- I'd be living in
Georgiashire right now :-)
On a similar note, I'm right now dealing with renewing my resident
alien status. When I first came to the USA at age 6 in 1951 (my card
says permanent resident since 8/16/52)), one got one's permanent
resident card and that was it, one never had to think about it again.
Then some years later, one had to renew it every ten years, and the
last few times the price has been skyrocketing, It was over $400
ten years ago, and this most recent one was over $500. Of course
the process gets more complicated and more baffling, as well as
more expensive, every time. That's the nature of bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy is a non-living beast whose cells are the humans
working in the bureaucracy. It's in the interest of those cells to
keep making things more complicated and more expensive in order
to justify the existence of the jobs and salaries of the employees.
I've never been arrested and never been in need of charity, so
why do I have to go through this? If I live another ten years,
maybe I should just become a U.S.Citizen, because that only
costs $500, and one only has to do it once. Or at least one only
has to do it once right now. In ten years the naturalization people
might figure that to protect their own bureaucracy and thereby their
own jobs, they'll set up a mandatory ten year renewal process for
that too. That cherry is just too tempting to leave on the tree. It
does tick me off that I have to keep paying more and more money
and putting up with more and more bullshit and aggravation just
to support the salaries of people engaged in a process that gets
continually more and more pointless for anything except keeping
the employees occupied.
I had no idea it was so much trouble and so expensive for a permanent resident. I could
understand if a person had only been here a couple of years -- the government wanting to
keep up with him. But you've been here over 50 years ! You are an American ! At
least you are "one of us". And this is ridicules. Wish you luck in handling it all.

Why not become a citizen ? Would that invalidate your English citizenship ?

BTW, you left England in 1951 ? I arrived there in 1950. So we were there at the
same time as children :-)
rumpelstiltskin
2018-11-10 00:07:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Once again today, you're in effect saying that the American
Revolution was a mistake, and adding into it a contention that
the end of serfdom in England was a mistake.
To tell the truth, I've never given the Revolution much thought. I do like the country
we now have. But would things today be terrible had there been no revolution ? England
and America are all the product of Anglo-Saxon culture. I am happy with that. If I
didn't live in America -- my other choice would be to live in England.
Do you know why the Revolution was fought ? Because the most powerful leaders in the
colonies in the 1770s were in the South. And when England decided to outlaw slavery --
America said --- "Hell no !". Had England not abolished slavery -- I'd be living in
Georgiashire right now :-)
On a similar note, I'm right now dealing with renewing my resident
alien status. When I first came to the USA at age 6 in 1951 (my card
says permanent resident since 8/16/52)), one got one's permanent
resident card and that was it, one never had to think about it again.
Then some years later, one had to renew it every ten years, and the
last few times the price has been skyrocketing, It was over $400
ten years ago, and this most recent one was over $500. Of course
the process gets more complicated and more baffling, as well as
more expensive, every time. That's the nature of bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy is a non-living beast whose cells are the humans
working in the bureaucracy. It's in the interest of those cells to
keep making things more complicated and more expensive in order
to justify the existence of the jobs and salaries of the employees.
I've never been arrested and never been in need of charity, so
why do I have to go through this? If I live another ten years,
maybe I should just become a U.S.Citizen, because that only
costs $500, and one only has to do it once. Or at least one only
has to do it once right now. In ten years the naturalization people
might figure that to protect their own bureaucracy and thereby their
own jobs, they'll set up a mandatory ten year renewal process for
that too. That cherry is just too tempting to leave on the tree. It
does tick me off that I have to keep paying more and more money
and putting up with more and more bullshit and aggravation just
to support the salaries of people engaged in a process that gets
continually more and more pointless for anything except keeping
the employees occupied.
I had no idea it was so much trouble and so expensive for a permanent resident. I could
understand if a person had only been here a couple of years -- the government wanting to
keep up with him. But you've been here over 50 years ! You are an American ! At
least you are "one of us". And this is ridicules. Wish you luck in handling it all.
Why not become a citizen ? Would that invalidate your English citizenship ?
No, I wouldn't lose my British citizenship. I never became
an American citizen for a childish reason, that I was dragged
from England to America (at age 5 or 6) against my will and
resented it. But jeez, how long should I hold a grudge? I'm
73 now though so by the time the choice of citizenship versus
resident-alienship comes up again, in ten years, I may well
be dead.

I mentioned to a woman yesterday that I was trying to get
in touch with my all-time-favourite boyfriend, who's 59 now,
and mentioned in the process that I was 73. She said she
was surprised, because she thought I was much younger.
That felt good! I found a guy with the right name, and
exactly the right age (59), in his home town of Sacramento.
I wrote him a card, but I don't know if it's him. He might
be dead now for all I know. He was a wild kid. Irresponsible
as all hell, but who cares. I couldn't believe I snagged such
a beautiful boyfriend, and HE picked ME up!!! He looked (and
acted) like this, as I and my friend Charlie agreed when we
went to see the movie. (Charlie was the guy who had
piqued his interest in me.):
https://tinyurl.com/yca2g2vz
When we were out, I caught straight guys with their
girlfriends sneaking lustful glances at him, especially when
we went to a La Belle concert with him dressed in a green
belly-dancing outfit.
Post by Gary
BTW, you left England in 1951 ? I arrived there in 1950. So we were there at the
same time as children :-)
You were in the South though, around London. I was in
the boonies, in Yorkshire.
CLOISTER
2018-11-05 11:17:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
"Trump should end birthright citizenship. It shouldn't have existed in
the first place.
Michael Anton, Opinion contributor Published 7:00 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
| Updated 8:42 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2018
We should protect our borders and our country by ending birthright
citizenship. The framers never intended for it, anyway.
Birthright citizenship is foolish, uncommon and unconstitutional.
Let’s take those in reverse order.
Many assume that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires
granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
That’s wrong.
The 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee the citizenship of freed
black slaves and their descendants. Before the Civil War, there had
been no federal definition of citizenship. After the war, some states
tried to use that fact to deny citizenship to freed slaves. In
response, Congress first passed a law and later the amendment —
subsequently ratified by all then-existing states — to clarify the
issue forever.
Framers didn't intend for birthright citizenship
The amendment specifies that “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.” If the
framers simply intended to make citizens of any person born in U.S.
territory, then that central clause has no purpose.
But they didn’t, and it does. It’s there to clarify that simply being
born here is not enough. An early draft of the amendment lacked the
jurisdiction clause, prompting some to ask whether the amendment
amounted to a grant of citizenship to anyone born here regardless of
status. The drafters immediately answered no: Only those “not owing
allegiance to anybody else” and “not subject to some foreign power”are
automatically granted birthright citizenship.
Hence the Constitution sets two criteria for citizenship: birth or
naturalization, and subject to our jurisdiction. Ignoring the latter
is therefore unconstitutional.
So how did we get where we are? It’s a long story but in brief, one
side of the political debate long ago decided, for its own advantage,
to pretend as if the amendment doesn’t mean what it says. There is
nothing in the Constitution or in statute law that gives the federal
government authority to grant citizenship to people not entitled to
it. Federal agencies simply do it, the same way they do so many things
they have no authority to do. It’s one of thousands of examples of our
runaway, undemocratic, unelected bureaucracy acting in concert with
liberal interests. There’s no reason why the elected president
couldn’t tell the agencies that report to him to stop doing something
nobody ever told them to do in the first place.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it's foolish
Birthright citizenship is not common. Of the 197 countries in the
world, only 33 honor birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship is rare because it is foolish. In our country,
for instance, it has led to ridiculous abuses such as “birth tourism.”
Relatively affluent women spend tens of thousands of dollars to have
their babies in America so they can take junior home with a U.S.
passport and citizenship, guaranteeing the whole family American
residency whenever they want it. Partially in response to this abuse,
eight countries have curtailed or ended the practice in recent years;
zero has adopted it. Canada — the only other wealthy country that
allows birthright citizenship — is debating it just as we are.
President Trump has wisely said that “if you don’t have borders, you
don’t have a country.” Similarly, if breaking our law is sufficient to
make someone a citizen, then the citizenship of all lawful citizens is
weakened and the meaning of citizenship is trivialized.
Michael Anton is a lecturer in politics and research fellow at the
Hillsdale College Kirby Center and a former national security official
in the Trump administration.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/01/framers-never-wanted-birthright-citizenship/1831577002/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-constitution/574381/
No matter which of these options Trump pursues, the news is very somber. A nation that can rid itself of groups it dislikes has journeyed far down the road to authoritarian rule.
The idea behind the attack on birthright citizenship is often obscured by a wall of dubious originalist rhetoric and legalese. At its base, the claim is that children born in the U.S. are not citizens if they are born to noncitizen parents. The idea contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, it flies in the face of more than a century of practice, and it would create a shadow population of American-born people who have no state, no legal protection, and no real rights that the government is bound to respect.
It would set the stage for an internal witch hunt worse than almost anything since the anti-immigrant rage of the 1920s .... (cont)
Loading Image...
Loading...