The dregs of birther remainders.

[Suranis]

It is funny that these morons hate Haley and love Trump. Policy wise there is no difference. But IMO Haley's chances of winning the general election against Biden are much better than Trump's. So Dregs keep on hating Nikki and loving the orange freak. I am fine with that.

Plus, TFG's mom was still a Scottish citizen, and therefore British citizen, when he was born. So was affected by the British Nationality Act that they so loved back in the day.

[Reality Check]

Plus, TFG's mom was still a Scottish citizen, and therefore British citizen, when he was born. So was affected by the British Nationality Act that they so loved back in the day.

Good point!

Edit: Actually it is not cut and dry that he is a British citizen through his mother.

[Suranis]

Plus, TFG's mom was still a Scottish citizen, and therefore British citizen, when he was born. So was affected by the British Nationality Act that they so loved back in the day.

Good point!

Edit: Actually it is not cut and dry that he is a British citizen through his mother.

Ya, I read the Act back in the day and found it did not confer citizenship through ze wimmins.

But the IMPORTANT thing is that SHE was not a full 100% pure US Citizen, right? That's what they would be saying if he was a Democrat and had a thimbleful of decency in his whole body.

[Sam the Centipede]

Of course Trump is a US citizen according to the main birther requirement!

Yes, he is white … actually a bilious shade of vomity orange, but that's white enough for the birthers.

[bob]

His mother naturalized before he was born.

I don't know what effect that had on her UK citizenship, but birthers love to say, "Once a Brit, always a Brit" when disparaging those even vaguely close to a former British colony, like Kenya, Jamaica, India, or Canada.

[Sam the Centipede]

His mother naturalized before he was born.

I don't know what effect that had on her UK citizenship, but birthers love to say, "Once a Brit, always a Brit" when disparaging those even vaguely close to a former British colony, like Kenya, Jamaica, India, or Canada.

My recollection stuff that, I'll find a link … … here is what the UK Government say on their official website at https://www.gov.uk/dual-citizenship:

Dual citizenship

Dual citizenship (also known as dual nationality) is allowed in the UK. This means you can be a British citizen and also a citizen of other countries.

You do not need to apply for dual citizenship. You can apply for foreign citizenship and keep your British citizenship.

Many countries do not accept dual citizenship. Check with the country’s consulate or embassy in the UK to find out about that country’s laws on dual nationality.

So a naturalizing person retains her UK citizenship unless she chooses to renounce it. Can she renounce it? Yes, the restrictions aren't onerous, effectively she'd have to have decision-making capability (age, etc.) and have another citizenship to avoid become stateless, see (again UK Government official stuff): https://www.gov.uk/renounce-british-nationality. But I don't think there are many advantages to renouncing UK citizenship, it's not one of those countries (like the USA, Netherlands I think, I don't know what others) which insists any person the country identifies as a citizen is automatically liable to pay taxes, perform military service, etc.

[realist]

P&E comment:

This is very good that finally some of the big conservative movers and shakers of the news in one of the closer circles who know Trump are putting Paul InGrassia on their shows. And imo Trump has signaled the nbC issue can be talked about and their fear of the name calling like “birther” and “racist” and the ridicule factor are have little to no effect anymore.

It is so cute when Kerchner lies to himself!

I would like to see Steve Bannon have Paul back on his podcast again and spend a good solid hour on the nbC issue. Then after getting Steve Bannon and his crew totally onboard for this constitutional fight, maybe get Dan Bongino on board too. As they say, “The worm is finaly turning.”

"Any day now! VVIPs with standing!" --Every birther for the past 15 years.

Also. Too.

Johnathan J. says:
Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 12:46 AM

Paul Ingrassia said “anybody” can file an eligibility challenge against Haley, but nobody has, not even Ingrassia.

[bob]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[bob]

P&E comment:

In Wong Kim Ark and as Ingrassia related, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in its opinion, ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. …As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

People often say that Justice Gray citing this passage of the Minor v Happersett decision is proof that he cited it because he agrees with it and that a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents. However that ignores his stated reasons for citing Minor.

► Show Spoiler

Starting at paragraph 55 Justice Gray describes the opinion in the Slaughter House Cases. And he highlights Justice Miller’s statement ‘The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States.’ from that case. This statement by Justice Miller would preclude children with alien parents from being citizens. Justice Gray however points out why this statement “unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities” is nonbinding dicta (Paragraph 57).

Justice Gray then points out that the very same set of Justices (with the exception of Chief Justice Chase who had died) refused to come to a conclusion about children born in the US to alien parents (Paragraph 59).

That neither Mr. Justice Miller, nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of the Slaughter House Cases, understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign states were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment, is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench …

Justice Gray was not highlighting the ” all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens” statement in Minor but the fact that the Minor Court did not conclude the situation of “[some] authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

Justice Gray resolved those doubts.

P&E: The “ONPS” Disorder:

The “Obot Neural Paralysis Syndrome” (for brevity, “ONPS”) continues to spread, despite all efforts to bring it to ground. Forget about Wuhan and the Covid-19 lab leak. The ONPS continues to attack functioning rational brain cells and neural synapses when it comes to the “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) presidential eligibility issue.

* * *

The Leland comment sought to “explain” Justice Gray’s remarks regarding the decision in Minor. The exercise was undertaken seemingly in an effort to shore up the contention that the language of the quote from Minor does not really mean what it says, at least according, purportedly, to Justice Gray.

["DeMaio's nothing-like-you've-seen-before talking points ]

Commenter Leland’s observations typify those of persons with ONPS. And while lamentable, it merely underscores the adage that people believe what they want to believe as opposed to what might otherwise be the empirical truth.

In other news, there was a rapid, unscheduled disassembly of irony meters. Again.

[Sam the Centipede]

Are the birthers complaining there about the rule that babies born on US soil to parents who are in the USA as ambassadors etc. of other countries do not automatically acquire US citizenship? Seems only polite to me, I imagine it's a fairly common rule around the globe.

So the birthers are now obsessed with the fact that rational and decent people are not obsessed with their nonsense!

Except the saintly bob, of course. Ah, that gives us a new verb, "bobsess", to be overly interested in what birthers write.

[bob]

Are the birthers complaining there about the rule that babies born on US soil to parents who are in the USA as ambassadors etc. of other countries do not automatically acquire US citizenship?

No. They continue to quote mine Wong Kim Ark, to make unwarranted conclusions that are contrary to other courts' reading of it.

When denying reality from the glorious bubble of Rondeau's safe space..

[noblepa]

Are the birthers complaining there about the rule that babies born on US soil to parents who are in the USA as ambassadors etc. of other countries do not automatically acquire US citizenship?

No. They continue to quote mine Wong Kim Ark, to make unwarranted conclusions that are contrary to other courts' reading of it.

When denying reality from the glorious bubble of Rondeau's safe space..

I have read both the Minor v Happersett and Wong Kim Ark decisions.

The birthers love to cite Minor's brief reference to the two-parentt rule as proof that this decision confirmed their belief. To my IANAL reading, it seems to do just the opposite, or at least ignores it. Indeed, the decision says that some authorities do NOT believe that the two parent rule is real, but that it is irrelevant to the instant case of Ms. Minor, and therefore they will not consider it. After all, there was no question that both of Ms. Minor's parents were citizens and there was no doubt that she had been born in the US, so she was clearly, but any definition, a citizen. The question was whether, under the 14th amendment, voting was a right of citizenship. The court ruled that it was not; that voting could be denied to a citizen.

The Minor decision is very clearly written and easy to understand. Wong Kim Ark is not. I have tried to read it several times. I find it very obtuse and difficult to ascertain exactly what the ruling is. For me, it is complicated by the fact that the published decision seems to contain both the holding by the court and dissenting opinions by other members of the court. This makes it difficult for me to seperate the holding from the dissent and other dicta.

This whole argument would be moot if the Constitution actually defined what is meant by "Natural Born Citizen". I wonder, since the Constitution is silent on this point, if Congress were to pass a law defining NBC one way or the other, would that statute pass Constitutional muster? After all, such a law would not be purporting to change the requirements for presidential eligibility, merely defining the term more clearly.

[Sam the Centipede]

This whole argument would be moot if the Constitution actually defined what is meant by "Natural Born Citizen". I wonder, since the Constitution is silent on this point, if Congress were to pass a law defining NBC one way or the other, would that statute pass Constitutional muster? After all, such a law would not be purporting to change the requirements for presidential eligibility, merely defining the term more clearly.

The lawyers here don't seem to like this explanation based on language rather than law. But…

"Natural born" is perhaps archaic but its plain English meaning centuries ago and now is to indicate that the person (or perhaps animal?) was that way (had that nature) at birth (when born). We might say now "Jimmy was a natural born singer" meaning Jimmy always had a great voice even when very young and used it. More commonly modern English goes for "Kim is a natural ball player" to convey that meaning. But we also have "Charley is a born wrestler."

So, linguistically, "natural born citizen" means exactly that one was a citizen at birth, when born. As opposed to undergoing naturalization at an older age.

For that reason it does not seem to me to be an oversight that the initiating legislators didn't define the term: for them it had a plain and clear meaning. If it were a term of art they would have glossed or defined it for clarity and precision. They would not do that for something where the plain meaning and legal meaning are in accord. So why should a legislature now pass extra laws because people don't understand plain English?

I don't understand why too many people want to concoct an elaborate framework of conjectured terms of art to make the issue more complex. But William of Ockham is my guide here.

I'm sure our lawyers will froth at the mouths, but, yeah, none of this really matters.

[bob]

The birthers love to cite Minor's brief reference to the two-parentt rule as proof that this decision confirmed their belief.

And "Leland"'s point was that Wong Kim Ark's quoting Minor was not to support the birthers' belief. But the opposite: to resolve the "doubts" that Minor had noted but didn't resolve.

"DeMaio"'s talking points don't even address this.

Wong Kim Ark is not. I have tried to read it several times. I find it very obtuse and difficult to ascertain exactly what the ruling is.

Wong Kim Ark held, minor exceptions aside, those born in the United States are U.S. citizens. There is no way to read Wong Kim Ark's analysis, however, and conclude it somehow ruled he was a U.S. citizen yet not a natural-born citizen. The dissent makes this point: the majority's ruling necessarily leads to that conclusion about natural-born citizenship even if it didn't expressly say so.

Due to its obtuseness, however, some have attempted to graft on a more narrow ruling, e.g., those born in the United States are U.S. citizens, provided their parents were legally in the country but excluded from naturalizing. But no court (thus far ) has read Wong Kim Ark for anything other than the broader ruling.

I wonder, since the Constitution is silent on this point, if Congress were to pass a law defining NBC one way or the other, would that statute pass Constitutional muster?

No (with caveats). Congress (generally) cannot define terms in the U.S. Constitution; that's the job of the courts alone.

In this particular instance, two non-frivolous arguments could be made:
1. The U.S. Constitution itself says Congress may devise citizenship and immigration laws. It wouldn't be too big of a leap to say, if Congress can (and has) defined citizenship, why cannot it not also define natural-born citizenship? (This, however, will run into the effect of Wong Kim Ark, i.e., it invalidated as unconstitutional the Chinese Exclusion Act because it had attempted to define citizenship in a manner contrary to the U.S. Constitution.)
2. The 14th Amendment enforcement section (arguably) could be read to authorize Congress to legislate a definition. Not a strong argument, but better than what the birthers peddle.

And, of course: Amendment. Birthers could (and "should") push for a constitutional amendment. But there's more interest in abolishing the natural-born-citizen requirement rather than in narrowing its definition.

[bob]

Johnathan J. says:
Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 12:46 AM

Paul Ingrassia said “anybody” can file an eligibility challenge against Haley, but nobody has, not even Ingrassia.

P&E comment:

I did. I apprised both Iowa and New Hampshire that Haley and Ramaswamy were not eligible. New Hampshire SOS told me that nothing could be done since Haley was already on the ballot.,making no mention of Ramaswamy.

Iowa never answered me at all.

Robert "Last Birther Standing" rolled over like a dog when he was shrouded!

* * *

Also:

IMHO, We do not have a proper understanding of human psychology when it comes to taking this information to heart. I have good conservative friends who seem like they are constitutionally (I couldn’t resist) incapable of “going there” when it comes to Natural Born Citizen.

It is just a guess but there is something in our make up that automatically defers to authority in many regards: Rule making, expertise, management.

How queer in a civilized society to defer to actual laws.

Very few are willing to reject that state of mind and truly “question authority”. Plus, the psy-ops crew knows exactly how to crush such questioning; i.e., make us look crazy.

Making birthers "look" crazy takes no effort at all.

[realist]

I never really figured out why, but I always liked the way this one was worded.

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

[noblepa]

I never really figured out why, but I always liked the way this one was worded.

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

Maybe I'm misreading that quote, but it seems to be making the same argument that the birthers do; that, if your parents are not US citizens, then your allegiance is to the other country.

I disagree with the premise, though. Birth and allegiance do NOT go together. One can not do anything about where they were born, but allegiance is a decision that each individual must make. It is not automatic and can not be inferred to any particular country due to birth. There are many cases of traitors who were born in the US but chose allegiance to another country.

[realist]

I never really figured out why, but I always liked the way this one was worded.

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

Maybe I'm misreading that quote, but it seems to be making the same argument that the birthers do; that, if your parents are not US citizens, then your allegiance is to the other country.

I disagree with the premise, though. Birth and allegiance do NOT go together. One can not do anything about where they were born, but allegiance is a decision that each individual must make. It is not automatic and can not be inferred to any particular country due to birth. There are many cases of traitors who were born in the US but chose allegiance to another country.

No, it's making the opposite argument.

[Foggy]

Yeah, when it says "birth and allegiance go together" it directly contradicts the birther argument. They would have you believe that "parentage (or ancestry) and allegiance go together," which is called jus sanguinis.

But if birth and allegiance go together, it matters not what your parents' allegiance is. That's the law in the US, and it's called jus soli.

[keith]

I have read both the Minor v Happersett and Wong Kim Ark decisions.

The birthers love to cite Minor's brief reference to the two-parentt rule as proof that this decision confirmed their belief. To my IANAL reading, it seems to do just the opposite, or at least ignores it. Indeed, the decision says that some authorities do NOT believe that the two parent rule is real, but that it is irrelevant to the instant case of Ms. Minor, and therefore they will not consider it. After all, there was no question that both of Ms. Minor's parents were citizens and there was no doubt that she had been born in the US, so she was clearly, but any definition, a citizen. The question was whether, under the 14th amendment, voting was a right of citizenship. The court ruled that it was not; that voting could be denied to a citizen.

Absolutely 100% exactly spot-on correct. But when you explain this to them, the dreggies just and believe me, I have tried dozens of times.

The Minor decision is very clearly written and easy to understand. Wong Kim Ark is not. I have tried to read it several times. I find it very obtuse and difficult to ascertain exactly what the ruling is. For me, it is complicated by the fact that the published decision seems to contain both the holding by the court and dissenting opinions by other members of the court. This makes it difficult for me to seperate the holding from the dissent and other dicta.

I don't have this problem, but that's just me. I agree it could be a bit clearer, but IANAL and I don't have much practice reading IAALly treatises. But once I've applied the lessons learned from reading computer manuals that have been translated from Japanese into German into English, it usually pans out OK.

[bob]

P&E: Ingrassia on Trump Possible VP Picks:

In a Substack post Thursday, former Trump White House intern, current law clerk and legal analyst Paul Ingrassia presented his views* on several candidates who could be on a relatively short list of vice-presidential choices for Donald J. Trump should he receive the 2024 Republican nomination this summer.

The correct answers are:
1. Paul ... who??!?; and
2. WHO CARES?

The first person Ingrassia discussed was former 2024 Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, a Harvard Law School graduate and successful entrepreneur. . . .

He noted, however, that “Some concerns remain about his background, his fortune, and even his citizenship…,” although without pointing out that Ramaswamy was born into very similar circumstances as Haley.

The rest is mostly just Rondeau's usual warmed-over.

And "funny" how Ramaswamy gets a free pass from Ingrassia (but not our Rondeau!).


* Cucker Tarlson is Ingrassia's first choice, if you must know.

[Luke]

Tough news in the tiny republic of Birfestan:

Dennys Oakland.JPG (90.6 KiB) Viewed 285 times

And a shoutout for Foggy:

The Denny’s in Oakland, known for being “always open,” is now forever closed because of crime concerns. The restaurant on Hegenberger Road, a mainstay in the neighborhood for 54 years, closed for good at 1 p.m. Wednesday. It seems like only the chickens that congregate outside the diner will be staying.

Dennys Chickens.JPG (145.15 KiB) Viewed 280 times

In other news, Tara Reade, who fled to Russia, has filed another lawsuit against President Biden. Her lawyer? Jonathan Levy

[realist]

P&E: Ingrassia on Trump Possible VP Picks:

In a Substack post Thursday, former Trump White House intern, current law clerk and legal analyst Paul Ingrassia presented his views* on several candidates who could be on a relatively short list of vice-presidential choices for Donald J. Trump should he receive the 2024 Republican nomination this summer.

So a person who has apparently graduated with a J.D., has not passed the bar anywhere, apparently working as a law clerk at a law firm, is a (as he puts it) constitutional expert and "legal analyst" for ... someone.

Not exactly the background and credentials one would typically seek out.

[northland10]

P&E: Ingrassia on Trump Possible VP Picks:

In a Substack post Thursday, former Trump White House intern, current law clerk and legal analyst Paul Ingrassia presented his views* on several candidates who could be on a relatively short list of vice-presidential choices for Donald J. Trump should he receive the 2024 Republican nomination this summer.

So a person who has apparently graduated with a J.D., has not passed the bar anywhere, apparently working as a law clerk at a law firm, is a (as he puts it) constitutional expert and "legal analyst" for ... someone.

Not exactly the background and credentials one would typically seek out.

According to his LinkedIn, as of January he is no longer a clerk at the large and prestigious The McBride Law Firm, PLLC whose whose large list of attoneys consist of, um, Joseph McBride, who appears to be a RWNJ himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D._McBride

[realist]

P&E: Ingrassia on Trump Possible VP Picks:

In a Substack post Thursday, former Trump White House intern, current law clerk and legal analyst Paul Ingrassia presented his views* on several candidates who could be on a relatively short list of vice-presidential choices for Donald J. Trump should he receive the 2024 Republican nomination this summer.

So a person who has apparently graduated with a J.D., has not passed the bar anywhere, apparently working as a law clerk at a law firm, is a (as he puts it) constitutional expert and "legal analyst" for ... someone.

Not exactly the background and credentials one would typically seek out.

According to his LinkedIn, as of January he is no longer a clerk at the large and prestigious The McBride Law Firm, PLLC whose whose large list of attoneys consist of, um, Joseph McBride, who appears to be a RWNJ himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D._McBride

​

STEPPING INTO ARENAS WHERE MOST LAWYERS FEAR TO TREAD



The McBride Law Firm provides strategic legal services inside and outside the courtroom. Our ability to protect, problem-solve, gather intelligence, forge alliances, manage risk, and litigate-is unmatched.

​

When you're represented by McBride Law, your adversaries will know that you're backed by a team of highly skilled legal operators who will stop at nothing in their ruthless pursuit of justice.

https://www.mcbridelawnyc.com/