Stop Rending your garments

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

Nothing has changed.

Yes, I do think the Supreme Court’s decision on birth citizenship was wrong, and further it was dangerous, because I believe Clarence Thomas over the lot of them. His scholarship is superior to all of theirs.

The truth is that we’re facing a new form of attack. As I said before, when the borders were open, the world cannot win against us militarily but they found they can attack us by sending the most wretched, uneducated and frankly hostile to us (In the Americas and I suspect the rest of the world, they heavily recruited communists for the caravans) people they could find over the border in massive waves. That this had the advantage of lowering our wages, raising costs of living and draining the body politic dry, while presenting us with scenes of squalor was an advantage.

It was an attack by human wave, no more, no less. They’ve done the same to every Western nation. Successfully, in terms of more or less destroying the countries.

It has abated now, and largely stopped. Except for H1B visas, which are a different problem, but not by much, and which this administration is failing to curb.

BUT the human wave attack has taken another form. Not only women performing birth tourism, but in China’s case doing that factory style. And in many ways, too. There have now been found more than one literal “factory” where Chinese citizens are having children via surrogate and raising hundreds of kids in various institutions throughout the land.

This is innovative, technically legal, and evil.

The supreme court ruling against birth citizenship would be an easy solution, of course. but please keep in mind that what we have now is exactly what we have had for the last two or three generations. NOTHING has changed. We just hoped it would.

It doesn’t mean we can’t combat this by other means. Sure, getting the supine congress to act might be a forlorn hope — which is why we must win in November. I don’t know what to do for it other than pray, but we must — but they might. Miracles do happen.

And I bet you anything that Trump is already plotting how to make them act, because he has seen the size of the threat (now if someone can clue him in to H1Bs? I’d appreciate it.)

Probably the absolutely easiest way to combat this threat is actually within Trump’s reach, though it will bring law fare, as well as crying and gnashing of teeth.

NOTHING in the constitution allows us to tolerate dual citizenship. NOTHING. The oath I took at naturalization required that I renounce all allegiance to foreign nations and potentates.

And yet, most Americans today think nothing of someone having or assuming dual citizenship. If that weren’t possible, the baby factories on US soil might not stop, but the having a kid and taking him “home” to be raised would. Because in the parent’s country of origin he’d have no status and no right to any services. And it would create an intolerable situation.

Yes, i do realize it would put a lot of people in uncomfortable positions. But the law is the law. Choose a country and cleave to it.

After that there are various legislative situations. The lowest probability one is the congressional amendment. Sure, try for that too. Try for EVERYTHING. But do not go into lamentations and rending of garments. You are not any worse off than last week.

It’s just the easy solution has been shut off. We’ll have to do it the hard way.

Be not afraid. And keep fighting to the extent you can, even if (just) with words.

115 thoughts on “Stop Rending your garments”

  1. Thank you! I get so tired of the doomerism at what are otherwise some of my favorite hangouts.

    Like

  3. “People who render their garments better look good naked or have extra clothing.” [Crazy Grin]

    Liked by 2 people

    3. Extra clothing it is, then!

      I do not actually intend to rend my garments, nor (in your phraseology) to render them.

      Nonetheless, I am disappointed and somewhat discouraged. This should’ve been an easy decision, considering that multiple lawmakers of the time are on record as to exactly what they expected the language of the 14th Amendment to mean, and it wasn’t this. (Not easy politically; easy in terms of what the law actually says and was intended to mean.) It’s disappointing that even some of the better members of the Supreme Court preferred to dance around the necessary, textually and historically supported conclusion to maintain the untenable status quo.

      Also, as good as President Trump 2.0 has been on so many fronts, all of this is temporary unless Congress passes some laws…and I’m not at all convinced that keeping the D-bags in the minority will help it happen. Congress has been utterly incapable of doing its job for decades now, and most of the Republicans are useless (I put the proportions at about 60% utterly useless, 15% on our side and motivated, 5% simply butt-ass stupid a la Marjorie Taylor Greene, and 20% Democrats who realized pretending to be a Republican was the only way they could get elected in their district).

      Unless the Democratic Party as we know it ceases to exist and is replaced by something that actually wants the USA to thrive, all of it is going to be undone the next time one of them occupies the White House. Or the next time they have a majority in Congress. Which is made more likely the longer the R’s keep being their useless selves.

      I just don’t see how this grotesquely unconstitutional state gets rolled back to something closer to the liberties we’re meant to enjoy, absent a civil war or some kind of large-scale collapse. Heck, just stopping enough of the socialist looting to stabilize the economy might be more than we’re likely to get.

      So that’s the fear. Not that the Democrats and their flying communist monkeys will win and rule us with an iron fist — they’re not that capable, and American voters may be gullible and stupid, but they’re not THAT stupid — but that this nation keep shambling along in slowly increasing paralysis and decrepitude under their cheating and graft and debilitating social engineering schemes for another 50-100 years and then sputters out.

      I’m not smart enough to see the way forward (is anybody really?), unless it’s just to keep putting one foot in front of the other however pointless it seems. Maybe this is my own depression speaking; this winter was very bad for seasonal affective disorder, and I still haven’t pulled up out of it like I’d usually expect. And only another two months from now, the descent into another dark winter hole will begin. Oh, for joy.

      Just keep moving forward, even if to what is unknown and why is only a yawning question. Maybe some miracle will occur if we keep the faith. Maybe. The fact that we exist here in these United States of America is itself a miracle, so maybe God has one more. Maybe. Keep walking. Just keep walking.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Consider:

        The majority of states (29) now have “Constitutional Carry” of at least one form.

        We have multiple overlapping SCOTUS findings that the 2nd Amendment is individual, broadly applicable, and on-par with others from the Bill Of Rights.

        More Americans own more AR-15s than own Ford F-150 pickup trucks. (ARs last longer, too.)

        The trend is positive, and further 2A gains are likely.

        Contrast that to 1985.

        Yes, there are dramatically stupid Reds getting elected. Bad examples inbound. Much as the recent Donkuloid governments set the tone for “Oh Eff No!” on many topics, the coming debacles of California and NYC will soon give sane folks a Marx-Migraine. There is no way to nationalize Marxism fast enough to hide what will soon befall those two very, very doomed places. And they cant hide the wreck.

        The hard part is going to be avoiding something as bad as the Dirty War of Argentina. Folks are going to be -angry- at the needless wreckage. And the Leftroids like to try to play “humiliation”, so they are going to earn a very sharp disdain indeed.

        FAFO

        Or, think of this as the prep before the colonoscopy. Its going to be (crappy) for a while, then the pre-cancer polyps get removed. Things get better afterwards. Up to the Donks how ugly it gets, but they lose in the long run because slavery -always- loses in the long run to Liberty. it simply cannot compete.

        FAFO indeed.

        Folks, I remember 1976 rather clearly. The contrast then to now is striking, overwhelming, and absolutely positive. Sure, some dingleberries are hashing our vibe. (Crap) Happens. It is an absolute joy to see 2026 after 1976. I am making effort to see the Tricentennial in 2076, and have been since the Bicentennial. Things are getting better, and they are going to get -way- better. There -will- be road-apples along the way. Those squishoids do not, and cannot, prevent that American betterment.

        Try to win them over. If unsuccessful, grind their noses in their failure and ultimate doom!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. A much needed hope-slap. Thank you. :)

          I am aware of how far Second Amendment rights have come, but I also have the misfortune of living in a state that’s drunk on progressivism and currently telling California “hold my beer.” And it’s probably fortunate that while I was alive in the ’70s, I’m not old enough to have known anything about the cultural and political landscape of the time (although I am aware that it deeply sucked)…but that also means my perspective is a bit shorter.

          Anyway…probably mostly the depression speaking. I’m going to do my best to run that black dog to ground and, if not put it down for good, at least leave it bound and gagged so I can get some some useful things done before it breaks out again.

          Like

          1. If all else fails, “shrug” and move to a Free state like Florida.

            Say “Not Slytherin” to the Hat, and off you go.

            If you cannot, or chose not, to decamp, then be the biggest Pain In The Ass you can. Make sport of it. Defy them. Dare them. Sue them. Mock them.

            Or “shrug” and exceed your abilities with creative needs. You paid in, in spades. Now out-Loot the Looters at their own game.

            You can -Fight- in myriad ways, even if it is total withdrawal in-situ or ex.

            Your mind and faith are greater than the midwits and halfwits of Leftroidism. Say “No” and let -them- despair.

            Like

            1. I’m saying “Not Slytherin” to the Sorting Hat when it comes to Florida, too. :) And the Midwest. The humidity would end me. High mountain desert born and bred, so I’m going back to Utah if ever I can (Idaho or Northern Arizona would do in a pinch). In the meantime, if you do have to live in a state as stupid as WA, the part I’m in is one of the better places to be, so there is that.

              To use yet another good and useful word the progtards have ruined, I definitely will resist. Am resisting in my own small way, even if it just mostly amounts plodding wearily and stubbornly along in my own direction. And occasionally reminding people that no, it doesn’t have to be like this — and it wasn’t, not very long ago. And it was BETTER.

              Liked by 2 people

    4. Yeah, me naked probably costs SAN for everyone who sees it.

      Maybe I should just sing the DOOM Song.

      Like

  4. Revivals are hard – and progress takes time and there will be setbacks. A good first step is for the IRS to equalize federal tax liability for the parents minor US citizens. So if you drop a baby in the US to make them a citizen then they have a family obligation to pay taxes. Little Xi’s mom and dad have to file a 1040 and pay taxes every year – at least until the little anchor baby turns 18.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. And little anchor baby does not mean mommy, daddy, siblings, etc., get to stay in the US, or even come back, ever. Anchor baby can, does not have to, but can.

      Liked by 2 people

          1. Then they are overstaying their visas. Minute they look pregnant, visa revoked.

            Plus, Blood tests. On everyone (hey, they are the ones that state men can get pregnant!)

            Should be checking for blood borne illnesses, regardless.

            Like

            1. Sure, great, revoke their visa. Problem is that they stay indoors for the remaining months on their pregnancy. Outside of knowing that such and such a location is housing people here doing birth tourism and raiding it, there’s not much that you can do about it. But if you don’t know where they’re being housed, what are you going to do?

              Like

  6. The challenge with enforcing the prohibition on dual citizenship is that a lot of countries will happily extend the privileges of citizenship to their ex Pat’s who have gotten US citizenship

    I suspect the way to handle it is people who take advantage of the benefits of another country’s citizenship, such as voting or recieivng benefits, are considered to have broken their oath of citizenship and lose it.

    Which will be uglier and more draconian than ending birthright, but, such is life.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Most “dual-citizens” I know are US-Canadian. Even then the “benefits” aren’t as great as they expected. At least one the whole point was double-dipping benefits. Did not work out that way. Maximum amount total. That maximum amount does not equal maximum earned from each country. Oops.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. In which case, if they can appeal to the protection of some other nation, they are not actually subject to the laws of the United States and cannot be citizens. They can apply for a visa or gtfo. (I’d prefer them getting tf o, getting kicked tf o if necessary.)

          Like

          1. Yeah. I expect that is coming.

            Like I said, ending automatic birthright citizenship would have been the easier option. So now it gets to happen the harder ways.

            Like

          2. if they can appeal to the protection of some other nation, they are not actually subject to the laws of the United States and cannot be citizens. 

            See my comment on Right of Return, for Jews.

            Heck, Sarah literally just ran into this dealing with the death of her mother: She didn’t consider herself Portuguese any more, but the Portuguese government apparently did.

            Like

              1. I’ve heard the CCP has a similar attitude toward Chinese citizens who move abroad, even if the citizens in question now view themselves as “former” citizen of the PRC.

                Like

            2. A complication, but one that can be dealt with. Upon becoming a citizen, you must renounce allegiance to any other nation and swear allegiance to this one, and this one only (this requirement already exists, aiui). If you’re born a citizen, you don’t have to do any renouncing, obvs…and no other country can affect your US citizenship by unilaterally declaring you part of its polity, regardless…but the law should very clearly state that if you do accept the benefits of citizenship in any other nation, you will be considered to have renounced the benefits of citizenship in this one.

              Like

                1. Some countries straight up allow buying residency or citizenship.

                  Just because someone offers a benny, dosn’t mean anyone is dependent/obligated/motivated.

                  By bloodline, I qualify for several foreign jurisdictions. Irrelevant. I am an American Citizen by birth and a Veteran of the US Army. Do not presume to question my loyalty because some folks somewhere make blanket offers. Not my problem.

                  Like

                  1. Not a veteran.

                    But same.

                    At least 3 foreign jurisdictions could offer the citizenship benefit (only one from last 150 years, others 400+). Their delusions are not my problem. Nor should it be for any other US citizen who emigrated. Or in the case of Jews, a country that offers a safe path, because History.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  2. Since I wasn’t even addressing you….

                    When I question your loyalty, you won’t have to put words in my mouth to know it.

                    Like

                2. Yes. And anybody who takes it isn’t an American citizen anymore. At least that’s how it should be…with the caveat that I haven’t looked into the details of the Right of Return thing, so I could be missing/misunderstanding something important.

                  Like

                  1. “anybody who takes it isn’t an American citizen anymore“

                    –

                    The point. “Right of Return”, is an offer. Offers do not have to be requested or acted on. Until acted on, anyone who has this option, regardless of country offering, is still an American citizen.

                    Also, “Right of Return”, does not guaranty citizenship of the country offering. It is an easier path to citizenship, but until the American citizens takes action and becomes a citizen on this path, just living in said country, should not mean the individual loses American citizenship.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Then make that clear in the proposed law. When you are living with people you can’t trust, define and document becomes the order of the day.

                      Like

                    2. I disagree.

                      I’m not going to convince you. But …

                      “Right of Return” is not something the US needs to define, in the terms of other countries.

                      If the US has a “Right to Return” for children of expats. Or the children of Americans, for reasons are born off US property. That is for the US to define.

                      Except for those born to military or embassy staff assigned out of US states, and territories, even if born in off base or embassy, say in hospitals, I don’t know if babies born to American parents (one or both) are considered US citizens. There are ways, just like adoptees to American parents, to naturalize these infants, but it isn’t automatic. Which is why it is not recommended to travel out of country past certain pregnancy states.

                      Liked by 1 person

        2. Not surprised. Makes sense that it is either adjacent borders that this occurs.

          Just I live toward the northern border. Plus I know specifically two who are dual Canadian and US citizens. Neither of their children hold dual citizenship. One’s children are US citizens (spouse US citizen, and they lived in the US), the other’s children are Canadian.

          Liked by 1 person

    3. I suspect the way to handle it is people who take advantage of the benefits of another country’s citizenship, such as voting or recieivng benefits, are considered to have broken their oath of citizenship and lose it.

      We haven’t been able to make breaking their oath of citizenship stick even in the cases of people who have joined Islamic terrorism groups, or even various armies (Russia, most recently).

      I’m pretty sure that voting isn’t high on the list in the CCP, and what defines a benefit? Just living there? “We have no record to send you red-furred barbarians. Pbbbbth!”

      Finally, and here I speak with a little more personal knowledge because of my wife, every attempt to crack down on dual citizenship has immediately been used against anyone who’s Jewish. The usual demand is that they give up the Right of Return to Israel as a loyalty test.

      Like

      1. Somebody is going to have to enlighten me on this. Is it that Jews are subjected to demands which would lock them into an unfriendly country with no ability to leave? As far as the right of return, aside from Israel keeping an open invitation to its native ethnic group, I’m not sure how that’s any different than somebody obtaining citizenship in any other country in the end. Nobody in the US can stop you if you want to be a citizen of some other country, anyway…but if you do take up citizenship somewhere else, you should be willing to cleave to that country and no other.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I think of it the sane way Germany used to do it. If a person had documents proving direct descent from two people born in what is now Germany, even if it was as far back as the late 1600s (Pennsylvania Dutch in all their flavors, Texas Germans, New Mexico Germans), they could apply to return and get citizenship even though neither they nor their parents or grandparents were German citizens. At the same time, I went to university with a student who was “a third-generation Turk born in Germany” who had a Turkish passport even though she’d lived in West Germany her entire life.

          So someone who is provably Jewish (documents on the maternal or both sides) and observant, would have a “right of return” and fast track to citizenship even though he is French or Dutch or whatever. (Dual citizenship … is a different problem.)

          Like

          1. Agree. (IMHO)

            “Right to Return” is not same as “Dual Citizenship”.

            Latter is conflict of loyalty, and 100% guaranty of dual residency and citizenship rights.

            Former is an option, an optional open path, but not 100% guaranty, of citizenship rights.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Like I said, making Right of Return an issue is nonsensical…. which doesn’t mean the laws defining dual citizenship won’t have to address it.

            Like

        2. Ing, I’m sorry for not explaining better. I thought everyone was familiar with the “dual loyalties” canard, and also the “Right of Return”.

          Basically, ever since the founding of Israel, a standard anti-Semitic trope is that Jews in general and American Jews in particular are as loyal to Israel as they are to their “native land”, or even more loyal. The “logic” for this accusation is partly based on Israeli law allowing anyone of Jewish descent / faith to emigrate to Israel and acquire citizenship outside the path for non-Jews. There are several requirements, but the offer is open, and is referred to as the “Right of Return”.

          https://thelegalguide.org/israeli-citizenship-jews-practical-law-return-aliyah/

          My fear, based on the number of people who hate everything Jewish, is that they will classify this as a “benefit” under your proposal, and use that to try and force Jews / Israel to renounce / revoke it.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Moslems have a duty to support the Caliphate once a Caliph is announced. (Fard Kifaya)

            Are the same folks who endlessly bring up Aliyah mentioning Fard Kifaya? Why not?

            And what about all those “EightEight” boyos, anyway? Are they not swearing allegiance to the Shicklegruber bastard? Hello “hostile foreign power”?

            (grin)

            Like

          2. That’s a very real and reasonable worry to have. The bastards are out there in plenty…and they can suck a fat one.

            So I was understanding the basic nature of “right of return” correctly…and I still say that anyone who takes it ought to no longer be an American citizen, same as anybody else who accepts citizenship from some other nation. No straddling the fence; you’re either in or you’re out.

            Meanwhile, until “should” becomes “is,” any Jew who’s an American and isn’t lending aid and comfort to our enemies is one of us. Divided loyalties? Poppycock. There are far, far more non-Jews than Jews failing that basic test. And considering that Israel is the lone bastion of civilization in a part of the world that’s been devoured by mohammedan barbarians, loyalty to that country marks a valued friend, as far as I’m concerned.

            Like

      2. Doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. But given the current situation is also untenable, it will break, one way or another. I’d prefer it to be some semblance of an actual process than people showing up at the poles and being told ‘we have no records of your existence, go away’, which is one of the other ways this could break.

        Because why do they actually have to prove they are what they say they are? A birth certificate mailed to a hostile country? Anyone can show up with a piece of paper. Which will also be abused on massive scales.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. It seems to me that enforcing the expiration of visas would go a long way to curbing birth tourism, and a host of other situations.

    As for the surrogate child factories, there should be a limit on the number of surrogate births one couple may commission. The surrogacy niche seems to be relatively unregulated, in comparison to other countries. The Chinese couple who were arrested for child abuse (26 children!) seem to be real outliers.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. As I noted above, outfits that specialize in “birth tours” intentionally keep the pregnant mothers out of the public. Once the mother in question arrives in the US, she’s put up in an apartment, and basically doesn’t go out until it’s time to deliver the baby. So checking women for expired visas isn’t going to get results. If the Feds catch a woman in that situation, then it’s almost certainly as “collateral damage” while cleaning up an outfit that provides “birth tours” (yes, it sounds weird, but I’m not sure what else to call it).

      Like

  8. There is also the complication that some nations do not allow you to relinquish your citizenship. Ever. THAT said, dual citizenship should absolutely be a bar to holding any government office or government job, and working as a contractor/sub-contractor under or such.

    A partial solution, although harsh, would be to limit the maximum duration of a stay on any non-resident visa (tourist, student, work, ect) to 90 days and bar entry to pregnant women. Very much draconian and not “American” in spirit, but we are dealing with a fifth column invasion…we are in fact fighting a war.

    Like

    1. Didn’t we fight a war over that centuries back–the premise that someone who emigrated to the U.S. was not, in fact, British anymore, and could not legally be pressganged?

      Re “harsh”: we’re long past the point of being NICE about things.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. There were some major geopolitical factors at play there, but the press gangs were the officially declared tipping point.

        Like

    2. It is most certainly a fifth-column invasion, and a diabolically cleverly disguised one. I’m about a third of the way into Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints right now; it’s blood-chillingly prophetic so far.

      You don’t need a million “refugees” on rotting ships showing up all at once at a single seaside town; they can come a few dozen, a few hundred, a few thousand, all over the landscape, in dribs and drabs, in daylight and under cover of darkness….

      And on the subject of H1Bs (which absolutely need to be reduced to a trickle or shut off entire) I ran across an exchange on X this morning with some techbro entrepreneur bleating that he and his ilk neeeeeed H1Bs because startups neeeeeed engineers and coders who will work 996 (9 am – 9 pm, 6 days a week) for crap wages and no expectation of an equity stake, such as those lazy, greedy American engineers and coders would expect.

      We shall have to have a reckoning with our traitors as well as with our invaders, one way or another. (There were plenty of traitors in Raspail’s book too.) I don’t know what form that reckoning will take. I doubt it will be pleasant for anyone.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. FDR threw open the doors, supposedly to get Mexicans into the US to work during the labor shortage of WWII. Truman let that ride. Eisenhower sent thousands of them back, but Congress sabotaged that however they could. JFK let it ride, and all subsequent Presidents – including Nixon and Reagan – did nothing of substance, despite most of them (and their political opponents) promising to send them back.

        Trump 1.0 was the first time a President actually *did* something, and he was opposed by Congress anyway.

        The political class in general *wants* those people here.

        Liked by 3 people

    3. Portugal is trying that. BUT here’s the thing: I don’t have a passport. I don’t represent myself as Portuguese. I don’t even like Portuguese-American. I’m American American. I didn’t register with the embassy. heck, I didn’t report my wedding. I’m not responsible for THEIR illusions.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Sarah, the problem is that while you’re not responsible for their delusions, you’re going to have to prove they’re delusional. In a legal system that tolerates a Judge Buzzardberg and the rest of his flock, that’s liable to be time consuming and expensive.

        Like

    4. THAT said, dual citizenship should absolutely be a bar to holding any government office or government job, and working as a contractor/sub-contractor under or such.

      See my comments elsewhere about the problems that will cause for American Jews. What exactly constitutes “dual citizenship”?

      The Devil is always in the details.

      Like

      1. Being ELIGIBLE for dual citizenship is not the same. There are numerous nations that will grant someone citizenship if the applicant can prove a grandparent came from there. As long as they don’t take the Israeli passport and citizenship why would it? If the person took the dual citizenship it would simply bar them from holding office…which would be the choice they made.

        Like

      2. I disagree.

        Dual citizenship is the individual’s choice of keeping citizenship, i.e. both passports.

        It isn’t another country stating the individual is a “citizen” or a legal specialized path to citizenship, i.e. Jew Israel “right to return/emigrate”, regardless of the individual’s wishes or intent.

        One would bar one from governmental jobs. The other would not.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. dual citizenship is dual citizenship: voting in elections, etc. in another country.
        Look, I do udnerstand that, but right of return is not the same as dual citizenship, and I think Israel could easily arrange something where it was “all but the stamp on citizenship papers” if they decide to go that way.

        Like

        1. Sarah, I understand what you’re saying, I hope…. but everyone assumed that Election Day meant Election Day, singular…. until it didn’t.

          We are living cheek by jowl with many millions we cannot trust. As long as that’s true, we can’t deal with a handshake. Unless we think about as many of the things that could go wrong as possible, and define them in advance, they will be used against us.

          I’ve seen too many things and people that I thought were trustable fail.

          Liked by 2 people

  9. I like the idea of setting the IRS on American citizens living abroad, though it would probably hurt people I know.

    Like

    2. They have been for decades. I lived and worked overseas for 15 years. You pay US Income tax, both on what you may earn from within the US (pensions, investments, ect) as well as what you earn outside the US. There is a substantial Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE), but not enough to shield the “rich”. The US is in fact one of only two nations that does this, the other being  Eritrea.

      Like

  10. Frens or related to Trump-haters, -skeptics, and -doomers: So love and sympathy abounds.

    That said: Team Trump – and it is a team this time, are doing literally and figuratively draining the Deep State, aka bureaucrat swamp. Money is shut down, rulings are won, and FDRs hellscape of entangled laws and regulations are being rolled back.

    These midterms require all of us pulling together if we want to save our free States in AINO, and recover any if the recently conquered. Shoot: it’s long odds but we might be able to save the whole benighted nation.

    The dooming is a ln enemy psyop.

    Civil [cold (mostly)] War 3.O proceeds apace. If we do not hang together we shall most assuredly all hang separately.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Frens or related to Trump-haters, -skeptics, and -doomers: So love and sympathy abounds.

    That said: Team Trump – and it is a team this time, are doing literally and figuratively draining the Deep State, aka bureaucrat swamp. Money is shut down, rulings are won, and FDRs hellscape of entangled laws and regulations are being rolled back.

    These midterms require all of us pulling together if we want to save our free States in AINO, and recover any if the recently conquered. Shoot: it’s long odds but we might be able to save the whole benighted nation.

    The dooming is a ln enemy psyop.

    Civil [cold (mostly)] War 3.O proceeds apace. If we do not hang together we shall most assuredly all hang separately.

    Liked by 4 people

      2. 1.0 The soi-disant revolutionary war

        2.0 The war between the States

        3.0 The cold war to remove the U.S. government and replace it with a managerial state of serfs ruled by oligarch.

        Welcome to the revolution.

        Like

          1. Every revolution starts as a civil war. What they call it afterward depends on which side won.

            Like

        2. No, the war in 1776, and the second round in 1812, were wars against a foreign country, long before there was a Democrat party. The Civil War started in 1861 and for the Democrats it never ended.

          Liked by 2 people

  12. The fact that it was a 5-4 decision is somewhat promising. SCOTUS isn’t perfect (it’s run by people after all) but it has come a long way since Rhenquist passed away.
    Alas, Roberts chose his usual path of avoiding personal responsibility by refusing to sign on to controversial overturning of precedent when his vote is the tiebreaker. So he convinced himself that the meaning of the 14th amendment both in its text and legislative history wasn’t clear enough.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I’ve seen far more than enough blackpill takes, and yeah, it’s not optimal, but as noted, it didn’t make it worse. Kavanaugh pointed out that it’s a statute that can be changed, and a R housemember dusted off Harry Reid’s old bill (circa 1993) that would outlaw birthright citizenship. I want to see Schumcky Schumer try to diss that one…

    Meanwhile, it looks like POTUS will take some measures. Not sure what, but a pregnancy visa ban would be wonderful.

    On PJ Media, Scott Pinsker noted that the Dobbs decision contributed to the problems in ’22, with the Donks more inclined to vote. This is more likely to make us Deplorables vote, particularly when it’s clear that Congress could fix it, with sufficient encouragement. (Torches, pitchforks, hot tar, feathers?)

    We’re also one lefty Justice retiring from being able to revisit…

    Liked by 1 person

      1. This, tbh. Plus they’re much younger than Thomas and Alito. It’s a blessing that we’ve got them (Thomas may be the best Justice since…ever) but also a worry, because so much rests on their aged shoulders.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I’ve seen far more than enough blackpill takes, and yeah, it’s not optimal, but as noted, it didn’t make it worse. Kavanaugh pointed out that it’s a statute that can be changed, and a R housemember dusted off Harry Reid’s old bill (circa 1993) that would outlaw birthright citizenship. I want to see Schumcky Schumer try to diss that one…

      Similarly, “pass a dang law to void the abuses you’re worried about” would work.

      So… why are the noisy folks only going for “We’re dead” and “amend the constitution”?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. They are bots and boughts? 2. They don’t understand how the US government system works as well as they think they understand it? 3. There is an inverse relation between knowledge and volume?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Most of them are people who have watched the SAVE Act crash and burn, even with 80%+ of the voters in favor. They’ve also seen Congress actively obstruct President Trump’s recess appointments, and refuse to codify his Executive orders. They don’t think that expecting Congress to respond to the voters is reasonable in light of those events.

          Like

        2. #2 does seem pretty reasonable, especially considering behavior elsewhere.

          “I demand you pass this law that you don’t have the authority to do!”
          “I demand you use the amendment process rather than pass a law the way this was adjusted the last 30 times!”

          Like

  15. Unless I have missed something, I have not heard any Republicans or other non-leftists who disagree with the birthright citizenship case decision demanding “radical reform” of the Supreme Court, i.e. packing, because they want the court rigged to always give the result they want.

    On the other hand, one so-called moderate Democrat (PA Gov Joel Shapiro, who has zero chance of national office as a Democrat as he is a Jew who supports Israel), demanded radical reform AFTER the decision, because it was not a 9-0 decision. He proved that Democrats simply want a Supreme Court that is fully an instrument of the Democratic Party in order to impose and enforce Democratic Party and ideology.

    A good reminder that for the Democratic Party, as an institution, even the so-called moderates seek one thing, and one thing only: absolute totalitarian power “by any means necessary”

    Liked by 2 people

    3. For what it’s worth, even a lot of Dem voters apparently didn’t like the idea of packing the court when the Dem politicians were openly talking about it a few years ago.

      Like

  16. There are other ways to combat birth tourism. From a quick internet search, there are now finger-stick tests that detect pregnancy hormones in blood. So, the immigration officers don’t need to guess whether a woman is pregnant to check upon entry to the country–and it can’t be hidden by baggy clothes.

    Like

  17. So many cases have gone in sane directions recently that I’m not surprised by this one. The court has inclined toward the POTUS on appointments, the rights of women and men vis a vis same-sex sports teams and competitions, firearms (ish), and a few other things. The mail-in ballot disappointment and this one are not great, but they DO clarify things, which may be very useful in the future if people play their cards correctly.

    Tradition is very, very strong, and the can of worms that denying birthright citizenship would open is huge. Imagine if the SCotUS had denied jus soli. Is it retroactive, or does it begin on the day of the decision? If not retroactive, how long do people have to finish their business and get out, or begin the process of applying for the citizenship that they thought they had? Does this mean that non-citizens are no longer automatically granted the civil rights that they currently enjoy (since they are not separated out under jurisdiction of law)? And those are just ones that come off the top of my head. N.b. I’m not saying that I agree with the court’s thinking, but I can also imagine the chaos that the executive branch would have to sort out (and the courts) had jus soli been denied.

    Like

  18. The Supreme Court actually made the right call legally. It wasn’t the one we wanted, but it also wasn’t SCOTUS making law all on their own. Trump’s EO was absolutely necessary to start the ball rolling, and I doubt he and his advisors ever expected it to stand as the law of the land. Which puts the ball squarely back in the court it belongs in, Congress. The thing that drives me nuts (and probably most of you) is Congress couldn’t find their own ass with both hands, a map, a compass, and a preprogrammed, AI-powered GPS with an android holding their hands. The SAVE Act should be a slam dunk, but the GOP can’t get it passed, and aren’t smart enough to make it a standalone bill to pass it; so, for them to actually pass working, intelligent legislation on birthright citizenship being restricted only to children who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen at the date of their birth is probably beyond them.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The correct decision, unfortunately, was probably Kavanaugh’s. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was not included in the text of the amendment on a whim, but the majority has written it out as meaningless. But this entire policy question arguably belongs to the legislature, as feckless as ours is and as much as I would prefer otherwise.

      I saw an article claiming that K’s “concurrence” provided a roadmap for a legislative correction, but I don’t see how. The other five removed the question entirely from the purview of both the legislature and the executive by ruling constitutionally.

      Like

    2. THIS!!!!

      The Supremes did not overstep their boundaries by taking on a legislative responsibility. It isn’t their job to fix the law. Just say if it passes constitutional muster.

      It is no reflection on the court that congress is full of montebacks, cads, crooks, liars and mentally challenged cretins who only do the will of actual voters by accident or when all other avenues of grift and money laundering have dried up.

      Like

      1. Apparently, WP had quite enough of my nonsense and wouldn’t let me finish my comment…

        It is up to We the People to hold congress’ cloven hooves to the fire until we get the laws we need. It’s the only remedy that won’t be reversed the nano-second another auto-pen hits the Oval Office.

        Never give up. Never surrender.

        Like

    3. The GOP is no monolith of thought and deed, marching in time and unintelligently passing the latest fever madness of the day. The McConnels and his ilk, the Thunes, the Merkowskis, and so on, call ’em RINOs whathaveyou.

      There’s good people there and there’s flaming stinky idiots with all the personal charisma of a puddle of vomit on the beach in the August heat. With folks like that at the steerage, gridlock is more a plus than a minus except when a miracle occurs and there’s something of substance with direct, actionable relevance to the average citizen everywhere in the country.

      This is their “Repeal Obamacare” moment from 2017. We remember 2018. What I’d like is to have the various citizens of their respective states give these calcified nutballs vote in replacements that share the sentiment of, oh, say, the guy that won the presidency in a bloody landslide that eclipsed the fraud even after they tried to kill him multiple times. What I expect is something somewhat less than those starry eyed dreams to occur.

      To put it bluntly, the SAVE act will create political careers that span decades. Those with multiple years in office already and are treating the position as a sinecure with opportunities for graft that transcend the office itself. These people treat the SAVE act as a threat to their way of life. Which, in a way, it can be.

      Only if they’re not afraid of the coming change do they support it. Too many are mired in old ways of thinking and doing. Corruption, to put it bluntly. There will always be a certain amount of corruption. It offends me deeply to admit it, but the evidence of history is stark and utterly without countervailing evidence. Can the corrupt take up the mantle and do something good? Yes. Will they?

      Magic 8 ball says shake again. Methinks certain idiots in power will continue to hope for a return to the same old, same old. Americans don’t want that, though. I don’t want that. Time will tell, though. We shall see.

      Like

    4. Aren’t smart enough to pass the voting cleanup as a standalone bill…or *are* smart enough to know that rolling it in with a bunch of unnecessary crap means they won’t have to take the risk of fighting for it? (I think it’s the latter; it’s weasels all the way down over there.)

      Liked by 1 person

    5. Erik Erickson’s take is the Administration would probably have won the case if they had limited it to birth tourism, so if you’re angry with the Court, also be angry with Trump for going too far. Also, don’t get your knickers in a twist and don’t go doom, doom, doomity doom.

      His first suggestion is to block birth tourism in the territories, where a lot of it takes place. (If you bring enough pregnant Chinese women to Guam could you really tip it over?)

      I don’t agree with him on everything (probably around 50/50), but after reading too many 100% bat-guano crazy screeds on the Death of the Republic and the Treachery of Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, I’ll take him any day.

      Like

    6. it also wasn’t SCOTUS making law all on their own.

      —

      They don’t have a problem with that when it suits their purposes.

      Like

  19. NOTHING has changed.

    Not quite. Before yesterday, no Supreme Court had ever ruled on the constitutionality of citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. The closest was Wong Kim Ark, but he was the child of legal residents.

    Yesterday 5 justices said that it is unconstitutional, not merely unlawful, to deny citizenship to these children. (So much for Roberts’ vaunted judicial restraint, where you don’t reach a constitutional issue if the question can be decided on the grounds of standing or legislation)

    Before that, it would have been possible (if unlikely given our do nothing traitorous RINO infested Senate) to reverse the status quo via legislation.

    Today, that same change requires either a Constitutional Amendment, or legislation PLUS another vote on the court. The job just got much harder…

    Like

  20. I really have to wonder how H1B’s apply to the solidly Indian staff at DFW driving the golf carts and pushing the wheelchairs. Are they SURE those jobs can’t be done by Americans?

    Like

    1. Are THEY sure? Yep. Stupidity is known for its iron-clad surety in things what just ain’t true. Are we? Oh h3ll no. Rather the other direction, in point of fact.

      The problem is that most folks tend to forget the real minimum wage is zero (if not LESS). Some things may just not be worth the mandatory government minimum wage. And that is perfectly fine in a rational world. Which we don’t have, currently.

      Or, to put it another way, shuck all the illegals out and run them back through the system, slowly, patiently, with plenty of background checking and the slow, grinding gears of government. But only so long as it is fair and transparent. And while I’m wishing for a functional government program here, why not a pony or three, too. I’ve got younger cousins that could use a lesson in practical care and feeding of farm animals.

      Practically speaking, we’re still working on de-lousing the system (the people in government itself). And kicking out the criminals that broke the law by entering and/or staying past their appoint get outta here time. I’ll bide with Indian golf cart drivers for a bit while we get the evil bastages out first.

      Like

  21. See the Kavanaugh concurrence-in-part, which ends with basically a prescription for how Congress can make this happen anyway:

    For those reasons, to reiterate, the Executive Order does
    not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does
    contravene 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Consistent with the
    Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or
    otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to
    birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens
    unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has
    not yet done so.

    .
    ….which is really pretty much the 1993 bill proposed by Democrat Sen. Harry Reid, which Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno says he’s going to reintroduce with no changes.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. The USA is getting ready to play Bosnia-Herzgovina in the World Cup.

    I hope we win

    GO USA!!! Show those Euro-commie sympathizers that say we stink at soccer.

    Like

    1. PJ O’Rourke proposed no-wing sprint cars as an Olympic sport, noting that conventional sports favored third-world specialties like running, jumping, and throwing. To give industrialized nations a more equal footing, driving sports should be introduced.

      Like

  23. Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » YES, IT WILL BE MORE WORK, BUT:  Stop Rending your garments.

    1. Yep — a simple majority in both houses (perhaps including killing the Senate pretend filibuster just for the wailing and gnashing joy), and one POTUS signing ceremony, to completely enrage the majority that voted against this EO except for Kavanaugh, who will just say “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

      Like

Comments are closed.