The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Idiot Party Should Go to Plan B—Defang Obamnesty By Abolishing Birthright Citizenship
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

We really need to retire the epithet “The Stupid Party” for the GOP. The DHS funding fiasco plainly shows that “stupid” is too mild an adjective to describe the Congressional Republican leadership.[John Boehner ends stalemate, Politico, March 3, 2015]

I turned to my thesaurus in hopes of finding something more apt. Alas; in this age of microaggressions, of mimosa-like sensitivity to offense, the stronger adjectives—“retarded,” “moronic,” “imbecilic,” “cretinous”—are out of bounds.

“Idiotic” is borderline acceptable, and it brings with it a helpful mental image of the gibbering snaggle-toothed Village Idiot; so I’ll take a venture on “idiotic” for the GOP congresscritters.

No offense is intended to Republican voters at large. The old (and nowadays out-of-favor) quip about the WW1 British Army is apt here: “lions led by donkeys.” And there are even a handful of lions in the congressional delegations, notably Rep. Steve King and Senator Jeff Sessions.

But, really: Didn’t they game the thing? When playing chess with an acquaintance—for which the stakes are far lower than in congressional maneuvering—we try to think things out a few moves ahead: “At this point I can do A, B, or C. If I do A, he can do x or y. Ax goes nowhere for me; Ay opens up Ay1—no, that puts me in check—and Ay2, aha! …”

If the GOP congressfolk are too dimwitted to do the gaming themselves, don’t they have staffers to do it for them? This was pathetic.

What might congressional Republicans have done? We weren’t short of suggestions.

  1. Instead of a Department of Homeland Security funding bill with amendments, make it two bills: one funding ICE, but minus Amnesty processing, the second—which Senate Democrats would have no reason to vote down—to fund all other DHS functions. Downside: the Amnesty would have gone ahead anyway, funded by ICE applicant fees.
  2. The DHS could have been left unfunded. Since fees can keep much of the ICE bureaucracy afloat, and most security functions of DHS are staffed by “essential personnel” under quasi-military discipline who would be expected to continue working while waiting for back pay, the effect here is not much different from the previous. Same downside.
  3. The Senate GOP leadership could change the rules to bypass the filibuster threat, as Democrats did in 2013. This is the famous “nuclear option.” Downside: The rule change would be revolutionary, more so than the 2013 event (which did not concern legislation).
  4. Sue the President. Downside: years of legal bickering.
  5. Impeach the President, for his failure faithfully to execute the people’s laws. Downside: None.

Options 1, 2, and 4 would likely have been ineffectual against Amnesty, so that the failure to take them up was no great loss. Options 3 and 5 required courage, a quality not much in evidence among the leaders of the Idiotic Party. Boehner and McConnell, remember, would have preferred a sixth option:

  1. Do nothing at all.

Well, here we are. What do we learn from this, comrades? And: Is there a way forward?

One thing we learn is the mighty power of a Democratic President. Mass Amnesty for low-skilled illegal aliens is of great importance to the future of the Democratic Party.

On an issue of that nature, a Democratic President can rely on well-nigh solid support from his party in both houses of Congress, as well as—of course—from the Main Stream Media, the universities, the law schools, Hollywood, etc., etc.

There are no patriotic qualms in any of those areas of support. This is now the transnationalist post-American party. Blue Dog Democrats are a fading memory.

The solution to all that is to get the Presidency out of the hands of the Democrats. Unfortunately the only organized opposition is the GOP, whose leading lights seem keen to do the Democrats’ work for them.

Pending the arrival of a plausible, patriotic Third Party, we can only seek out and try to promote Republicans who have a clue about demographic trends, who are immune to immigration romanticism, and who are willing to stand up to the Slave Power donors.

At the same time we should monitor and relentlessly harass ambitious but less stalwart Republicans, to remind them that their fortunes do not depend solely on the favors of the donor class. As Marco Rubio showed in his interview with Sean Hannity the other day, they areeducable. [his interview with Sean Hannity]

And even in the absence of any organized leadership in the GOP, there are guerilla operations congressional conservatives might conduct. One approach with particularly strong return on investment would be a campaign to end birthright citizenship—which, contrary to the widespread misapprehension, can be done by statute and does not require a Constitutional amendment.

As Peter Brimelow has pointed out here on, ending birthright citizenship “would at a stroke at least deprive the Democrats of the political fruits of Amnesty and future illegal immigration.”

Of course, while defanging Obamnesty, abolishing birthright citizenship would not prevent illegals and their voteless children from stealing jobs from American workers—but, all too clearly, nobody cares about them.

There would also be a pleasing jiu-jitsu aspect to such a campaign. The globalist Left never hesitates to appeal to “international norms.” Well,birthright citizenship is very far from being normal:

There are 31 countries on the International Monetary Fund’s list of advanced economies as listed in Table 2. The United States and Canada are the only advanced economies in the world which grant automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal and temporary aliens. [Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison by John Feere; Center for Immigration Studies, August 2010.]

We have been reminded just this week of the absurdities that arise from this principle, so anachronistic in an age of cheap international travel.

Southern California apartment complexes that doubled as “maternity hotels” for Chinese women who want made-in-America babies were raided early Tuesday, capping an unprecedented federal sting operation, officials said.

NBC News was on the scene as Homeland Security agents swept into The Carlyle, a luxury property in Irvine, California, which housed pregnant women and new moms who allegedly forked over \$40,000 to \$80,000 to give birth in the United States.

“I am doing this for the education of the next generation,” one of the women told NBC News.

[Feds Raid California ‘Maternity Hotels’ for Birth Tourists by Andrew Blankstein and Tracy Connor; NBC News, March 3¸ 2015]

This obstetric tourism is an obvious outrage even to milquetoast Conservatism, Inc. types. [A Better Solution to America’s Immigration Problem | End birthright citizenship, By Reihan Salam, Slate, November 21, 2014] Birthright citizenship is a great point of leverage; we should work it for all it’s worth.

Say not the struggle naught availeth!

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Amnesty, Illegal Immigration 
Hide 54 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anon • Disclaimer says:

    They’re all bought.

  2. anon • Disclaimer says:

    I’m all for it but is it politically feasible? I read a conservative constitutional lawyer say that we would have to amend the constitution to effect it. However he is biased as he is opposed to overturning birthright citizenship and is a softie on amnesty.

    OTOH I am sure if polled, the citizenry would be for overturning birthright citizenship, not to mention chain migration and large numbers of H-1 visas.

  3. Corn says:

    This would be a brilliant thing for the Reoublicans to do, so there is no chance in hell they would do it.

  4. ohwilleke says: • Website

    Birthright citizenship flows directly from the first sentence of the first section of the 14th Amendment which states:

    “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.”

    This dove tails with the first sentence of the second section of the 14th Amendment which provides that: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.”

    The sole qualification to birthright citizenship, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of foreign citizens with diplomatic immunity, and Indian tribes not subject to U.S. taxation (a class of persons which no longer exists as a result of The Revenue Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 253) (June 2, 1924), also known as the Mellon tax bill and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 253, Ch. 233 (1924) which subjected all Native Americans in the United States to federal income taxation and granted all Native Americans in the United States U.S. citizenship).

    The case law under the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause has largely freed it of any ambiguity or wiggle room to remove citizenship for people born in the United States without a constitutional amendment. The only way to deprive children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents of U.S. citizenship is to grant their parents diplomatic immunity, both civil and criminal. Few people concerned about illegal immigration would be willing to take that step to achieve that end.

    As a practical reality, the supermajorities necessary to eliminate birth right citizenship for persons born in the United States by constitutional amendment pursuant to Article V do not exist and will not exist for the foreseeable future.

    The United States citizenship laws allow some people to be citizens at birth even though they are not born in the United States (e.g. the “Superman” exception for children found wandering around without parents in the U.S. without known paternity as toddlers or younger who are U.S. citizens unless proved otherwise by the time that they attain the age of eighteen). Those provisions are subject to modification by statute and to the extent that they are ambiguous can be interpreted by federal regulation.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  5. D. K. says:

    How lucky for me, as an erstwhile attorney-at-law in one of the Union’s fifty (theoretically) sovereign states, to have a couple of legal geniuses like Peter Brimelow, a business journalist, and John Derbyshire, a computer geek turned conservative pundit, to advise me, as a natural-born citizen of this country, with American roots going back to the 1630s, on the legal status of birthright citizenship (even if neither one of them has it, and neither one of them even was naturalized as a citizen of the United States prior to my becoming a lawyer, as I quickly approached my 30th birthday, nearly thirty years ago)!

    Contrary to these two legal beagles from the Mother Country, which many of own my ancestors left behind centuries ago, my own contrary legal opinion, as someone actually trained in Constitutional Law, under someone who was, and is, actually a legal scholar in that exact subject, is that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to disarm birthright citizenship– which is precisely what I myself long for, albeit quixotically!

    Even if birthright citizenship were disposable through a mere enactment of Congress, however, our self-styled legal savants, who also opine freely on pure politics per se, do not get around to solving the minor issue of a presidential veto by Mr. Obama. How many Democrats do the Republican leaders in the House and the Senate, respectively, have lined up to vote to overturn their president on an issue that favors their partisan prospects, into the indefinite future, as opposed to the Republicans’ dying prospects? Ditto for impeachment! I favor it, for nonpartisan reasons, but not because, as Mr. Brimelow constantly insists, “it would work!”– because, as should be painfully obvious to any and all, no, it would not!

    As for anachronistic psychometric categories vis-a-vis current English usage, as someone who also has been trained in both Personality Psychology (M.S.) and English per se (B.A.), I find it odd that anyone, whether politically correct or incorrect, would find “moronic” and “imbecelic” to be unacceptable adjectives, in current usage, yet find “idiotic” to be acceptable, since, under the former psychometric taxonomy, “morons” were smarter than “imbeciles,” who were, in turn, smarter than “idiots”– which, in fact, represented the bottom of the human barrell, IQ-wise. Who’s the moron who came up with this new dispensation, and who are the imbeciles who follow that moron’s lead?

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  6. @ohwilleke

    “Birthright citizenship flows directly from the first sentence of the first section of the 14th Amendment which states:….”

    Lawyers at the Congressional Research Service beg to differ:

    • Replies: @ohwilleke
  7. @D. K.

    “…my own contrary legal opinion, as someone actually trained in Constitutional Law, under someone who was, and is, actually a legal scholar in that exact subject, is that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to disarm birthright citizenship…”

    Lawyers at the Congressional Research Service beg to differ:

    • Replies: @D. K.
  8. abj_slant says:

    I like the idea by a poster on another site: the true GOP should become conservative Democrats, thereby outnumbering the TP far right fringe.

    There ARE conservative Democrats and progressive Republicans out there.

  9. anon • Disclaimer says:

    I had a Dream… President Walker packs SCOTUS with conservatives, signs a law overturning birthright citizenship and the courts uphold it. Then I won the lottery. Then I woke up.

  10. D. K. says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    The CRS report prepared by Ms. Lee, a decade ago, contained no such conclusion; it merely discussed arguments that have been, or could be, made in favor of the contrary opinion. Even if Ms. Lee had concluded to her and her employer’s own utter satisfaction that the Congress had the power to legislate away some birthright citizenship, by redefining and delimiting the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof [i.e., of the United States]” to include only those born here to legally present persons, whether including aliens or not, a quick check of your own pocket copy of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, would reassure you that the legal opinions of the CRS– let alone of Ms. Lee herself, on her employer’s behalf– do not constitute the law of the land in these United States. (If you read between the lines, the report that you cite was requested by those in Congress who wished to be able to strip citizenship from “enemy combatants” in the War on Terror.)

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  11. @D. K.

    For someone claiming a legal background in constitutional law you seem somewhat unclear on the role of the Congressional Research Service and how legal argumentation works. You’re entitled to your opinions, But as of now they are just that – opinions. The law in this area has not yet been as firmly settled as you seem to believe it has. That is the point of the cited document.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  12. D. K. says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    I know how the Congress and its appendices work, and I know how Constitutional Law and legal interpretation work. The fact that some novel, or even bizarre, interpretation is concocted by someone, even a lawyer working for the legislative or executive branch of the federal government, does not mean that it is to be considered as valid as the otherwised presumed meaning, although the issue has never been formally ruled upon by any federal court, let alone the Supreme Court. The first rule of legal interpretation is that a legal provision means just what it appears to mean, on the face of it; only ambiguities need to be ruled upon. The wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to birthright citizenship, is not ambiguous on its face. Feel free to explain to me how the American-born children of illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Even their illegally present parents are subject to our federal government’s jurisdiction: they all may be taxed, fined, arrested, imprisoned, and even executed by our government! If we had a draft, they could be conscripted, and imprisoned if they failed to serve.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @AnAnon
    , @MarkinLa
  13. Ron Unz says:
    @D. K.

    I’ll have to say that this whole notion of “reinterpreting” the 14th Amendment is just about the stupidest, craziest idea all the rightwing anti-immigrationists have ever come up with, which is saying a lot.

    First, as far as I know, the plain language of the amendment was never questioned by any lawyer, judge, or politician during nearly the first 150 years after its passage. Indeed, even when Asians were racially barred from naturalized citizenship, their American-born children always obtained it. So now we’re going to say “Oops—we missed some of the emanations of the penumbras of the language”? I also think it’s extremely silly to claim that the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to Gay Marriage, but the two situations aren’t all that different.

    And the politics are unimaginably awful. By overturning the settled language of the 14th Amendment, aren’t you raising serious doubts about the citizenship of most American-born Hispanics, given that the vast majority had illegal immigrant parents or grandparents? Obviously, the rightwingers would claim their actions weren’t retroactive, but if the 14th Amendment has been misunderstood for a century and a half, why not correct the error?

    How does someone prove citizenship? I think the current way for most people is usually via a birth certificate, but once that goes out the window, what else? How do you prove your parents were citizens, if their birth certificates no longer count? And what about your grand-parents?

    Meanwhile, the political situation with regard to blacks would be absolutely hilarious. Everyone knows that it was the 14th Amendment gave blacks full U.S. citizenship, and here we have the rightwingers (in effect) trying to get Congress to drastically reduce/change that law. All the black leaders would be on black talk radio 24-7 saying “The Republicans in Congress are trying to repeal the 14th Amendment that gave blacks citizenship,” which really wouldn’t be all that far from the truth. The likely black turnout at the next election would be approximately 100% and the massively guilt-tripped Republicans would presumably promise that all their future presidential nominees and party chairmen would be black, along with half of their Senators and Congressman. So we’d end up with not one but TWO “black parties” in America.

  14. Stealth says:

    It’s over. Americans who want a sane immigration policy have lost. We’re too small a minority to make a difference.

    I wish someone would tell me how ending birthright citizenship is going to help control illegal immigration. After all, if the government refuses, on humanitarian grounds, to deport illegal aliens who came to the country as adults, what makes anyone think they’re going to deport The Babies(!) who were actually born here?

  15. AnAnon says:
    @D. K.

    “Even their illegally present parents are subject to our federal government’s jurisdiction: they all may be taxed, fined, arrested, imprisoned, and even executed by our government! If we had a draft, they could be conscripted, and imprisoned if they failed to serve.” – they are also subject to being deported.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  16. D. K. says:

    Yes, they are; and yes, they ought to be. If they choose not to take their own American-born minor children with them, when and where they go, I am all in favor of building as many public orphanages as temporarily necessary to deal with that resultant problem. I have a strong feeling, however, that not too many about-to-be-deported illegal-alien mothers, proportionally speaking, would be willing to go home without their minor children, of whatever nationality, in tow. Call it a hunch….

  17. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    When millions of Native Born White Americans transition out of the Cognitive Dissonance Stage and finally fully grasp what they are going to have to give up for being a White Racial Minority in post-white Toilet Bowl America….the deportations will happen.

  18. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:
    @Ron Unz

    Who cares what blacks think…..I don’t…..

    How many home break-ins and gang rapes of White Mothers and White Teenage daughters are we suppose to put up with?….And I don’t like the Chinese Fifth Column voting my people enthusiastically into a racial minority on Nov 3 2016….

  19. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    The Republican Party is doing what it is suppose to do:provide scab labor to the White Greedy Cheating Mega-CEO Class…scum such as Renaissance Technologies CEO Robert Mercer….

    Moreover, I really wish that you….Peter Brimelow….and Steve Sailer, would stop trying to save the Republican Party…..Many Great and Wonderfull things will happen if they Republican Party is sealed in lead, and buried deep in a Utah Salt Mine….THE GREAT PHASE TRANSITION IS NEAR!!!!

  20. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    Politicians are craven. They are so in both parties.

    Politicians go where the Big Power is. Big Power in America is controlled by Jews and their mini-me homos.

    So, why shouldn’t GOP politicians follow orders from Jews, homos(notice no opposition to ‘gay marriage’), and big business?

    If the oligarchic elites were like Derbyshire who also owned most of media and academia, trust me that most GOP whore politicians would be opposing immigration.

    But the power is with Jews and homos and big business.

    And since the American Conservatives trusted and voted for GOP whores all through the years and praise Jews/Israel to high heaven, aren’t they the Stupid Populace?

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  21. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    American politics can be explained with these maps.

    Politicians go where the money. One billionaire matters more than a million bums.

    But then, why should Conservative complain? Haven’t they been apologizing for the rich, the elites, the oligarchs, and etc? Haven’t they been scoffing at democracy and calling for elite rule during the Reagan era. Cut taxes on the rich, give the rich everything they want.

    Cons were under the mistaken impression that the rich are conservative. No, most rich are like Soros, Koch brother, Adelson, and Gates. And Tim Cook.

    We need patriotic ethno-social-capitalism.

  22. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:
    @Priss Factor

    Conservative Christians most definitley voted for the filth known as the Republican Party. Why? Because US Christian Conservativism….well, I can’t find words to describe what a monstrosity it is. For these weirdos…Israel is their frame of reference. And this really does explain a lot. For example…take Hedge Fund billionaire Paul Singer…bomb Iran neocon Zionist who bought off 4 crucial Republican NYS Legislators who voted for Gay Marriage. Voting gives consent to be governed by this Hedge Fund owned filth.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  23. I think the old “Stupid Party” and “Evil Party” schtick wasn’t quite descriptive in the first place. The GOP is not stupid, or moronic, or idiotic, or whatever. It’s bought by donors hostile to white Americans. So I think it should be called “Traitor Party”. This would have the benefit of being quite accurate.

  24. MarkinLa says:
    @D. K.

    If we had a draft, they could be conscripted, and imprisoned if they failed to serve.

    Not unless they wanted to be. Wasn’t the War of 1812 fought partially because the Royal Navy was using press gangs to kidnap American sailors to put on their ships? There is no way to conscript citizens of Mexico against their will.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  25. @War for Blair Mountain

    The anonymous seventy year old that goes by the name of an ultra-left wing labor terrorist is how would I put this… delusionally misinformed and shockingly self-important. He knows nothing of evangelical culture. Evangelical culture with it’s happily married young couples and high fertility is an enormous rebuke to a man who if married at all was likely cuckholded. Again chronic unhappiness generates the need to explain why happy people and cultures are really stupid sheep. “Bill Blizzard” is the archetype of the low functioning 112 IQ who thinks he’s a 145 IQ.

  26. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:
    @reiner Tor

    Let the Treasonous Republican Party Croak!!!!…The only viable alternative to the Republican Party…well, here are the contours of the alternative:1)highly gut-level-racial Nationalism….2)uncompromising…..3)economically=Peasant Revolt Populist….4) most definitely anti-interventionist-bring-the troops-back home….5)very strong solidarity with the Orthodox Christian Russian People..6)very socially and culturally conservative…

    The repeal of the 14th amendment…full speed ahead!!!…bout time we picked a fight with blacks over this issue.

    Another point:the immigration moratorium concedes the labor scarcity issue to the enemy. A very severe labor scarcity must never never be used as an excuse to crank up nonwhite legal immigration ever!…Post-1965 race-replacement immigration policy is driven by the view that severe labor scarcities are terrifying things!!!!!..for who? Very severe labor scarcities have always been wonderfull for the White Working Class… Who is freightened by severe labor scarcities-tight labor markets? Answer:1)Alan Greenspan….2) Noam Chomsky….3)The immigration moratorium enthusiasts who want to play policy wonk footsie with the enemy….

    There is no economic case for ever race-replacing the Historic Native Born White American Majority….there is no debate.

  27. MarkinLa says:
    @Ron Unz

    First, as far as I know, the plain language of the amendment was never questioned by any lawyer, judge, or politician during nearly the first 150 years after its passage.

    What difference does this make, the clear language of the 2nd amendment has repeatedly come under attack and almost was changed by just a few people in robes. This though there has never been any statute at the federal or state level that tried to regulate guns based on the militia clause.

    The major attempt during FDRs time was piggy-backed on the commerce clause since the administration thought getting a Constitutional amendment would take too long and the issue was taking machine guns out of the hands of criminals. The Supreme Court in the Miller case did not rule Miller had no standing because he was not a member of a militia – which could have enshrined the militia argument. However, they did want to uphold the law and realized their mistake but they had already put themselves in a corner and came up with an idiotic idea that the gun was not shown to be a weapon suitable for a militia so they couldn’t rule. Any military history buff could tell those fools that any weapon is suitable for militia use.

    And the politics are unimaginably awful.

    I don’t think this holds much water. By Congress acting they are simply clarifying the meaning of “under the jurisdiction” from now on – case closed. Everything else you say is just your speculation about what would happen. What the anti-immigration crowd would need to do is highlight the fact that descendants of American black slaves are the people who legitimately own the 14th amendment. Many blacks are resentful of other groups trying to piggy-back off the black civil rights movement to claim their call for government goodies like the call for amnesty is anything like what happened to blacks.

  28. D. K. says:

    I always hate to be the one to have to point out the blindingly obvious to the apparently vision-challenged (or whichever euphemism may now suffice), but American sailors who were illegally impressed by His Royal Highness King George III’s Royal Navy in the early 19th Century were citizens and/or legal residents of the United States of America– not subjects of the British Crown!

    Under the Selective Service Act, any male between the ages of 18 and 26 residing in the United States– legally or not– must register with Selective Service within one month (of turning 18 or entering the country with the intention of residing, rather than visiting on a temporary visa of whichever sort). If there were a draft reinstated, all such persons would be eligible for conscription, subject only to military necessity and standards. Their respective nationalities and immigratition status would be irrelevant. Any foreign conscript would need to leave the country, and not return, to avoid being subject to his draft call and/or the consequences of his draft avoidance.

    In the comment string to Fred Reed’s latest posting, here at The Unz Review, I posted a notice to undocumented men, and their enablers, from the homepage of the Selective Service System. Read it and weep, all ye alien invaders of the Homeland!

    • Replies: @MarkinLa
  29. D. K. says:

    Are you a member of a “well-regulated” militia, Mark? Regardless, as a native-born American, a native English-speaker, a former English major, and an erstwhile attorney, schooled in Constitutional Law by an eminent scholar of the same, I find the stilted and ambiguous phrasing of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be anything but “clear language.” That’s just me, I suppose….

    At any rate, a mere Act of Congress may not amend or limit the clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution itself.

    • Replies: @MarkinLa
  30. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    Blacks do get resentfull sometimes. Soledad O’Brian’s sister Maria O’Brian landed a job as a law professor at Northwestern University under an affirmative action program for Blacks. Here is what happened:an African American Female Law Professor Faculty member raised a storm about the fact that the very white looking Maria O’Brian had 0 roots in the American South and came from a very nice White Middle Class Community down the Road from Stony Brook where her very White Irish-Australian father Robert O’Brian was a tenured Professor of Fluid Mechanics at SUNY Stony Brook(I have it on very good authority that Professor O’Brian made sure to emphasize on Soledad’s Harvard application that Soledade was African American…done with the intent of getting Soledad in under Harvard’s Affirmative Action program for African Americans.)

    This uppity Northwestern U Black Female Law Faculty Member called Maria O’Brian a fraud who was benefitting off of the historical suffering of Black Americans who have very strong roots in the American South…and, she had Maria O’Brian kicked off of the Northwestern University Law school Faculty.

  31. MarkinLa says:
    @D. K.

    I find the stilted and ambiguous phrasing of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be anything but “clear language.” That’s just me, I suppose….

    Well it hasn’t been ambiguous to the vast majority of Americans throughout the history of the country. Why hasn’t anybody attempted to regulate guns based on the militia clause?

    • Replies: @D. K.
  32. MarkinLa says:
    @D. K.

    not subjects of the British Crown!

    How is this any different than a Mexican citizen here illegally?

    Any Mexican citizen can refuse to register and simply leave the country any time he desires and the US will do nothing to him regardless of if the draft is in existence or not. Did the US government make the Mexicans brought into the US to work the fields during WWII register for the draft?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @map
  33. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    Isn’t Unz a Jew? Good thing a Jew hosts this site so you have a forum to rant about Jews.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  34. D. K. says:

    The American sailors impressed into service with the Royal Navy, in the early 19th Century, were not residing in Great Britain; they were on American vessels aboard the High Seas. The High Seas were not a dominion of the British Crown– no matter how much (“Mad”) King George III might have thought otherwise!

    Aliens, legal or otherwise, would be able to leave the country prior to their draft inductions, subsequent to their receiving notice. If they did, however, they still would be evading the draft, and subject to American law, if they ever returned to American territory. Illegal aliens here today are required to register with Selective Service, if they are men between the ages of 18 and 26. If they were present here prior to their 26th birthdays, and had failed to register, they are criminally liable for those acts of omission, and are legally barred from gaining legal residence!

    I do not know what the law was, during World War II, with regard to braceros who were legally admitted by our own government for the express purpose of doing agricultural work. Any illegal-alien man of draft age, however, was subject to the draft, the same as any native-born American of Yankee stock with a Mayflower pedigree, or whatever.

  35. D. K. says:

    That opening phrase had always been cited, when gun-control legislation was being litigated. Gun-control advocates claimed that, because of that opening, gun ownership was a collective right, limited to well-regulated militias– e.g., the National Guard. Gun-owner advocates claimed that the opening merely was explanatory as to why the personal right to bear arms needed to be explicitly protected, via the Second Amendment. In recent years, the Supreme Court got around to stating, for the first time, that the Second Amendment created a personal right, albeit not an absolute right, to bear arms, rather than merely a collective right, vis-a-vis a well-regulated militia, such as the National Guard.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  36. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @D. K.

    Is it fair to say that the Constitution is a poorly-worded document? The 2nd Amendment is one example. Why even include that first clause? Why would “the people” need a right to bear arms for the purpose of a militia? Soldiers don’t require a similarly codified right to bear arms, do they? And there have been armies forever. The only distinction I can think of is that, at the time, militia men kept their weapons at home.

    Another example would seem to be the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  37. D. K. says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    The Constitution was written in 1787. What English literature might one read from the late-18th Century that does not sound stilted, or even archaic, to our 21st-Century ears? Even worse, it was drafted by a committee– and a committe of politicians, many of them lawyers, to boot! All things considered, it was a veritable wonder of the early Modern World. “There were Giants then!” (as they used to tell their children and grandchildren, up in Harlem).

  38. @Priss Factor

    The overwhelming majority of Americans are generally disengaged from politics and current events. They don’t follow the minutiae of immigration policy because their free time is absorbed in television, social networking, and other forms of entertainment. The average America has a very limited understanding of most major issues, so they can easily be bamboozled into supporting policies against their interest.

    For example, almost everyone in the USA believes that American workers should be given precedence over American workers. Even if you read leftist sites like Daily Kos or Huffington Post, almost all the posters are strongly against foreign worker visas. Eliminating foreign worker visas would seem like a noncontroversial, bipartisan issue. Despite bipartisan support for eliminating foreign worker visas, foreign worker importation continues on a massive scale. Why? The simple answer is that most Americans don’t realize we even have such visas in place. Most Americans read so little and know so little that they’d be shocked if you told them about the existence of the H1B. The average voter’s attention is more focused on the next American Idol winner than issues of national importance. This allows a small number of oligarchs and interest groups to dominate national policy.

    If Americans weren’t so childish and entertainment-obsessed, they’d get actively involved in learning about these complex issues and devising their own solutions. Instead, Americans outsource policy making to their politicians, much like a child outsources household decision making to his parents. Americans don’t want adult responsibilities. They want to watch football and reality tv.

    One reason the Roman empire collapsed was the corruption and depravity of its rulers. The second reason was that the masses were too distracted by bread and circuses to care that their empire was being hollowed out by corrupt leaders.

    • Replies: @MarkinLa
  39. @Dave Pinsen

    You tell him, Dave. K. Arujo, are you not overwhelmed with GUILT for your anti-Jewish RANTING? Lol.

  40. Steak and Potatoes is right. However, what is going to be done about it? Nothing seems to be getting any better. It just continues to get worse. We, all, generally, have a few good ideas on what to do, but in reality, who is going to actually get these ideas past the speculation stage? No one knows, and no-one knows how to. Interesting that the Roman Empire was brought up – is it just me that has the vague, uneasy feeling that our civilisation is headed for some major breakdown in the not too distant future? The Romans always thought they were going to be around. I’m not so sure about what we generally refer to as western civilisation will. I just don’t want to be around when open ethnic warfare erupts and the world we once knew resembles something like the one depicted in Cormac McCarthys The Road.

    • Replies: @map
    , @map
  41. map says:

    MarkinLA does have a good point here. If Mexican illegals are “subject to the jurisdiction of” the United States, then can they be pressed into military service and sent to the Middle East?

    Could they be drafted if there was a draft?

    • Replies: @map
  42. map says:

    Furthermore, what exactly is the point of the “subject to the jurisdiction of” clause anyway? Why is is there? If it was there to only eliminate diplomats and Indians, then it would have said so plainly.

  43. map says:
    @The Albino Sasquatch

    Well, the US is largely finished. I give it about nine years before it collapses.

  44. map says:
    @The Albino Sasquatch

    What will end it is when the Brown people start voting for their own and then push the White Liberals out of power. They will then not need billionaires because they could then confiscate their wealth outright.

    Loo at what is happening to Rahm Emmanuelle in Chicago. That model will duplicate itself around the country.

  45. MarkinLa says:

    What is even more sad is that many people in the tech world are too stupid to even understand what H-1B visas are all about. They have a serious lack of street smarts. They think they have kept their job because they are somehow the brightest of the bright and that those who have lost their jobs are the dregs. Of course many get laid off in the 40s but the wake up call arrives too late.

    There are very few real superstars that will never get fired regardless of how high their salary is.

    The other problem is fairly intelligent people that swallow everything the corporations say about a shortage of people or that Americans aren’t keeping up. They don’t realize that the purpose of H-1B visas was to temporarily alleviate the supposed “tech worker shortage” that the Reagan administration insisted was coming. They don’t realize that this is not supposed to harm the existing base of American IT talent. Of course, any additional supply will do just that but the effects were supposed to be minimal. They also don’t realize how mediocre the vast majority of H-1Bs are and that the vast majority of the work they do is at an entry level.

  46. @Ron Unz

    The legitimization of gay ‘marriage’ through the 14th Amendment violated Principle to set Precedent: any interpretation of ‘marriage’ is now permitted.

    I expect the ‘right to marry’ to be adopted by polygamists, bestialists, pedophiles and incestists further down the line: they can also claim the ‘right’ to non-discrimination.

    The cultural appropriation of Afro-American history by wealthy white gays – big investors in IVF/Eugenics/surrogacy – is probably the biggest scam since WMD Iraq.

    Interestingly, the same legal firm brought the supine American electorate the case for both.

  47. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    A very severe labor scarcity must never be used as an excuse to race-replace The Historic Native Born White American Majority. If you do…and this is what Peter Brimelow’s immigration moratorium does….when wages start to rise, pump in Asian Legal Immigrants who then go on to vote Whitey very rapidly into a racial minority at election time.

    Basing Immigration Policy on whether or not there is a labor scarcity makes an economic case for race-replacing The Historic Native Born White American Majority….This is the basis of post-1965 Immigration Policy.

    It is shocking to me how inept the “smarty” pants in our movement are at debating.

  48. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:
    @Sure Thing

    There either is a Universal Right to Marry or there isn’t. If there isn’t…who gets to decide which category of people have a right to marry? In 2015…a very small percentage of the US population gets to decide which category of people can marry…that is to say:homos get to decide the normative issue in the right to marry debate. How can this be? Answer:The collusion of Mega-Corporations and the minority homo population….this is what the homo marriage debate is all about. And its not really a debate…rather, it is the threat of economic violence and State Violence directed against Socially and Culturally Conservative Christians. The Kenyan Foreigner will eventually send in the homo normed 101 Airborne to enforce homo marriage on the Conservative Evangelical Christian American South.

    The War against Conservative Christian Russia is the flip-side of the homo-norming policy.

  49. Michelle says:

    Hmm… Does that mean that natives become non-citizens? I always tell my elitist friends, (mostly liberals) that we do not want to kill all the stupid people, a la Hitler, because stupid people are our last line of defense between the geniuses and us. If not for the stupid, there for but the grace of God go us! Remember, everyone is “differently abled” or we would all be a combination of Albert Einstein and Michael Jordan!

  50. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    For those of who are thinking of attending the American Renassaince Conference next month in TN:do you really want to hear the very obnoxious Ski Slope Richard Spencer doing his Jon Stewardt-like mocking of Conservative Christian Heterosexuals who oppose homo-filth marriage?

    Sometimes ya gotta be mean…really mean!!!

  51. ohwilleke says: • Website
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    The linked article says no such thing. It says that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said that Congress does not have the power to abolish birthright citizenship, that most statutory proposals that have been introduced to do so are tied barred to passage of a Constitutional Amendment, and that some advocates other than the author of the CRS review holding a decidedly minority view have argued that statutes are sufficient without support from any court rulings to that effect.

    It is not affirmative authority for the argument that birthright citizenship can be secured by statute.

  52. TB2 [AKA "JohnB"] says:

    The revival of the phrase “Stupid Party” by Sam Francis to describe the Republicans was a major mistake. They’re not stupid, they’re crooks and traitors. These are well educated men and women of above average intelligence, they know exactly what is going on. They’re in it for the dough and they’ll never confront the left on any issue that involves race since there’s nothing in it for them, which is why the Democrats try to make every issue about race. They don’t want to do anything about immigration, they just want their voters to lie down and shut up about it. They could neuter Obama on this and many other issues by simply “going nuclear” in the Senate. Pigs will fly first. They’ll quack on about tradition, but the plain fact is they just don’t want to bother with it since it doesn’t benefit their millionaire friends. The first step in dealing with a situation is to properly label it – they’re not stupid, they’re crooks and traitors.

  53. I read the article here and some links.

    I don’t think you can legally abolish birthright citizenship, on account of the clear language of the 14th amendment, all circumlocutions about the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” notwithstanding. The phrase in question was put there to permit the exclusion of Indians from citizenship. They were later incorporated by statute.

    I think the furthest you could go would be to exclude babies born of mothers who traveled here for no other reason that to give birth to citizens, i.e., the offspring of so-called “birth tourists.” But the children of ordinary illegal immigrants? Nope.

  54. syonredux says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    I wouldn’t worry about it.American corporate elites will never allow birthright citizenship to end.It’s far too valuable to them.

    I can sympathize with Derbyshire’s views, though.When one reads predictions like this:

    The Hispanic population is expected to reach about 106 million in 2050, about double what it is today, according to new U.S. Census Bureau population projections. But the new Hispanic population projection for 2050 is lower — by nearly 30 million — than earlier population projections published by the bureau.

    Well, things look dark indeed.And this prediction is something of an improvement!The USA will only have 106 million low IQ Mestizo Hispanics in 2050.

    America in 2050 will be a far more vulgar, far more stupid place than it is now

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS