A Once-Fringe Nazi Theory Takes the Spotlight at The New York Times (The False Idea That Children of Illegals Are Citizens)

[excalibur]

How the newspaper of record has morphed into the liars of record.

But this is nothing new, it started at least as far back as the 1930s when a reporter for the Times, Walter Duranty, won a Pulitzer Prize for denying the forced starvation of ~10 million in Ukraine by Stalin. A prize the Times till has not returned.

...​

​

Today’s Weakest Link trick comes from the Times‘ Abbie VanSickle, who claims John Eastman is the originator of the idea that the 14th Amendment is about freed slaves, not illegal aliens. In case you’re not sure what to think of Eastman, VanSickle quickly identifies him as “an obscure California law professor … [who provided] Mr. Trump with legal arguments he used to try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.”​

​

...​

​

In 1985, Yale professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith — no slouches — published a book, “Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Policy,” making this inarguable point:​

​

“The parents of [illegals] are, by definition, individuals whose presence within the jurisdiction of the United States is prohibited by law and to whom the society has explicitly and self-consciously decided to deny membership. And if the society has refused to consent to their membership, it can hardly be said to have consented to that of their children who happen to be born while their parents are here in violation of American law.”​

​

Schuck and Smith simply take it for granted that anchor babies are not mandated by the 14th Amendment. They write that the debates “establish that the framers of the Citizenship Clause had no intention of establishing a universal rule of birthright citizenship.” (In VanSickle’s telling, this description of the debates doesn’t appear in the Yale professors’ 1985 book: It’s just a “claim” made by Eastman.)​

​

In the summer of 1996, Dan Stein and John Bauer published an article in the Stanford Law & Policy Review, also arguing that the Constitution does not mandate anchor babies: “Interpreting the 14th Amendment: Automatic Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants?”​

​

Then, in 2003, the late Richard Posner, 7th Circuit Appellate judge, wrote a concurring opinion in Oforji v. Ashcroft for the express purpose of demanding that Congress stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.” He said he doubted that this was the meaning of the 14th Amendment and pleaded with Congress to pass a law and “put an end to the nonsense.”​

​

...​

A Once-Fringe Nazi Theory Takes the Spotlight at <em>The New York Times</em>

www.takimag.com

 

[mudwhistle]

How the newspaper of record has morphed into the liars of record.

But this is nothing new, it started at least as far back as the 1930s when a reporter for the Times, Walter Duranty, won a Pulitzer Prize for denying the forced starvation of ~10 million in Ukraine by Stalin. A prize the Times till has not returned.

...​

​

Today’s Weakest Link trick comes from the Times‘ Abbie VanSickle, who claims John Eastman is the originator of the idea that the 14th Amendment is about freed slaves, not illegal aliens. In case you’re not sure what to think of Eastman, VanSickle quickly identifies him as “an obscure California law professor … [who provided] Mr. Trump with legal arguments he used to try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.”​

​

...​

​

In 1985, Yale professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith — no slouches — published a book, “Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Policy,” making this inarguable point:​

​

“The parents of [illegals] are, by definition, individuals whose presence within the jurisdiction of the United States is prohibited by law and to whom the society has explicitly and self-consciously decided to deny membership. And if the society has refused to consent to their membership, it can hardly be said to have consented to that of their children who happen to be born while their parents are here in violation of American law.”​

​

Schuck and Smith simply take it for granted that anchor babies are not mandated by the 14th Amendment. They write that the debates “establish that the framers of the Citizenship Clause had no intention of establishing a universal rule of birthright citizenship.” (In VanSickle’s telling, this description of the debates doesn’t appear in the Yale professors’ 1985 book: It’s just a “claim” made by Eastman.)​

​

In the summer of 1996, Dan Stein and John Bauer published an article in the Stanford Law & Policy Review, also arguing that the Constitution does not mandate anchor babies: “Interpreting the 14th Amendment: Automatic Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants?”​

​

Then, in 2003, the late Richard Posner, 7th Circuit Appellate judge, wrote a concurring opinion in Oforji v. Ashcroft for the express purpose of demanding that Congress stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.” He said he doubted that this was the meaning of the 14th Amendment and pleaded with Congress to pass a law and “put an end to the nonsense.”​

​

...​

A Once-Fringe Nazi Theory Takes the Spotlight at <em>The New York Times</em>

www.takimag.com

As long as congress is getting kick-backs from drug cartels....they'll never pass a law clearly stating that the 14th Amendment does not apply to children of illegals.

 

[TimFitz]

How the newspaper of record has morphed into the liars of record.

But this is nothing new, it started at least as far back as the 1930s when a reporter for the Times, Walter Duranty, won a Pulitzer Prize for denying the forced starvation of ~10 million in Ukraine by Stalin. A prize the Times till has not returned.

...​

​

Today’s Weakest Link trick comes from the Times‘ Abbie VanSickle, who claims John Eastman is the originator of the idea that the 14th Amendment is about freed slaves, not illegal aliens. In case you’re not sure what to think of Eastman, VanSickle quickly identifies him as “an obscure California law professor … [who provided] Mr. Trump with legal arguments he used to try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.”​

​

...​

​

In 1985, Yale professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith — no slouches — published a book, “Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Policy,” making this inarguable point:​

​

“The parents of [illegals] are, by definition, individuals whose presence within the jurisdiction of the United States is prohibited by law and to whom the society has explicitly and self-consciously decided to deny membership. And if the society has refused to consent to their membership, it can hardly be said to have consented to that of their children who happen to be born while their parents are here in violation of American law.”​

​

Schuck and Smith simply take it for granted that anchor babies are not mandated by the 14th Amendment. They write that the debates “establish that the framers of the Citizenship Clause had no intention of establishing a universal rule of birthright citizenship.” (In VanSickle’s telling, this description of the debates doesn’t appear in the Yale professors’ 1985 book: It’s just a “claim” made by Eastman.)​

​

In the summer of 1996, Dan Stein and John Bauer published an article in the Stanford Law & Policy Review, also arguing that the Constitution does not mandate anchor babies: “Interpreting the 14th Amendment: Automatic Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants?”​

​

Then, in 2003, the late Richard Posner, 7th Circuit Appellate judge, wrote a concurring opinion in Oforji v. Ashcroft for the express purpose of demanding that Congress stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.” He said he doubted that this was the meaning of the 14th Amendment and pleaded with Congress to pass a law and “put an end to the nonsense.”​

​

...​

A Once-Fringe Nazi Theory Takes the Spotlight at <em>The New York Times</em>

www.takimag.com

So what?

Why did this right wing trash try and spend so much time trying to defend Eastman?

 

[TimFitz]

As long as congress is getting kick-backs from drug cartels....they'll never pass a law clearly stating that the 14th Amendment does not apply to children of illegals.

Prove it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Prove it.

 

[TimFitz]

View attachment 1115704

So,you just make up BS about drug cartels bribing Congress.

When challenged to own your own words,you insinuate that I am stupid.

Which you use as your excuse to not admit that you just make stuff up.

Pretty juvenile, really..

 

[mudwhistle]

So,you just make up BS about drug cartels bribing Congress.

When challenged to own your own words,you insinuate that I am stupid.

Which you use as your excuse to not admit that you just make stuff up.

Pretty juvenile, really..

I didn't make it up.

I'm not going to spend one second wasting my time trying to prove my point to someone who will just claim the source isn't reliable. I've tried too many times to fall for that trick again.

My suggestion is stop listening to the mainstream media.