Don’t Let The Gills, Scales & Fins Distract You–Nothing Fishy In Trumpistan

Posted on | February 10, 2016 | 124 Comments

by Smitty

Byron York almost doesn’t seem to notice:

There really were a lot of Trump voters out there, and party officials could not, or did not want, to see them.

And what an astonishingly varied group of voters Trump attracted. At his victory celebration in Manchester Tuesday night, I met a young woman, Alexis Chiparo, who four years ago was an Obama-voting member of MoveOn.org. Now she is the Merrimack County chair of the Trump campaign.

I sure would like to know how many other core leaders in Trump’s campaign cut their teeth working for the Commies. I don’t know the lady–her support could be sincere. Or not.

Category: Donald Trump

Comments

124 Responses to “Don’t Let The Gills, Scales & Fins Distract You–Nothing Fishy In Trumpistan”

Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 11:25 am

I, personally, would overlook location so long as both parents are American (NBC or naturalized). But that’s just me. One parent would make it dual citizenship, but NBC is and should be a higher standard. I’d rather have the standard shit-canned above-board than watered down and ignored.

If someone can show me that Congress got off its ass and actually done passed a statute that said “hear ye, hear ye, naturalized in this situation is NBC from thsi day forward” I’d listen to that argument. Just using its power to naturalize isn’t enough for that NBC level, even if its enough for citizenship generally.

All else aside, that 14 Amendment anchor baby clause really chaps my cheeks. It’s magic dirt thinking – why make a baby born in the US to two foreign nationals a US citizen automatically? I don’t think the 14th was actually intended for that, but then again, it does seem to be the Magic Amendment that undoes any other that comes in its orbit.
Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 11:37 am

Is that real? It might just be me, but I’m sensing some bias on the NY Daily News’ part. Kevin Williamson must have that framed in his office.
Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 11:38 am

But that doesn’t necessarily make him my enemy, either.
gunga
February 11th, 2016 @ 12:12 pm

…one toward which I have some affection…at great enough distance. I went to the polls one day and found a candidate the size of a tangerine…
Finrod Felagund
February 11th, 2016 @ 2:12 pm

What you fail to observe is that the Constitution DOES define treason. Unless you can show me that “natural-born citizen” had a very specific and well-known meaning in 1787, my comment stands.
HughdePayens
February 11th, 2016 @ 2:13 pm

Yea gosh what we need more of are career politicians…after all they are so good at getting things done, as long as those things only include lining their pockets and getting reelected.

Give me some more of that Cruz fella…sure he supports TPP and he loves himself some of that H1B goodness but my goodness he promises, cross his heart that he has seen the LIGHT, PRAISE THE LORD!

Geez…if we keep electing career politicians why do we expect anything different than what has happened so far. The left wins, government gets bigger and more intrusive, for the children don’t you know. But let’s elect us some cross their heart hope to die conservatives…instead of a businessman who has actually accomplished something. Sure whatever…

What really pisses off the press about Trump is that he doesn’t need you. That moves y’all back to the position the press should always have been…right above snake-oil salesmen.
Finrod Felagund
February 11th, 2016 @ 2:13 pm

Since you’ve degenerated to random insults, I have one for you: go fuck yourself.
HughdePayens
February 11th, 2016 @ 2:14 pm

He is a lot stronger down here than y’all have any idea of…
Finrod Felagund
February 11th, 2016 @ 2:15 pm

As a continuation of my other comment, words like “year”, “age”, and “marriage” did have very specific well-known meanings in 1787. The first two haven’t changed, whereas the Left has been frantically trying to change the third over the last ten years or so.

Unless and until you can show me that “natural-born citizen” had a well-known specific meaning in 1787, you’re just engaging in bullshit sophistry.
HughdePayens
February 11th, 2016 @ 2:25 pm

Now you know another one…I knocked on doors for Reagan, made phone calls for Bush and gave a lot of money to McCain and Romney, who I managed to meet in a setting of around 6 people…a very fine man. So I guess you could call me a LIV…heh.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 2:28 pm

“As a continuation of my other comment, words like “year”, “age”, and “marriage” did have very specific well-known meanings in 1787.”
And so did “natural born citizen”. What, the Framers — who carefully deliberated every word of the Constitution — somehow just slipped in this phrase without even knowing what was meant by it?
Oh, that’s right, you’re not intellectually honest, so you don’t care.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 2:35 pm

“What you fail to observe is that the Constitution DOES define treason.”
The Constitution defines treason with respect to the United States precisely because the Framers were narrowing the scope of the term.
But then, you’re not intellectually honest, so you don’t care.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 2:50 pm

Even *after* passage of the 14th Amendment, US citizen mothers of children born overseas couldn’t pass even *mere* US citizenship, much less natural born citizenship, to their children. It was only beginning May 24, 1934 (that is, following the Citizenship Act of 1934), that US citizen mothers could transmit US citizenship to their children born overseas. However, since at least 1790, if not “forever”, US citizen *fathers* had always been able to US citizenship — and, indeed, natural born US citizenship — to their children born overseas, provided that the father had resided in the US at some time in his life prior to the child’s bitrh.
CDM
February 11th, 2016 @ 2:55 pm

The Daily Snooze, once upon a time, the newspaper of the NYC working class.

As for me, I prefer this:

http://images.hngn.com/data/images/full/192821/new-york-post-cover.png
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 3:01 pm

Well, you know, you “enjoy pointing out to Trump supporters that question Cruz’s eligibility that Trump himself had his lawyers look into it last September and they said it was a big nothingburger” … and I enjoy pointing out the truth: you are intellectually dishonest.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 3:14 pm

Being a US citizen is not the same thing as being a natural born US citizen.
.
A person can have dual citizenship; that is, a person can be the citizen/subject of two sovereignties. However, no person can be a natural born citizen/subject of two — or, as in Cruz’s case, three — sovereignties, but only of one.
.
That is, after all, what you are trying to argue: the Cruz is simultaneously a natural born US citizen, and also a natural born Cuban citizen, and also a natural born Canadian citizen.
===
The whole reason that the requirement of being a natural born US citizen is attached to the presidency is precisely to prevent persons with such convoluted loyalties from even seeking the office.
Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 3:50 pm

That’s interesting. Why fathers, if you know? It seems to me that (at that time) proving who your mother was would be easier than your father.
Finrod Felagund
February 11th, 2016 @ 3:52 pm

Funny how you’re the only one that thinks that here. No one else has a problem with me, but several people have a problem with you.
Finrod Felagund
February 11th, 2016 @ 3:54 pm

I’m not the one making unsupportable bullshit arguments like you just made. Show me where that phrase had a specific well-known meaning in 1787 or admit you lose.
Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 3:59 pm

I didn’t “fail to observe” it, I simply didn’t mention it, because my point was that there was no definiton section in the Constitution like there is in most statutes that addresses multiple, important terms in the document that the drafters intended to have specific meanings. Thus, the Framers would assume the natural meaning of a word unless it was so serious and open to multiple interpretatuion that they had to define it. Such as “treason”.

And any interpretation of a word should not be so broad as to swallow an intended distinction meant by use of the term. Which happens way too often these days.

That’s why the SCOTUS usually interprets a Constitutional term, and does so (supposedly, cough) with an eye toward original intent.
Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 4:10 pm

At the absolute least, the concern most directly connected to its use in the Constitution was foregin influence. Dual citizenship is by nature foreign influence, a foreign obligation or legal connection. I can see how being born of two US parents regardless of location may suffice, but what if one is a foreign national:

“On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

‘Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.’

While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen, as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed “citizen” to “natural born citizen”, and the residency requirement to 14 years, without recorded explanation after receiving Jay’s letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.”

Didn’t seem to be much confusion or debate, when the Founders debated damn near everything else. That would be odd for a term that had multiple meanings.
NeoWayland
February 11th, 2016 @ 4:11 pm

So let me get this straight.

You’re saying that Cruz is not a natural born citizen because Cuban law says he’s Cuban? Despite the fact that he has never claimed Cuban citizenship?

What would you be saying if his mother had been a naturalized citizen?

Be careful here. I’ve heard arguments made that anyone whose family has been in America for less than 800 years isn’t a natural born citizen.
Authenticity | Rotten Chestnuts
February 11th, 2016 @ 4:14 pm

[…] start with an anti-Trump cheap shot from Stacy McCain’s blog sidekick […]
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 4:29 pm

For one thing, because citizenship — and the obligations of it — has always been primarily about the men, rather than the women, of a polity. Until recently, it was the men, not the women, who paid the taxes … and served, whether they want to or not, in the army. Further, it was the men, not the women, who were held to be financially responsible for the needs of the children born to them. And for that matter, the men were financially responsible for their wives, but not the wives for their husbands.
.
Think about it — we reproduce sexually. Thus, it’s entirely possible for a person to be born with two different polities claiming to be owed his natural primary allegiance. But, that’s logically impossible; so it has to be one or the other. *Every* polity that wants to continue to exist will choose the fathers as the holders and carriers of this natural primary allegiance.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 4:35 pm

“… It seems to me that (at that time) proving who your mother was would be easier than your father.”

That’s why the law has always presumed the legal father of a child to be his mother’s husband. That’s why a man’s legitimate children have a legal right to his financial support – and to his estate – but his bastards do not.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 4:37 pm

“People” “have a problem” with truth. That’s always been the case, all through history.
Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 4:46 pm

That’s interesting and hard to argue against. But how is that viewed in light of Jay’s concerns about foreign influence on the role of Commander in Chief? Did they give women such little weight in that calculus? If you were born of a US father and, say, a French mother, did they believe that you would not be swayed by a French allegiance simply because adopting your father’s position may have been preferable?
Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 4:48 pm

Yes, that’s true, even if it screwed the husband who was not, in fact, the father.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 4:52 pm

“All else aside, that 14 Amendment anchor baby clause really chaps my cheeks. …”
.
But this is an (originally) intentional misreading of, and misuse of, the Amendment. Here is Section 1 of the Amendment — “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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor [there is an implied “shall” here] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
.
Notice the the words I’ve bolded — “are” versus “shall”
l
The 14th Amendment does *not* say that mere birth on US soil henceforth and forever more endows a person with US citizenship. However, it *does* say that henceforth and forever more no state may “make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”, etc.
.
The point of that first sentence — and all it does — is overturn the Dred Scott decision. It applies to the people then alive, not to anyone now alive.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 4:54 pm

Well, since my family have been here for 10 or 12 K years, I guess I’m good to go.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 4:57 pm

The meaning of “natural born citizen” (or “subject”, as the case may be) is what it is. And it is inherited from the father, not from the mother.

“What would you be saying if his mother had been a naturalized citizen?”

I’d be saying the same thing I’ve been saying since 2007/8 — he is not a natural born US citizen because his *father* was not a US citizen at the time of his birth.
Wombat_socho
February 11th, 2016 @ 5:11 pm

How can we miss Heb if he won’t leave?
NeoWayland
February 11th, 2016 @ 5:13 pm

You’re going to limit it to the parental line? You might as well limit it to the Social Register.

It’s a silly argument.

Just for your information, many Amerindian tribes trace their ancestry through the maternal line. The U.S. government has recognized that through treaties.
Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 5:17 pm

I agree, I’m just saying that [interpretation] chaps my ass. I’ve spent some time reading the “sordid” history of natural born citizenship, and it seems to me that the farther back you go, the more sense it makes and the clearer it is, and (like all law) the more judges and attorneys get a hold of it and apply their interpretation to it, the more f”ed up and vague it gets to the point that there is no “point” in having it. And that seems like its “all part of the plan”. It’s all “result in search of rationale”, twisting language and sentence structure to achieve desired results otherwise clearly prohibited by the same text and intent of its drafters.
Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 5:23 pm

My thoughts exactly – it’s silly on its face. Prior courts have decided that “hey, you’re NBC despite your parents being Mexicans or despite having one parent that’s a foreign national regardless of and in spite of any other countries’ citizenship laws”. For NBC, that’s just nuts. The fact that other Federal positions created in the Constitution (Senate, etc.) only require “citizenship” and not NBC like the President and VP is a big tell that they are not the same. I don’t buy the “Founders were just sloppy” or the “Founders didn’t have a clear definition in mind” arguments.
Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 5:26 pm

That’s Cuba. What about Canada? And the general rule still applies – each country can have a drastically different approach, and, for example, Canada’s could be more possessive of Cruz. The general idea of NBC should be/is to AVOID that altogether.
Saltyron1977
February 11th, 2016 @ 5:29 pm

Then you are better off amending the Constitution to eliminate the NBC requirement altogether and reduce it to “citizen”, rather than redefine the NBC requirement to mean damn near any reduced status. That’s a shady “death by a thousand cuts”.
Jonathan Wilson
February 11th, 2016 @ 5:32 pm

Honestly I will take a Sulla any day a man of honor like that will rise up and claim the power. We have tried lots of other solutions and no of them worked, lets set things right one and for all. He came along when the Republic was collapsing and his fixes held for close to 40 years. I would like to see some pay back and fix the nation.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:02 pm

“But how is that viewed in light of Jay’s concerns about foreign influence on the role of Commander in Chief? Did they give women such little weight in that calculus? If you were born of a US father and, say, a French mother, did they believe that you would not be swayed by a French allegiance simply because adopting your father’s position may have been preferable?”
.
One of the things that is so ironic about all the feminist caviling about Teh Patriarchy is that they won (*), and they won’t take “Yes” for an answer. What I’m saying is this – the whole reason
that question seems so significant to you, whereas it didn’t to the Framers, is that we all have been marinated our entire lives in a culture that hates and denigrates fatherhood.
.
(*) for the short term; in the long term, reality always wins, and the reality is that no culture that hates and denigrates fatherhood can long prosper.
.
.

From the Naturalization
Act of 1790 — “… And the children of citizens of the
United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States …”
.
Now, let it be pointed out that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and superseded
by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which makes no mention of “natural borncitizen”. My purpose in referring to the Naturalization Act of 1790 is to help the reader see how the Framers understood the term “natural born citizen”.
.
So, to the person not reading the quoted text carefully (whether this carelessness is intentional or not), the Naturalization Act of 1790 might seem to be saying that natural born citizenship can come from either parent. After all, it when is says “And the children of citizens of the United States …”, it doesn’t say anything about sex. Similarly, the careless reader may crow that the Naturalization Act of 1795 says that “any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States”, which makes no mention of sex.
.
Yet, the Naturalization Act of 1790 limits this “consideration” of natural born citizenship to descending to children via their fathers, provided their fathers have resided in the US.
.
And the Naturalization Act of 1795 qualifies and limits the granting of naturalization to these supposedly desexualized “persons” in that the “… court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character …” That is, while the text speaks of “person”, it primarily means “man”.
.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was enacted by the First Congress – by men who had
ratified and a significant extent, written, the Constitution. The Act shows — to any willing to see – how the men who *wrote* that particular requirement into the Constitution understood what they wrote to mean.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:08 pm

This is also why, until a few generations ago, in those (at the time, rare) instances when a couple divorced, it was the father, rather mother, who by default took custody of the children — he was financially responsible for them, she wasn’t.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:12 pm

“I agree, I’m just saying that [interpretation] chaps my ass.”
OK, now we’re clear.
Quartermaster
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:12 pm

Your just throwing stuff up against the wall to see what will stick. By your definition, many people who are actually, by the founders definition, NBC, are dual citizens. There are a number of countries that still regard the kids of naturalized US citizens as citizens of their country and they found, to their shock, when they visited the old country they were liable to the duties of citizenship and were inducted in the military.

I hold with the definition the founders used, and am not arguing contra. i also realize what the courts are using right now, and I’d be willing to bet that if litigated the courts would hold Cruz as natural born. As we both know, the courts are lawless.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:16 pm

“Your just throwing stuff up against the wall to see what will stick … As we both know, the courts are lawless.”
.
Make up your mind. Not that you’ll be right if you go with “Your just throwing stuff up against the wall to see what will stick”, but at least you’ll be consistent.
Ilion
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:18 pm

Yes, “natural born US citizen” and “US citizen” and not the same thing. The former is a subset of the latter.
Daniel Freeman
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:25 pm

Doesn’t matter anyway, with both sides having competitive elections. With all the superdelegates lining up behind Grandma Mao, the Bernshevik needs supermajorities in the primaries to seal the deal.
NeoWayland
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:26 pm

This whole thing strikes me as elitism. The man had an American mother. He grew up in the U.S. He is a U.S. Senator.

But of course this is really the distraction, isn’t it? You don’t like Cruz, so this is an easy way to attack him without actually attacking him.

For the record, my preferred candidate is None of The Above.
NeoWayland
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:30 pm

Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014 after learning he still had dual citizenship.
Quartermaster
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:45 pm

SCOTUS use of the 14th amendment in that way is simply lawless. It was an interpretation to grind an ax.

The location thing has been something of a problem in the past. One can make the claim that the Canal Zone, for example, was US territory, but legally it really wasn’t. We had an easement in perpetuity. That caused a bit of a problem for John McCain, who could be argued to not be NBC since he was born out of the country. That both parents were NBC, and required by military orders to be outside the country at little johnnies birth, in my judgment, should make McCain NBC, but that’s me.
NeoWayland
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:46 pm

First, it’s not “natural born US citizen” and “US citizen,” it’s “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” Let’s stick to the proper phrases, shall we?

Second, what proof do you have that a child born to one American parent is not a natural born Citizen? Certainly the courts and the Congress (as they are empowered by the Constitution) think that is enough.

What next? Shall we judge by skin color or nose size?
Quartermaster
February 11th, 2016 @ 6:52 pm

MY mind is made up. You simply need to consider what you are saying more carefully, or quit arguing. Your choice.

It may also be useful if you would read what I said, rather than throw a knee jerk response on the tube.