Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

The extent to which the Constitution is unambiguous and the extent to which it is open to interpretation is, well, a matter of interpretation.

 

For example:

 

When i was in high school, we (boys) were not allowed to wear jeans and girls could not wear any sort of slacks. No one could burn the American flag. Now laws against burning the flag are unconstitutional . And dress codes are much relaxed. Except for hoop skirts.

 

Myself, I have never wanted to burn a flag or wear a hoop skirt, but I would have expected that if I were allowed to do one but not the other, it would be the hoop skirt that would be allowed, burning the flag would be forbidden.

 

Nothing is ever simple. Here is no law in Georgia forbidding hoop skirts, but the University is a state run organization. Also, I make a distinction between high school,and college, the latter being attended by people who are, at least chronologically, adults. We have (or rather we should have but current legal thinking may not support me) far more say in what high school students can and cannot do, say or wear than than we have with college students.

 

 

Is this digression at all relevant to the posted topic? I think so. Citizen's United applied (this is right isn't it) to unions as well to corporations. The political power of unions in the last century had a lot to do with helping the working class. Jimmy Hoffa was Jimmy Hoffa, but the Teamsters did well under him and Dave Beck. As did the auto workers. And coal mining got safer. Not safe, but safer. Not that there were never corrupt backroom deals.

 

Neither unions nor corporations are "people". That one sentence summary of the ruling was unfortunate. But the money comes from people and the decisions are made by people.

 

Positions on how much and how we should interpret the Constitution often depend on whose ox is being gored.

[jonottawa]

re: anchor babies

 

First, I consider this issue to be a 'yuge' distraction. The rest of the plan is great WITHOUT that provision. Debating that issue ad infinitum is a waste of time. If it passes, it will be challenged. If it is challenged, it will be found constitutional OR NOT.

 

But including that provision lets people (like MikeH) who want to seem 'less extreme' than the Donald find something they would moderate about his plan. That's probably a good thing. It's not recommended to go into a negotiation with an offer that is the minimum you're willing to accept. Propose a plan that includes decitizening anchor babies & then compromise on the same plan without that provision.

 

And to those who contend that particular issue shows how EXTREME the plan is, the fact remains that the vast majority of countries do NOT blanketly allow 'birthright citizenship' as it is indeed quite a nutty policy (at least to those of us who aren't one-world-government cultural Marxists) in the case of a mother who is in the country illegally.

 

[hrothgar]

re: anchor babies

 

First, I consider this issue to be a 'yuge' distraction. The rest of the plan is great WITHOUT that provision.

 

Fine. Lets move on to the inane idea that

 

1. Building a massive wall between the US and Mexico will do any good

2. Trump will be able to force the Mexican government to pay for its construction

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the over whelming majority of illegal immigrants enter the US legally and then overstay their visas. Building a wall is at best a distraction and at worst and amazing waste of resources.

 

The mechanisms that Trump claims that he will use to compel the Mexican government to pay violate numerous existing treaties and trade accords.

 

The entire plan is a delusional distraction.

[Winstonm]

All of my views are personal views. As are yours. So what? Your post is a non-sequitur as far as I can see.

 

Just passing along some personal history FWIW. I found in my forties that life was less stressful once I abandoned absolutist thinking and became aware that the quality of being equally human was all that was needed to restore a positive self-image.

[awm]

I don't understand this hostility to immigrants. Virtually all Americans have ancestors who were immigrants. Most of these immigrants were not well educated, were from ethnic groups which people discriminated against at the time they came over, were accused of being criminals or taking jobs from "real Americans" -- and nonetheless they turned out okay. Many of our greatest citizens (in all fields of accomplishment) were immigrants or the children of immigrants. The words on the statue of liberty are "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" -- not "give me your best and brightest, all others need not apply."

 

The vast majority of people crossing the US border are here to make a better life for themselves or their families. They come because there's work here, or because they have relatives here, or because they are oppressed or mistreated in their home country. This is the reason my great grandparents came, and the reason most Americans' ancestors came.

Recently illegal immigration has been net zero for a number of years. Nonetheless we have cases where parents of American-born children are deported -- having a US citizen baby does not prevent deportation, and one of my wife's (US citizen) students recently had her mom threatened with deportation.

 

The unemployment rate has been falling for a long time now, and Americans don't want jobs picking vegetables in the fields for minimum wage anyway. Immigrants do the awful jobs that need to be done to maintain standard of living for the rest of us, and they do them because it's better than what they had in their home country, and because they want a better life for their children. For the most part they are hard-working people that we should respect and help out where we can. Yes, there are a few criminals in every group, but we catch them and punish them... and some of the petty crime would be reduced if we let these folks out of the shadows to make a living legitimately.

 

Further, "welfare" has not existed in this country since the nineties. We have one of the stingiest welfare states of any major nation on earth. If people wanted to immigrate so they could "live on welfare" they would go to Canada (or Europe, or heck, Cuba... virtually every major country has a stronger welfare state than us). Sure, we have SNAP benefits but do we really want to be in the business of starving children to death? Even if they are children with Mexican parents? Seriously? The other major "welfare" program is the earned income tax credit, which of course undocumented people are ineligible for (because they lack a taxpayer ID).

 

As for world population, this has not been a real issue for a long time, since the population growth rate has gone down and our ability to grow crops efficiently has gone up. China has near-zero growth, the US is slightly positive, Europe and Japan are negative. The best way to reduce population growth is to improve education (especially for women) and availability of birth control -- the lack of such things is why population in India and Africa is still increasing rapidly. Guess which politician's party is opposed to planned parenthood?

 

Our country faces many problems. We need to do something about climate change. We need to make education more affordable. We need to make it easier to start a business, and stop writing different rules for big companies than apply to small startups. We need to make sure the benefits of increased automation and international trade are shared by all, instead of just a few at the top. We need to make sure there isn't another big economic crash. We need to do something about police forces that shoot unarmed African Americans while letting the bankers who almost crashed the world economy walk free. We need to cut trillions in military spending that the armed forces don't want, for weapons systems that won't work in a modern war... while making sure not to crater the economy in small towns built around a military base or plant. We need to do something about our infrastructure. Immigration is pretty far down the list, and if we do want to address it, why not create more legal visas so people with jobs and relatives waiting for them in the US can walk over instead of sneaking over a wall that the Mexican government isn't really going to pay for?

[hrothgar]

I don't understand this hostility to immigrants.

 

I think that the current silliness around immigrants is a conflux of a couple different trends

 

1. Increased economic pressure on the lower and middle classes

2. Rapid changes involving multiculturalism

 

I'm not going to deal extensively with the relationship between economic prospects and hostility towards immigrants. (Its pretty well documented). I would like to note that the stress points around multiculturalism are cropping up in a lot of disparate areas.

 

The so-called Gamergate controversy is one obvious example

This year's Hugo awards kerfuffle is another

 

this is just one of those things that we're going to need to work through as a society

[kenberg]

I agree with most but not all of what Adam says. Instead of nibbling at small issues I want to single out his comment on education. He speaks of making it more affordable and I agree, but that suggests to me he is speaking of higher education. The problem is much earlier.

 

There was a recent piece about Ferguson on the PBS Newshour (airing just before the one year anniversary of Michael Brown's death). It was a real puff piece about how wonderful things are going in Ferguson but it did mention the school system which apparently lacks accreditation. It mentioned that for a while the students were going to an accredited, and mostly white, nearby district. Apparently that did not work out but the reasons were not explored. I can guess. You take a ten or twelve year old kid who has been going to a crummy school get him over to a distant school where he knows no one and say "here's your chance, kid". Yes, except his classmates have been going for several years to a good school and are a couple of years, or more, ahead of him in learning. So they can keep him in the grade appropriate for his age, where he has no chance of keeping up, or they can stick him back a couple of grades where he is twice the size of everyone else. Add in racial tensions and class tensions and hey, you say this didn't work out?

 

I can think of nothing more important than making sure every child has an opportunity to get a decent start in life at a decent school. OK, we also have to make sure they eat, got that, and have some place to live. But what can we expect for the future if the schools are hopeless? Not everyone will learn. Some won't, some can't, but almost everyone can and will learn something. With help and guidance some will learn quite a bit. It's a way out, and maybe the only way out, of an awful situation.

 

 

I don't see how anyone, conservative, liberal, whatever, cannot see that solving the school issue is essential. Not easy, I get that. Still it is essential.

[mikeh]

I agree with most but not all of what Adam says. Instead of nibbling at small issues I want to single out his comment on education. He speaks of making it more affordable and I agree, but that suggests to me he is speaking of higher education. The problem is much earlier.

 

There was a recent piece about Ferguson on the PBS Newshour (airing just before the one year anniversary of Michael Brown's death). It was a real puff piece about how wonderful things are going in Ferguson but it did mention the school system which apparently lacks accreditation. It mentioned that for a while the students were going to an accredited, and mostly white, nearby district. Apparently that did not work out but the reasons were not explored. I can guess. You take a ten or twelve year old kid who has been going to a crummy school get him over to a distant school where he knows no one and say "here's your chance, kid". Yes, except his classmates have been going for several years to a good school and are a couple of years, or more, ahead of him in learning. So they can keep him in the grade appropriate for his age, where he has no chance of keeping up, or they can stick him back a couple of grades where he is twice the size of everyone else. Add in racial tensions and class tensions and hey, you say this didn't work out?

 

I can think of nothing more important than making sure every child has an opportunity to get a decent start in life at a decent school. OK, we also have to make sure they eat, got that, and have some place to live. But what can we expect for the future if the schools are hopeless? Not everyone will learn. Some won't, some can't, but almost everyone can and will learn something. With help and guidance some will learn quite a bit. It's a way out, and maybe the only way out, of an awful situation.

 

 

I don't see how anyone, conservative, liberal, whatever, cannot see that solving the school issue is essential. Not easy, I get that. Still it is essential.

You forget. It is a basic premise of US conservative thinking that one gets the socio-economic background you deserve. You have parents who work minimum wage? Of a father who has deserted the home? Tough. If you are a decent, deserving human, you will overcome all of this. It says so right in your constitution....or is it the bill of rights? Everyone is created equal, and that means that no-one deserves a government hand-out.

 

That's why Republicans cut State assistance to and financial support of universities and colleges....if your parents can't make enough money to put you through school, well then you don't deserve to go to school. Unfortunately, we have a major political party here whose leader, I believe, fantasizes about being a US Republican :P

 

Meanwhile, invest in companies that run private prisons, and invest in companies that provide armed security to gated communities......these will be growth industries for as long as Republicans win elections.

[kenberg]

I hope there is some middle way. Two beliefs:

 

1. Anyone who cannot recall with gratitude some help he has received along the way has a serious problem with his memory.

2. All the help in the world is useless unless the person being helped is prepared to make some good decisions and carry them out.

 

I suppose belief 1 is mostly associated with liberals and belief 2 is mostly associated with conservatives. It is actually possible to hold both beliefs simultaneously without suffering a psychotic break.

[gwnn]

Odds of 11.0-12.0 seem ridiculously high (the number 11 is too big, what's the expression then?) to me. I might bet on Trump with the intention of selling my bet later after a few other jokers drop out. I might double my money unless Jeb somehow gains some traction. But yea I'm not this betting godfather to go down that road. Somehow gaining money on Trump's popularity seems dirty to me.

Odds down to 6.6 on betfair.com. True, the market is small, but I could have almost doubled a small amount of money in less than a week. :(

[billw55]

Regarding birthright citizenship, I am curious about one thing. If it were removed, what will the substitute definition of citizenship be? Or more directly - what would make me a citizen? "Child of citizens" isn't good enough, that just shifts the question to my parents, and so on.

 

As I understand, many nations do not have birthright citizenship. What then makes one a citizen of those nations?

[Trinidad]

Regarding birthright citizenship, I am curious about one thing. If it were removed, what will the substitute definition of citizenship be? Or more directly - what would make me a citizen? "Child of citizens" isn't good enough, that just shifts the question to my parents, and so on.

 

As I understand, many nations do not have birthright citizenship. What then makes one a citizen of those nations?

I am Dutch (from the Netherlands). My wife is Finnish. We met in the USA where we got married. Our kids were born when we lived in Sweden. They have dual citizenship: Dutch and Finnish. By coincidence (because my Finnish wife found the perfect job there), we moved to the Netherlands when the children were in their preschool age.

 

When we were in Sweden, I always felt that my kids were Swedish: they spoke fluent Swedish (well for preschool kids), they lived Swedish, ate Swedish, did Swedish, had Swedish friends, and no one could notice that they weren't Swedish. They didn't speak Dutch or Finnish, didn't know any of the Dutch or Finnish customs. They didn't have anything with those two countries (other than that their grandparents lived there) and yet they had that nationality.

 

Now, the kids are in high school in the Netherlands. They are as Dutch as can be. They don't know how to speak Swedish anymore (though there pronunciation is still perfect) and don't have a clue what Swedes do on May 1st, Easter or Lucia. For them, hockey is a game played on Astro turf...

 

So, they are as Dutch as can be, and they have Dutch citizenship! But the reason for their Dutch citizenship is that their father (who would have been happy to stay in Sweden) happened to be Dutch, not because they "walk like a Dutch and quack like a Dutch" (or whatever the saying was).

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

I agree with most but not all of what Adam says. Instead of nibbling at small issues I want to single out his comment on education. He speaks of making it more affordable and I agree, but that suggests to me he is speaking of higher education. The problem is much earlier.

 

There was a recent piece about Ferguson on the PBS Newshour (airing just before the one year anniversary of Michael Brown's death). It was a real puff piece about how wonderful things are going in Ferguson but it did mention the school system which apparently lacks accreditation. It mentioned that for a while the students were going to an accredited, and mostly white, nearby district. Apparently that did not work out but the reasons were not explored. I can guess. You take a ten or twelve year old kid who has been going to a crummy school get him over to a distant school where he knows no one and say "here's your chance, kid". Yes, except his classmates have been going for several years to a good school and are a couple of years, or more, ahead of him in learning. So they can keep him in the grade appropriate for his age, where he has no chance of keeping up, or they can stick him back a couple of grades where he is twice the size of everyone else. Add in racial tensions and class tensions and hey, you say this didn't work out?

 

I can think of nothing more important than making sure every child has an opportunity to get a decent start in life at a decent school. OK, we also have to make sure they eat, got that, and have some place to live. But what can we expect for the future if the schools are hopeless? Not everyone will learn. Some won't, some can't, but almost everyone can and will learn something. With help and guidance some will learn quite a bit. It's a way out, and maybe the only way out, of an awful situation.

 

 

I don't see how anyone, conservative, liberal, whatever, cannot see that solving the school issue is essential. Not easy, I get that. Still it is essential.

 

I cannot agree more. M brother is 5 years older than me and when he was in high school the school offered Latin I and II, which he took. When I started in the same school, Latin was no longer offered. My brother became a Ph.D.; I became a bridge bum. Correlation? Causation? I'll have to ask my brother. ;)

[gwnn]

Regarding birthright citizenship, I am curious about one thing. If it were removed, what will the substitute definition of citizenship be? Or more directly - what would make me a citizen? "Child of citizens" isn't good enough, that just shifts the question to my parents, and so on.

 

As I understand, many nations do not have birthright citizenship. What then makes one a citizen of those nations?

It's actually pretty hard to get Dutch citizenship!

 

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/11/prize-winning_author_fails_dut/

 

Prize-winning author fails Dutch integration test

 

(snipped by gwnn)

‘There were no questions about Van Gogh, the Nightwatch, windmills, the canals or Sint Maarten but questions such as ‘Mo lives on social security and wants to take his son to a crèche. Who has to pay?’, Al Galidi told the paper.

[billw55]

It's actually pretty hard to get Dutch citizenship!

 

http://www.dutchnews...thor_fails_dut/

 

So, has every Dutch citizen taken such a test? Is it required in order be a citizen? Or for other privileges of citizenship, such as voting, driver license, etc?

[mike777]

So, has every Dutch citizen taken such a test? Is it required in order be a citizen? Or for other privileges of citizenship, such as voting, driver license, etc?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_nationality_law

 

 

Bill it seems the rules change and change pretty often. see above link

 

-----

 

 

btw I kinda like Bernie's idea for free College. I hope it also includes, room and board and expenses. I hope it will not punish students who do poorly or lack some discipline

I also love the idea about being able to borrow money for school and not having to pay it back.

[billw55]

Hmm, wikipedia says: "A person born on or after 1 January 1985 to a Dutch father or mother is automatically a Dutch subject at birth. It is irrelevant where the child is born." But how do they determine that the parent is Dutch?

[gwnn]

Hmm, wikipedia says: "A person born on or after 1 January 1985 to a Dutch father or mother is automatically a Dutch subject at birth. It is irrelevant where the child is born." But how do they determine that the parent is Dutch?

That's just standard "grandfathered" terminology. Whoever is a citizen will remain a citizen even if the requirements change in the future. I'm not sure what is unclear about this.

 

But if you read that article, you'll see that in normal cases, the children of current Dutch parents will be Dutch citizens.

 

My main point in that post was that it's funny that an award-winning writer failed the test since it was such a weird one.

[mike777]

That's just standard "grandfathered" terminology. Whoever is a citizen will remain a citizen even if the requirements change in the future. I'm not sure what is unclear about this.

 

But if you read that article, you'll see that in normal cases, the children of current Dutch parents will be Dutch citizens.

 

My main point in that post was that it's funny that an award-winning writer failed the test since it was such a weird one.

 

I think Bill is asking how do you know the parent is a citizen and not an illegal?

 

What proof do you need or can anyone just lie and get away with it.

 

I note there is a form to fill out, but you can lie on the form. Who is ever going to check up?

 

I mean if you have 15 million illegals and they all have babies or half do....how do you check the form?

 

http://www.government.nl/issues/family-law/birth-of-a-child

[gwnn]

I think Bill is asking how do you know the parent is a citizen and not an illegal?

 

What proof do you need or can anyone just lie and get away with it.

 

I note there is a form to fill out, but you can lie on the form. Who is ever going to check up?

 

I mean if you have 15 million illegals and they all have babies or half do....how do you check the form?

 

http://www.government.nl/issues/family-law/birth-of-a-child

Umm... There are birth certificates and national ID's in all European countries. There are also databases with the names and data of citizens. I'm sure you can trick the system (fake your birth certificate and hack into the database) but it doesn't seem easy to me. Photo ID's are ubiquitous in Europe.

[gwnn]

Or are we talking about a random child born outside of a hospital and left on the street? Am I missing the point as usual? Bill seemed to talk about the circularity of birthright citizenship, which is just averted if you shrug and say that you are grandfathered in. I don't know.

[mike777]

Umm... There are birth certificates and national ID's in all European countries. There are also databases with the names and data of citizens. I'm sure you can trick the system (fake your birth certificate and hack into the database) but it doesn't seem easy to me. Photo ID's are ubiquitous in Europe.

 

 

Ahh here in the USA there is no such database to crosscheck. Also this birth registration is done by the states not central govt, thus the issue.

 

In fact America thinks of this database as evil....1984 stuff...evil, scary stuff, thus the issue here. The idea of the big brother having a database of info on all of us to check up on stuff such as this is scary stuff in the uSA.

 

Keep in mind here in the USA we tend to NOT trust the government...

---

 

edit btw fake birth certificates are a big business here...not really that hard to get. Common for college kids to have fake ID's.

[billw55]

Umm... There are birth certificates and national ID's in all European countries. There are also databases with the names and data of citizens. I'm sure you can trick the system (fake your birth certificate and hack into the database) but it doesn't seem easy to me. Photo ID's are ubiquitous in Europe.

OK, this is progress. Perhaps we can say that the definition of a Dutch citizen is (a) someone listed in an accepted citizenship database, or (b) the child of someone listed in such a database. Presumably such a child will soon be listed in the database as well.

 

How one got listed in the database is, perhaps, irrelevant. Might I be able to bribe a Dutch IT worker to add my name? Presumably when found out, my name would be removed. Thence the question, for what reasons can names be removed, i.e. citizenship revoked?

 

Also Gwnn, I am not picking on the Dutch in particular. This was just the first example that came up when I asked a generalized question. No offense intended. I only find it interesting that defining a citizen does not seem to be an easy thing to do.

 

 

[barmar]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the over whelming majority of illegal immigrants enter the US legally and then overstay their visas. Building a wall is at best a distraction and at worst and amazing waste of resources.

Remember the speech he gave a few months ago where he talked about the problem with immigration being the "criminals, drug dealers, rapists"? I suspecct he thinks that most of these didn't enter legally, so the wall might be a good way to stop them. Who knows, this might even be true.

 

Of course, the problem was actually his premise that so many illegal immigrants are such dangerous criminals. After he made that speech, it was widely refuted, it's just a reflection of the xenophobia that has become common in conservative America.

 

I also strongly disagree that immigration is the most serious problem that the politicians are making it out to be. I think they focus on it because it's something tractable -- a proposal like "build a wall" seems like something we could actually do in the short term that would help (I heard a few days ago that one of the countries in the middle east is now doing that to keep out refugees from a neighboring country -- I don't recall which they are). The really important problems are much harder to address: climate change, radical fundamentalism, income inequality, race relations.

[gwnn]

OK, this is progress. Perhaps we can say that the definition of a Dutch citizen is (a) someone listed in an accepted citizenship database, or (b) the child of someone listed in such a database. Presumably such a child will soon be listed in the database as well.

 

How one got listed in the database is, perhaps, irrelevant. Might I be able to bribe a Dutch IT worker to add my name? Presumably when found out, my name would be removed. Thence the question, for what reasons can names be removed, i.e. citizenship revoked?

 

Also Gwnn, I am not picking on the Dutch in particular. This was just the first example that came up when I asked a generalized question. No offense intended. I only find it interesting that defining a citizen does not seem to be an easy thing to do.

I wasn't offended. Just saying that this isn't such a huge issue as you make it out to be. I'm still a bit puzzled tbh.