Open thread. It's been mostly politicis. I'm going to move the last days comments here.
Comments closed; last few moved to new thread.
685 thoughts on “Oct 6 thread…. ongoing.”
Comments are closed.
Open thread. It's been mostly politicis. I'm going to move the last days comments here.
Comments closed; last few moved to new thread.
Comments are closed.
As I have said before, the moral majority days got pretty preachy. I don’t like any groups getting together and exerting pressure to control my life, especially based on their view of righteous morals. Yes, I wasn’t an easy kid to raise.
.
I can agree that the left is more guilty at the moment, but cultural power seems to never go unused no matter who has it. I’m a bit confused as to how these people even have the power that they do at the moment. People at the SC today had a sign WE BELIEVE ALL SURVIVORS. Do they mean always believe people who are telling the truth, or are they literally saying their words should never be questioned? That is just mass delusion that is easily refuted by a kindergartener.
angech (Comment #171241)
October 4th, 2018 at 8:04 pm
I am of the disposition that almost all politicians are not to be trusted or admired and that politics encourages them to play games with the truth of matters. I think what makes Democrats, and left wing politicians in general, more bold in these matters is that the leftist MSM nearly always has their backs.
I think there’s a structural bias towards government intervention for those who take government jobs and also those who seek elective office. Devoting your career to making sure your colleagues do less is not going to appeal to nearly as many people as devoting your career to actually doing something.
angech (Comment #171241): “I think the only people who value freedom are those who feel they do not have it.”
I do not think that is true at all, although I think those who lack freedom feel more keenly about it.
.
angech: “Cannot pick sides, Conservatives are just as bad as all the rest paying lip service to freedom only when they do not have it.”
Not true at all. But I was sloppy in my language in that I said ‘freedom’ when I should have said ‘liberty’. Conservatives strongly and consistently value liberty; the Left does not. Both sides are somewhat consistent but selective when it comes to license, except for libertarians who are usually consistently in favor of all forms of freedom.
With cloture voted on (51-49 in favor, including Manchin!), Kavanaugh looks now very likely to be seated. Of course there are hundreds of ‘protesters’ ready to scream obscenities in the faces of any Senator who indicated doubt about voting for Kavanaugh, so it won’t be over until the final vote is made (Sunday?, Monday?).
.
There are already promises by several House Democrats to immediately initiate impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh when (if) they gain control in January. The fact that they will never get 67 votes in the Senate against Kavanaugh just means they are doing it for political reasons. That would be the same mistake the Republicans made with Clinton (there was zero chance Clinton would ever be removed)… and voters ended up supporting Clinton more after the impeachment than before. I expect cooler heads will prevail in the House, and no impeachment against Kavanaugh will advance, even if Democrats gain control. What they will do is torment the Trump administration with an endless continuation of the Mueller investigation, along with multiple other “investigations” of Trump and his administration. I think that will be a grave political mistake, and will only increase Trump’s chance for re-election, but like the Republicans in 1998, I doubt they can resist the temptation.
Dale S,
“I think there’s a structural bias towards government intervention for those who take government jobs and also those who seek elective office.”
.
Indeed there is. Bureaucrats know which side their bread is buttered on, of course, and support those politicians who will institute ever more government requirements, rules, and regulations. But just as importantly, people who take those jobs honestly think more government control is needed, not more personal liberty. The adamant opposition to Trump at the Justice Department and FBI are but symptoms.
Murkowski voted against cloture, so I assume she’s a no. The tea leaves from Manchin are that he will vote for Kavanaugh *if* he isn’t the 50th vote. Note that Manchin’s vote would not have prevented cloture, since Pence would be tie break. So it’s up to Flake and Collins, either of which defecting would spook Manchin. Trump annoyed both by being insensitive to Ford; OTOH both seem to be satisfied with the investigation and Collins appears quite annoyed at GoFundMe partisans essentially trying to bribe her for her vote.
Manchin’s re-election is assured if he votes for Kavanaugh. Voting against Kavanaugh would make the election competitive. If he turns out to be the critical vote sinking Kavanaugh, I think he may lose his seat. He’s often said that he has no problem with being voted out if it comes to that, but being willing to vote for conservative jurists if and only if it doesn’t matter is exactly the opposite of voting his conscience.
Dale S,
“He’s often said that he has no problem with being voted out if it comes to that, but being willing to vote for conservative jurists if and only if it doesn’t matter is exactly the opposite of voting his conscience.”
.
And if you believe it is a matter of conscience, then there is a bridge in New York City I would like to sell to you. 😉 It is a simple political calculation. Manchin is probably ahead by ~4% – 6% among registered voters. If he votes Kavanaugh down, he will likely lose 10% – 12% support, and motivate a lot of people to vote against him who would otherwise not vote at all.
Flake should live up to his name and vote no, then change his vote after Manchin votes.
Manchin is well liked in WV, so he will probably get re-elected. He voted against cap and trade and is pro-gun. WV still has a religious streak bigger than average so he needs to be very careful relating to abortion, he is pro-life, but supports planned parenthood. It is necessary that he pushes back on the left occasionally to stay elected.
.
He already is known as not a team player for the left. Ultimately he has a lot more to lose than gain by voting against Kavanaugh. People are going to remember this vote because of how nasty it got. “I don’t want to be the last vote” is mostly political CYA I think. Nobody want to be the deciding vote on a controversial vote unless they are in a very safe district. I think he will vote for Kavanaugh to seal his election, which it will.
I can’t find the exact post, but IIRC from a townhall tipsheet, Machin is up close to 20 points if he votes yes, and up *2* points if he votes no. If he not only votes no, but is the critical vote, I imagine things will go badly for him.
If he not only voted for Kavanaugh, but also called out the despicable behavior by senate democrats, he’d be a folk hero in West Virginia forever. Not going to happen.
Tenn. is a Senate toss-up. The Democratic challenger just said he would have voted for Kavanaugh. I think we can see which way the political calculations are playing out in red states.
But then Heitkamp is voting no. Maybe she figures she is already toast in North Dakota.
SteveF (Comment #171218): “See the Lindsey Graham video: “Boy, you guys sure want power. God, I hope to you never get it.—
.
Like Janet Reno and Waco.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/kavanaugh-confirmation-battle-mass-hysteria-roots/
“The Road to Waco”
Ledite,
Reno was incompetent and righteous, a very dangerous combination. She prosecuted a lot of people for crimes they didn’t commit, and caused much absolutely unnecessary death and destruction at Waco, but never paid a penalty for any of it. Reno is arguably the worst AG evah.
Tom Scharf,
“The Democratic challenger just said he would have voted for Kavanaugh.”
.
With a probability about equal to pigs sprouting wings and taking to the air.
Mike M,
“Maybe she figures she is already toast in North Dakota.”
.
Indeed she is, and she already knows it. 10+% behind, and sinking fast. Her vote against Kavanaugh will only increase the size of her loss. She in no way reflects the preferences of voters in North Dakota, and got in by a few votes on Obama’s coattails in 2012.
.
More interesting is Claire McCaskill:
.
McCaskill’s political disconnect from many voters in her state was always there, but has become more obvious. She hurt herself with the use of her husband’s private planes (and the attempt to hide it from the public). Perhaps she is expecting a ‘blue wave’ turnout, which will help her because she voted against Kavanaugh. Seems to me more likely she will motivate a few % of people to come out and vote against her who would otherwise have stayed home, and blow the election.
Looks like we are finally going to get our first serial rapist on the SC after Collins and Manchin declared. Serial rapist activists celebrated after enduring centuries of discrimination and bigotry.
.
I think I’ll make a crazy prediction that the left will not take this well. As an allegedly wise man once said, elections have consequences.
If Kavanaugh does get confirmed tomorrow, I doubt I will ever regret voting for Trump. So far it has turned out much better than I imagined, of course it can all go sideways pretty fast.
Tom Scharf,
He is not likely to be confirmed tomorrow.
.
The 30 hour clock on post-cloture debate is running, but one Republican is actually going to his daughter’s wedding, and will not be in Washington to vote on Saturday. (Lame excuse!) That means the vote is likely either Sunday or Monday, not Saturday.
Since Manchin followed Collins, there should be no need for the missing Republican to vote. However, should someone change their mind and the vote be needed, McConnell will hold the vote open until the senator returns. He’s already said he will fly back Saturday night if needed.
It’s not practical to reschedule a wedding’s time or location, and I don’t begrudge a Senator walking his daughter down the aisle unless he *has* to be in Washington. It doesn’t look like he’ll have to be.
For the record, according to the LA Times:
.
2% to 8% of sexual assaults allegations are determined to not have happened during the investigation by police / campus authorities. No arrest.
25% of people arrested for sexual assault are not charged due to not enough evidence (no prosecution)
25% of people prosecuted for sexual assault have the charges dismissed.
3% of people prosecuted and tried are acquitted.
.
Exactly how many of these are false allegations is a bit difficult to know, but because it seems necessary for some reason to say this, always believing women isn’t a very good plan for justice. One can only assume if that insanity was put in place then false allegations would rise due to vengeful temptation.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-young-are-false-rape-allegations-a-problem-20181005-story.html
While the percentages of those who fail to make it to conviction may include a large number of true allegations, those that do become convicted may also include a small number of false allegations. There’s a study here based on a Virginia collection of evidence in pre-DNA convictions involving sexual assault:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251115.pdf
Of the cases where the DNA evidence could definitively be attributed, 12.6% (29/231) excluded the convicted person and tended towards exoneration. A further 16 cases the DNA excluded the convicted person but did not tend towards exoneration (because other parties involved could account for the DNA).
Senate courtesy means one of the Democrats should not vote to balance the loss of Daines.
Joe Biden tried to slink out of such a deal once, and Robert Byrd attacked him for it and forced a second vote to get a judge confirmed.
Murkowski is voting no. With Daines in Montana, if Manchin votes no, the tally will be 49 yea, 50 nay.
Mike N,
Murkowski has agreed to vote present so that the vote can take place Saturday late afternoon while Daines is at his daughter’s wedding. The final vote should be 50 yea, 48 nay, 1 present. I’ll bet VP Pence is in the chamber… the guy’s name is Flake after all.
The vote tallies are pretty dynamic right now. But the recent ones match what SteveF says. You need to look at time stamps to know if somethings changed.
If Republicans hold the Senate and Ginsberg or Breyer either dies or resigns, the Kavanaugh battle will look like a minor skirmish by comparison. The courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, rather than the legislature, have been enacting policy for a very long time, and if that changes, it really will be a big change.
.
Even if Ginsberg and Breyer stay on the Court, a reversal of the “Chevron deference” now seems possible, which would return to Congress (indeed insist Congress exercises) the power to make choices related to Federal regulations. Many contentious regulatory issues, which have arisen from an expansive “understanding” of laws by the EPA and other Federal agencies since Chevron, would have to either be addressed by Congress, or not addressed at all. That is, Federal regulations would more reflect the will of the people and the individual States, not of bureaucrats. That would be a ‘yuge’ reduction in the influence of Federal agencies… and one long overdue.
My biggest hope when Trump was elected was that congressional Democrats and Republicans, having a common enemy in Trump, would cooperate in a long-overdue pruning back of executive power. Instead I’ve seen Trump voluntarily dismantle executive power and beg congress to enact legislation for him to sign without too much guidance on what the details should be. In vain.
Dale S,
‘Progressives’ depend on bureaucratic rules and regulations to advance the policies they want. They will never agree to reduce executive power, since that automatically reduces bureaucratic power.
Here is your standard issue media framing bias.
NYT: F.B.I. Review of Kavanaugh Was Limited From the Start
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/trump-kavanaugh-fbi.html
.
Every person on planet earth reads this as “Trump limited the investigation for political gain”.
Text: “An exasperated President Trump picked up the phone to call the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, last Sunday. Tell the F.B.I. they can investigate anything, he told Mr. McGahn, because we need the critics to stop.”
…
“The White House could not legally order the F.B.I. to rummage indiscriminately through someone’s life, Mr. McGahn told the president. And without a criminal investigation to pursue, agents could not use search warrants and subpoenas to try to get at the truth.”
Tom Scharf, they have witness evidence that Ford and Kavanaugh committed perjury, so that should be enough to open a criminal investigation.
So it's done. I'm pleased to have been mistaken earlier when I said the Dems had won this one. Surprised, but pleased.
Well, that was easy, in a bloody deathmatch kind of way. They even interrupted college football to announce the results. They need to get their priorities in order. The two channels I saw announce the results looked like Jim Acosta at Trump headquarters on Nov 8th, 2016.
.
Ultimately I think the 2nd and especially the 3rd accusation did a lot of damage to the process after the very suspect timing of the first allegation. The fact that the left and much of the media were OK with simply parroting these claims in a "thou stand accused!" manner made everything look like a corrupt circus. Even after the 3rd accuser's appeared on NBC and walked back her claims the media acted like it wasn't even aware of this days later.
.
They are writing lots of bitter opinions with the expected climate change – eque doom and gloom. I predict they will just let this one go in a few weeks. The ridiculous mobs of protesters aren't very helpful for their side. I don't want to be on the side that has activists screaming at people in elevators and restaurants, but it's not too hard to imagine it happening on the right as well. Protest in the voting booth.
mark bofill,
If they had corroborating evidence they would have won. I was a bit worried somebody was going to manufacture some. I was awaiting the photoshopped image to be released this morning. If Ginsburg kicks the bucket it might get real messy on the next go around.
I'm guessing Harvard is now wishing they could have gone to trial with their racial based admissions case a few years ago. I don't predict a good result for them, and I very much doubt the SC will turn that case down. They need to settle or the whole system will be endangered. The lawyers for the plaintiffs are in position for the most epic shakedown of an elite endowment ever, similar to how it has been happening in the opposite direction for decades.
Tom, regarding Kavanaugh, agreed.
I haven't been following the Harvard thing that closely.
Harvard trial starts Oct 15 in Boston.
Will the Harvard Law alumni have to recuse?
Tom Scharf (Comment #171293): "If Ginsburg kicks the bucket it might get real messy on the next go around."
Perhaps. But that might depend a lot on what happens in November. The recent nonsense might well hurt the Dems significantly. Lots of people are furious with the Republicans for confirming Kavanaugh. I'd guess they were almost all going to vote Democrat anyway. Most of the people furious about how Kavanaugh was treated were going to vote Republican anyway. But it seems like there are more than a few on the fence who are disgusted with the Dems. If Manchin is re-elected while McCaskell, Tester, Donelly, etc. lose then the Dems might actually learn a lesson.
.
Also, a wider Republican majority in the Senate might help. I think that part of the reason the Dems went so overboard is that they only needed to shift a couple Republican Senators, so they though they might actually have a chance, even with no actual evidence. If the Senate is 56-44, they will know that the actually need substance to have a chance to defeat a nominee.
Tom Scharf,
"I predict they will just let this one go in a few weeks."
.
Of course, it was nothing but synthesized outrage for most. Heck, for many there is no other setting on the dial except synthesized outrage. OTOH, Kavanaugh will not likely forget… no synthesis in his rage at all. He may be close to a saint in his judicial rulings, but he is still human. Progressive sacred cows are in more danger than before the Ford abomination.
Tom,
I'm also surprised the DEMS didn't win. They certainly at least lost the appointment bit– Kavanaugh is in and… well… he's not going to be impeached unless the public is Soooooo incensened the Dems end up with 2/3rd the seats which would really be a trick.
But….let's wait for the midterm elections to be sure.
Lucia,
I think Democrats recognized that the accusation by Ford would not ever be corroborated if carefully investigated, so they held it back until after the hearings to try to get Kavanaugh essentially 'shouted down' after the hearings were over. I suspect the strategy will cost them a couple of Senate seats, but as you noted earlier, sometimes political parties think a desired outcome is worth the negative consequences. In this instance, they gambled and lost. I should add the Dems are counting on getting control of the House, meaning they will stop all conservative legislation and torment Trump 24/7. Gaining control in the Senate was always unlikely.
I should add the Dems are counting on getting control of the House, meaning they will stop all conservative legislation and torment Trump 24/7.
In which case, the block all legislations. For most conservatives, this will be "Oh… well…". Not such big deal. It's progressives who want new laws. The progressives can't get what they want without legistlaton, unless, the hope for executive order to do their bidding. Which, like it or not, they wont' get with Trump.
A SCOTUS justide is likely to die in the next two years. They needed the Senate. Right now, that looks unlikely… but who knows.
I've been ironing rhinestones onto a dress. That's probably just as useful as guessing whose going to win the Senate in November.
I'll trade the House for a thirty year SC seat all day, every day. Trade pawn for rook. Two years of angry daily tirades by a left House will likely be beneficial to Trump in 2020.
.
The left won't have the energy to try to take down Kavanaugh with an impeachment beyond bluster. If they can't get enough people to believe their story to prevent him from being confirmed, it is a much higher hurdle in every way to get him removed. They just don't have anything approaching a real case, the perjury claims are very weak tea, and it was just demonstrated that it hurt their polling. They will throw a tantrum and stomp their feet for a while and go back to their favorite subject of "Trump is the end of times". Nobody is impressed by mob anger on the right any more.
.
I don't even know what legislation the right would want to pass if they held the House and Senate, and I'm not opposed to a split government anyway. Gridlock is a feature most of the time.
.
The way to control the SC is to pass laws that the SC must follow. They don't get to make up their own regulatory regime or dictate social policy if Congress does their job. If the left thinks the SC is an immovable object then they might just try harder to compromise and pass legislation.
Mike M. (Comment #171298)
"But that might depend a lot on what happens in November. The recent nonsense might well hurt the Dems significantly. Lots of people are furious with the Republicans for confirming Kavanaugh."
As I understand it Trump delegated the choice to a panel who looked at over 20 candidates and gave him 4 to choose from.
It would not have mattered which of the 20 plus had been chosen, they were all conservative favoring people and the Republicans would have confirmed whoever got up?
Dems can't get to 2/3 of the Senate as 42 Republicans are not up for election.
Dems went all out because the Republican majority was so thin they figured they could get the few votes they needed.
Leland Keyser, the “best friend†of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, told FBI investigators in recent days that Ford associate Monica McLean had pressured her to change her denial of the alleged assault, which had hurt Ford’s credibility.
–
"Ms. Ford and Ms. McLean grew up together; went to high school together; moved to California together; went to college together and were roommates together in California.look who shows up in the hearing video walking in with Ms. Blasey-Ford when she delivered her testimony: "
–
I could not believe how thick this former FBI friend of hers was. If true I do not understand why the press is not doing a rigorous root and branch investigation of Ms McLean.
I feel like Mark with the theories now.
Angech, re 'I feel like Mark with the theories now.':
Just cleave tight to your tin foil hat and you'll be ok.
.
But I don't think it's conspiracy theory to say that a good chunk of the media has no interest in investigating things that are likely to make Ford's claim look more like a botched hatchet job than it already does.
amazing what one finds when going out of mainstream blogs when the heat is on. Still the Senate might still investigate further and it might not be pretty.
Next Rosenstein ? this Thursday.
House of Cards first season with the mob outside flashed into my mind when I saw the shot on Pence, did he buy them coffee?
Lucia,
"In which case, the block all legislations. For most conservatives, this will be "Oh… well…". Not such big deal."
.
Conservatives do have legislation they would like to pass, like making the individual tax cuts permanent, replacing Obamacare (via the scheme McCain voted down before he left the Senate), legislation to keep the EPA under control on things like "Waters of the United States", and more. None of those things will be considered in the House if Democrats have a majority. But you are right that progressives want more legislation than conservatives, and they won't get that no matter who controls the House so long as the filibuster is in place and Trump is president. After watching the performance of Senate Democrats over the past few years, I predict they will eliminate the filibuster if they ever control both houses and the presidency, then pass a blizzard of laws, starting with steep tax increases and single payer national health care. This will be a grave error, and will endanger the county's cohesion. They won't care.
angech,
"House of Cards first season with the mob outside flashed into my mind when I saw the shot on Pence, did he buy them coffee?"
.
No idea what that means. No idea what House of Cards is either.
angech –
I don't see why you think McLean has done anything worth investigating. As I recall, Keyser did not change what she said — that she didn't remember any such party — but added that she believed but could not corroborate Ford. No evidence was altered; there's no indication that perjury was suborned, or anything untoward. I can well imagine that McLean called Keyser, saying that she should support her old friend Ford. I suspect that she (McLean) had been hoping for something less damaging to the credibility of Ford's account, such as "I don't remember that party, but then again I remember very little of those days".
I hope the Senate doesn't. What for, have they nothing better to do, looks petty and vengeful. I doubt Trump will fire Rosenstein right before midterms. Like Steve, dont get the House of Cards reference, that's a TV show I guess. I only speak Walking Dead and Game of Thrones.
.
[Edit: Wait, what? Isn't the reference to a meeting with Rosenstein old news? I think it is. Trump met with Rosenstein, nothing much seemed to come of it. If they have a meeting scheduled coming up, I'm not aware of it.]
This is where I think someone like JDOhio might be able to shed some light. I have no idea what is considered legal (or even unethical) when approaching someone about their previously-made sworn testimony.
.
We know that Keyser's clarification didn't rebut her original statement, but we don't know if that clarification is all that McLean asked for. If the rumors are true that the texts from McLean to Keyser are in possession of the FBI (and that's a big "if"), then establishing whether the "pressure" crossed any lines should be extremely straightforward. Since the report is secret it's not likely we'll ever know. (Though Pelosi is vowing to FOIA the FBI report — an odd vow, given that it was Republicans who claimed to be ticked off after seeing it.)
.
McLean is the very same person that Ford allegedly helped prep for her polygraph. If true Ford perjured herself. She's already denied it and there's no way to prove it, I expect no further action on that front. Indeed, treating Ford as if she spoke the full truth and nothing but the truth in the hearing is *essential* if you want to nail Feinstein and Ford's lawyers for trampling over her stated preference for privacy. Remember, Ford testified under oath that she *never* authorized Feinstein to do anything with her letter.
Tom Scharf (Comment #171303): "Gridlock is a feature most of the time."
"The way to control the SC is to pass laws that the SC must follow. They don't get to make up their own regulatory regime or dictate social policy if Congress does their job. If the left thinks the SC is an immovable object then they might just try harder to compromise and pass legislation."
.
Uh, no. Decisions like Roe v Wade and Oberfell have nothing to do with Congress not doing its job and there is nothing Congress can do about them. Congress could reduce the impact of Chevron, but the main problem there is not too much delegation of power; it is agencies seizing power that was never delegated to them and SCOTUS backing them up. In future, Congress could try to anticipate such unconstitutional nonsense when drafting new legislation. But if they want to rewrite perfectly reasonable existing laws, gridlock is no longer a feature.
.
Note that I did not say that Congress does not delegate too much, only that it is not the biggest problem.
Dale S (Comment #171313): "This is where I think someone like JDOhio might be able to shed some light. I have no idea what is considered legal (or even unethical) when approaching someone about their previously-made sworn testimony."
It got Paul Manafort summarily thrown in jail.
I guess Rosenstein's meeting with Trump was postponed. Still, Trump isn't going to fire him, that'd be insanely stupid right now.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lawyer-for-clinton-campaign-and-dnc-gave-fbi-documents-for-russia-probe-sources
This says Rosenstein is going to have a 'closed door interview' on Capitol Hill on Thursday. I guess in relation to FBI James Baker and lawyer Michael Sussmann.
.
"
A top lawyer working with the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign contacted the FBI’s general counsel in late 2016 and provided documents for the Russia probe as federal investigators prepared a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign aide Carter Page, sources close to a congressional investigation told Fox News, citing new testimony.
The FBI official who was contacted, James Baker, revealed the exchange to congressional investigators during a closed-door deposition Wednesday. He said Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann initiated contact with him and provided documents as well as computer storage devices on Russian hacking. The sources said Baker described the contact as unusual and the “only time it happened.â€"
Mike M,
"Uh, no. Decisions like Roe v Wade and Oberfell have nothing to do with Congress not doing its job and there is nothing Congress can do about them."
.
Not in the short term, but SC rulings can be changed in the longer term. Eg, the Senate could simply refuse to confirm nominees who are not explicitly willing to overturn specific past Court rulings. Congress can also by law reduce or increase the number of justices, as Roosevelt was trying to do… until the Court got the message that that they couldn't block the New Deal laws any longer. (When Roosevelt got to replace several of the opposing justices, opposition became moot.) Congress can also initiate the amendment process, though that requires ratification by the States.
Okay. And the Pence / House of Cards reference must have something to do with this:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pence-faces-kavanaugh-protesters-tells-security-detail-lets-do-it-as-he-walks-down-senate-steps
.
Having decrypted as much of angech's remark as I'm able, I'm off to start my day.
SteveF (Comment #171317): "Not in the short term, but SC rulings can be changed in the longer term. Eg, the Senate could simply refuse to confirm nominees who are not explicitly willing to overturn specific past Court rulings. Congress can also by law reduce or increase the number of justices … can also initiate the amendment process, though that requires ratification by the States."
.
That is all true, but the first two are very bad ideas. Evidence: the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. All three are totally irrelevant to Tom's claim that I commented on.
Mike M.,
You asked a while back why the US wasn't running a large trade deficit in the 1950's. I think I have the answer. It's the federal budget deficit. As long as the budget deficit was small enough that it could be financed internally, it doesn't contribute to the current account surplus, which is the inverse of the trade deficit. But when the treasury needs foreigners to buy bonds, you get a large current account surplus and a large trade deficit to match.
The GDP identity Y ≡ C + I + G + (X – M). (Y is GDP, C stands for consumption, I stands for investments, G stands for government expenditures and (X – M) stands for exports minus imports) can be rearranged to give (Imports – Exports) ≡ (Investment – Savings) + (Government Spending – Taxes). A small budget deficit can be made up by having savings higher than investment. That's simply not possible in the US today. As long as the US has a large budget deficit, it will also have a large trade deficit. Tariffs and trade agreements have no effect on this identity.
DeWitt,
The Federal Government also has the option to print as much money as needed to reduce the need for foreigners to finance the deficit.
McLean's alleged pressure was something to the tune of: "Please clarify whether you don't remember that party" or "you don't remember any parties like that", "I'm sure that party never happened", or "you probably wouldn't remember that party even if it happened", etc. Now this is apparently not witness tampering and perfectly legal. Leland said she was "pressured" so it would be useful to clarify what that really meant. The left is still not calling for the release of the FBI documents so there is nothing helpful in there, likely the opposite. Pelosi hasn't read the report, so I think she just wants to selectively release parts.
.
I think Leland was of the attitude of I don't want to touch this with a ten foot pole.
.
There is no question Ford was coached by her Democratic lawyers who are good at their jobs. It doesn't mean she isn't telling the truth as she believes it, but it makes it harder to tell the difference from a false accusation when you have professional help. Initial interviews before lawyers step in are way more telling than coached testimony. They commonly played taped interviews in trials, especially when accounts changed.
Mike M,
The laws can be changed. The Constitution can be changed. Abortion rights can be put in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment can be repealed. Hate speech exceptions can be placed on the 1st Amendment. The reason they don't get changed is that there isn't enough public support. Activists just want to ignore this and do it their way. The SC is where that stops.
.
Abortion is a special case, it's really just not in the Constitution. People have a valid argument that this should be a state decision. You get charged by the state when you murder somebody, not the Feds.
.
The SC will delay decisions to allow the legislature to act, as they did with the EPA treating carbon as a pollutant. They waited over a year as I recall. Because Congress couldn't act and the left correctly predicted it would get what it wanted from the SC, the decision making was intentionally shifted to the courts. Treating carbon as a pollutant when it was never mentioned in the Clean Air and Water Act was a massive overreach. The environmental and immigration movements have become reliant on legislating through the courts. Letting the EPA interpret the laws any way it wants is a bad idea for obvious reasons. They do need some leeway in interpretation or the whole system grinds to a halt. Carbon enforcement is not leeway. The SC spends more of its time on issues where the law isn't clear or it conflicts with itself.
.
The recent judge who said "I think Trump is a racist and therefore he can't change DACA laws that Obama can" is the courts gone wild. The national injunction from regional judges (who are forum shopped) needs to end.
SteveF (Comment #171321): "The Federal Government also has the option to print as much money as needed to reduce the need for foreigners to finance the deficit."
That is a myth.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171320): "You asked a while back why the US wasn't running a large trade deficit in the 1950's. I think I have the answer. It's the federal budget deficit."
Interesting and plausible. But it does not seem to fit the data since the federal deficit and trade deficit do not seem to track each other. The trade deficit increased dramatically and steadily from 1997 to 2006. The federal budget was in surplus during the first part of that and even in 2003 and 2004 it was not as large as a percent of GDP as it was around 1990, when the trade surplus was small. Since 2007, the trade and federal deficits have moved in opposite directions.
SteveF,The Federal Government also has the option to print as much money as needed to reduce the need for foreigners to finance the deficit.
But not for very long without turning into Weimar Germany in the 30's or Venezuela today. But debasing the currency would likely reduce the trade deficit. However, right now, the dollar is going up relative to most other currencies.
I misspoke when I wrote that tariffs would have no affect. Tariffs are taxes, so an increase in revenue from tariffs would, to a crude first approximation, reduce the federal deficit and thus the trade deficit. However, increasing taxes reduces consumption and investment, so again to a crude first approximation, has no affect on GDP, as the increase in (X-M) is cancelled out by the reduction in consumption and investment. The short term second order effects, which could well be larger than the first order effects, are all bad. It's not at all clear that the long term effects are much, if any, better. Trump is cutting taxes with one hand and raising them with the other.
Tom Scharf (Comment #171323): "The laws can be changed. The Constitution can be changed. Abortion rights can be put in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment can be repealed. Hate speech exceptions can be placed on the 1st Amendment. The reason they don't get changed is that there isn't enough public support. Activists just want to ignore this and do it their way. The SC is where that stops."
.
That is all true. But it has nothing to do with what you said earlier:
"They [SCOTUS] don't get to make up their own regulatory regime or dictate social policy if Congress does their job."
At least not unless it is Congress's job to do what SCOTUS thinks they should do.
.
Tom Scharf: "The SC will delay decisions to allow the legislature to act, as they did with the EPA treating carbon as a pollutant. They waited over a year as I recall. Because Congress couldn't act …"
SCOTUS is totally wrong to do that because they are not the boss of Congress.
.
I can not think of a single controversial SCOTUS decision that has resulted from Congressional inaction. Some result from giving other branches (including state and local) more deference than some of think is warranted. Some are from reigning in other branches more than some think is warranted. Many are a result of usurping the powers of other branches.
From our brave and heroic protecters of Democracy:
Liberals Eye Far-Reaching Goal: Delegitimizing Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/us/politics/democrats-kavanaugh-supreme-court.html
.
Court packing, impeachment on technicalities, etc.
Mike M.,The federal budget was in surplus during the first part of that….
We've been through this before. There never was a surplus during the Clinton years. The
Remember this moment, it's not going to last very long:
.
SC: Conservative majority
WH: Republicans
Senate: Republicans
House: Republicans
Governors: Republican
State legislatures: Republicans
.
They are winning so much, I'm sick and tired of winning. The left has plenty of reasons to feel a bit uptight at the moment, and nobody to blame but themselves.
Mike M.,The federal budget was in surplus during the first part of that….
We've been through this before. There never was a surplus during the Clinton years. The total federal debt has increased every year since 1957 when it was only $270 billion. There are large chunks of debt, like the federal employee retirement fund, that aren't included in the nominal budget.
According to the data here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevehanke/2018/09/25/trumps-ill-conceived-trade-nostrums/#4cb61d604723 , the cumulative trade deficit since 1975 was -$11.2 trillion, total private savings minus investment was $9.5 trillion and total government savings minus investment was -$20 trillion for a net of -$10.5 trillion, about equal to the cumulative trade deficit given the uncertainty of the numbers.
link for total federal debt by year
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Ford testified that she was in Rehoboth Beach when she was writing the letter. Her friend McLean lives in Rehoboth Beach. Ford's grandmother's funeral was held in Maryland more than 100 miles away.
NYMag applies their knowledge of science and facts and comes up with this winner:
"This puts the actual false allegation figure closer to 0.005 percent (i.e., five percent of ten percent), says Belknap."
https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html
.
Believe Feminists, except when they are doing math.
Tom,
Good Lord.
.
"Obviously, only those rapes that are reported in the first place can be considered falsely reported, so that 5 percent figure only applies to 10 percent (at most) of rapes that occur. This puts the actual false allegation figure closer to 0.005 percent (i.e., five percent of ten percent), says Belknap."
.
Uhm, no, it doesn't. If there are no allegations in 90% of rapes, then there are no allegations in 90% of rapes. This has no impact on the percent of allegations that are true or false.
What is wrong with these people…
Obviously, only those rapes that are reported in the first place can be considered falsely reported, so that 5 percent figure only applies to 10 percent (at most) of rapes that occur. This puts the actual false allegation figure closer to 0.005 percent (i.e., five percent of ten percent), says Belknap.
Uhmmm….. ok. For now, let's assume the numbers are correct before the person does strange pseudo math.
If a rape reported that "reporting" is no longer a random outcome. It's not a "thing that occurred".
I'm pondering the basted 0.005% number and trying to figure out what random even it even applies to! It's
(a) Not the % of reported rapes that are false. That's 5%.
(b) Not the percentage of rapes that actually happened, and are reported but are actually false. That's actually zero.
(c) It's not the percentage of "non-rape sexual encounters" that are flasely reported as rapes. Not percentage is trivially small because there's a lot of sexual intercourse going on that is not later reported to the police as having been a rape. (Let's face it, most of the time when women have consensual sex, they don't go marching off to the police to accuse their partner of rape!)
I can't help wonder whether the person who wrote that has ever, ever, ever taken a statistics course, because I have no idea what the product of "probability a woman reports a rape given a rape occurred " * "probability a report is false given that it was reported" even means.
I'm dubious that the % of false reports given a report is made is known at all. Whether it's 5%, 10%, 50%…. dunno. I doubt it's anywhere near 50%. 5% isn't impossible. But it could be 10% or so. Dunno.
Say. Markup tags don't appear to be working for me anymore.
this should be italic,
this should be bold,
this should be blockquoted
Me neither..
I'll have to sort out the mark up. Perhaps wordpress had a pesky update that strips it all out. If so arghhh!!!!
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171331): " There never was a surplus during the Clinton years. The total federal debt has increased every year since 1957"
That is wrong. Money that the government owes to itself, such as to the Social Security Trust Fund, is not relevant to the calculation you cite above. What matters for that is the debt held by the public.
I'm sorry lucia. Fix it if you feel like it, of course, but I'm confident it's not like the people who talk here only do so because they get to use the markup features.
Thanks for running the Blackboard BTW – never seems to be occasion to say that, but I like this blog.
Not to mention, that's not the correct way to [write] 5% of 10%, unless one is pretending that we write '1.0 percent' to mean 100%. I believe it's perfectly acceptable to express 100% as probability 1.0. But ".005 percent" does not mean 5% of 10%. 5% of 10% is half a percent, not 5 thousandths of a percent.
Sheesh.
Given that a sample of determinant DNA from pre-DNA analysis *convictions* showed 12.6% tending towards exoneration, I have difficulty believing the false *conviction* rate is 5% or less — and it would be very strange to me if rape allegations that did not result in a conviction had the same or lower rate of false allegations.
.
Ironically, only the third accuser actually accused Kavanaugh of rape, and it's extremely obviously a false allegation.
Mike M,
"That is a myth."
.
A bit of explanation and support would be informative. Are you saying the Federal Government can't print an unlimited amount of money? (not rhetorical)
SteveF (Comment #171344): "Are you saying the Federal Government can't print an unlimited amount of money? (not rhetorical)"
At present, no. And they can't print money to pay their bills. I suppose that, in principle, Congress could abolish the federal reserve and give the Treasury the authority to print money to be used to pay bills. But even Congress ain't that dumb. I suppose there is no limit to how much the Federal Reserve can expand the money supply but that does not pay any bills. I guess it might help pay off the debt if they debase the currency.
HaroldW (Comment #171311)
“I don't see why you think McLean has done anything worth investigating. “
Just that
“I can well imagine that McLean called (visited, I think) Keyser, saying that she should support her old friend Ford. I suspect that she (McLean) had been hoping for something less damaging to the credibility of Ford's account, such as "I don't remember that party, but then again I remember very little of those days".
Is still coercion of a witness.
By a player.
House of cards, Kevin Spacey, ? A congressman or senator, goes down the stairs to an angry, staged union mob and instructs his staffer to get them some refreshments to assauge their rage. Might be a fake memory on my part. Looked so like Pence.
Anyway all over now??
Mike M,
The Fed can accept an unlimited amount of treasury notes and issue cash in return. The details are less important than the reality: the US Federal Government will not be held ransom by the need to borrow from foreign nationals.
angech,
"Anyway all over now??"
.
If that is a reference to Kavanaugh, then yes, it is over, at least until after the November elections. If the Democrats gain control of the House, there may be some push to impeach Kavanaugh, but that seems to me quite low in probability. More likely Democrats will focus on tormenting Trump.
Mike M.,
"Money that the government owes to itself, such as to the Social Security Trust Fund, is not relevant to the calculation you cite above. What matters for that is the debt held by the public."
I don't think so. The link I gave is to a page in the Public Debt section of the treasury web site. I take that to mean that is debt held by the public (Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc. ). As to the SS trust fund, so you now agree that it's an accounting fiction (real question)?
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171354): "I don't think so. The link I gave is to a page in the Public Debt section of the treasury web site."
It is total debt, not public debt, that has gone up continuously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#Accounting_treatment
.
DeWitt Payne: "As to the SS trust fund, so you now agree that it's an accounting fiction (real question)?"
No. I say that whether it is a "fiction" is irrelevant to the question at hand.
WP – U.N. Scientists: World has just 10 YEARS to prevent climate catastrophe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say
.
"As explained above, we have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions … climate disasters will become unavoidable."
OOPS SORRY, I accidentally quoted Jim Hansen from 2006.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/07/13/the-threat-to-the-planet/
.
I am terrified. It appears that >1.5C is now catastrophic.
.
The WP headline was changed later to: "The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say", but the alarmism is front and center at the Guardian, BBC.
All the blustering about Trump doesn't compare to the right wing guy who looks to win the presidency in Brazil. Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Brazil, isn't thrilled, but at least has open eyes to what are the global causes.
.
Brazil’s Bolsonaro-Led Far Right Wins a Victory Far More Sweeping and Dangerous Than Anyone Predicted. Its Lessons Are Global.
https://theintercept.com/2018/10/08/brazils-bolsonaro-led-far-right-wins-a-victory-far-more-sweeping-and-dangerous-than-anyone-predicted-its-lessons-are-global/
.
"The standard establishment reaction in the face of rising demagogues like Bolsonaro is to denounce those who support them, to call them names, to heap scorn on them, to sanctimoniously lecture them that their choices are primitive, retrograde, ignorant and illegitimate. That only serves further to exacerbate the dynamic.
As I wrote after the enactment of Brexit, and then again after Trump’s victory, unless and until the establishment classes of the world’s democracies begin to cease blaming everyone else and instead engage in serious self-critique, we’re going to have far more Brexits and Trumps – and far worse ones."
Before Ford gets swept into the dustbin of history (well deserved) the little matter of her little accusation should be cleared up. The general feeling is that something bad happened to her sometime, which was misremembered and then embellished. In that vein, my speculation, totally without basis yet just as valid as any other, is…
.
She was molested when she was much younger, as a child or pre-teen. In her story, she was wearing a one piece swimsuit under her clothes. A teen in the 80's wearing a one piece? I don't know, but one piece now might say something about extra modesty or body shame (or not). She was wearing it under her clothes. Does that say something about extra modesty or lack of change rooms? All that detail about the swimsuit but I missed the part describing anybody swimming.
.
She was accosted on the stairs and ended up on the bed in the bedroom (face up?), but she wasn't going to the bedroom, so how did she end up there? Was she dragged or pushed? That would be a bad sign, was she not scared at that point? When did she start hitting and kicking and screaming? Did she? I didn't see it mentioned.
No screaming or yelling after her escape either? She didn't get scared until they locked the door.
.
And then there is the laughter. She presents it as the ultimate sign of evil intent. Funny, but in my own experience, mostly in the movies, the evil guys usually sneer and take it very seriously. I don't recall any case of the laughing rapist. Or the pair of laughing roughhousing rapists.
.
The innocent explanation of her story is that the two young boys were just horsing around together and she was an innocent bystander. It was not about her, not all about her. The claim that they were laughing is a point in favor of this explanation.
.
Another explanation (I like the first one better) is that this was an attempted grope. Even now, that's not very shocking, and thirty years ago it would have shocked even fewer teens. Therefore it needed to be embellished, upgraded to attempted rape. With hints at attempted murder. She doesn't go that far, just to accidental murder by putting a hand over the mouth. I guess she didn't know she could breath through her nose and he didn't know that in the movies they usually go for the throat.
.
The most shocking part is the hysteria of the mob. What we call civilization and rule of law is just a thin crust on top of human nature.
Ledite
In her story, she was wearing a one piece swimsuit under her clothes. A teen in the 80's wearing a one piece? I don't know, but one piece now might say something about extra modesty or body shame (or not).
Actually one piece Speedos were in fashion during the late 70s and early 80s.
When did she start hitting and kicking and screaming? Did she? I didn't see it mentioned.
You clearly aren't a small, young woman if you think the automatic response of small young women when attacked by a much larger football playing man is to hit or kick.
There could be any number of explanations for whatever happened. But she might have gone upstairs because the downstairs bathroom was in use and wanted to use the upstairs one. But really, it would be best not to assume a small woman who has not been trained in self defense and who fears attack by a much larger man would respond with a lot of physical force. Hitting a guy might get you hit backed which, when you are small is not something you want to happen. That means: no kicking or hitting by the woman is more likely than not under the circumstances. Trying to get a hold of your breath, calm down and think of an escape route that does not involve physical force is a more natural reaction.
Doesn't mean it's the reaction that works better– just that it's more natural for many women. Like… for example… me in my discussion of an episode above.
Mike M.,
Pure sophistry. You could just as well say that government debt held by US citizens and other domestic entities doesn't count because we owe it to ourselves. You'd be just as wrong.
The page is under the Public Debt section. I fail to see a difference between debt held BY the public directly and debt held FOR the public by a government agency. Just because it's held by a government agency like the SSA doesn't make it go away or somehow not count. Debt is debt and will eventually have to be repaid or rolled over. In the case of the SS and Medicare trust funds, it's being repaid now. Debt held by the government for the public is being turned into debt held by the public directly. The Medicare fund will be depleted in 2026 and the SS retirement and disability funds in 2034 if nothing is done before then.
Ford had an explanation for the swimsuit in the hearings. From her opening:
—
In the summer of 1982, like most summers, I spent most every day at the Columbia Country Club in Chevy Chase, Maryland, swimming and practicing diving.
One evening that summer, after a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area.
—
MITCHELL: Let me ask just a few questions to make sure that you’ve thought of everything, OK?
You indicated that you were at the country club swimming that day.
FORD: That’s my best estimate of how this could have happened.
MITCHELL: OK.
And when you say “best estimate,†is that based on the fact that you said you went there pretty much every day?
FORD: (OFF-MIKE)
MITCHELL: Is that a yes?
FORD: Yes.
—
I don't think I'd read much into one-piece versus two-piece swimsuits. My understanding is that one piece works better for diving and competitive swimming, though I'm certainly not an expert on it. If it's something she did every day, it's something she takes seriously. OTOH, if it's something she did every day then her wearing a swimsuit to the party doesn't give any clues to the timing (unless she *only* dived during Summer 1982, of course).
.
In the testimony Ford attributed his difficulty in removing her clothes to her one-piece swimsuit and his drunkenness. The latter seems plausible enough, but it's not obvious at all to me why it would be easier to remove clothes worn over a one-piece swimsuit versus a two-piece swimsuit or any other article of underclothing.
.
How she ended up in the bedroom isn't obvious to me. Going upstairs to a bathroom isn't unusual, there's no guarantee there is a powder room, let alone an available one, on the ground floor. Further, this bathroom is accessible at the immediate top of a short stairs, with the stairs being visible from the room she testified she was in. As long as she knows the bathroom is there, it seems an eminently reasonable place to go — and she should know it is there, since when she escaped the bedroom she went *directly* to the bathroom, not down the stairs to freedom.
.
But still, with the entrance to the bathroom and the entrance to the bedroom being across from each other, both at the top of the stairs, I am still not sure how she was pushed in the *back* into the bedroom at the top of the stairs. Unless I'm missing something, this requires her to reach the top of the stairs and turn towards the *bedroom*, when she logically would have turned the opposite direction to go into the *bathroom*. Further, at least one of the drunk guys must get between her and the bathroom in order to push her in the back.
.
It's a pity she didn't draw her floor plan, because that would be a clue on how well she knew the layout of the house.
DaleS
I dove on the school swim team freshman year in college. Women divers wear 1 piece swimsuits. Women swimmers wear 1 piece swimsuits too.
It would be no more difficult to remove outer clothes from over a 1 piece than a 2 piece swimsuit. It would be more difficult to remove the 1 piece swimsuit itself.
I'd be amazed given all the things she forgot that she remembers the floor plan with any accuracy.
Tom Scharf,
The Hansen quote is hilarious. Good to know that climate catastrophes are now officially inevitable… or maybe we have another decade…. or will it be two decades… or three decades… to come to our senses, give up our foolish national sovereignty, and institute sweeping international socialist government everywhere. The only consistent point of agreement on policy among all climate activists is that desire for sweeping international socialist government. I am shocked and surprised (SHOCKED AND SURPRISED!) this is the case. 😉
Lucia,
"I'd be amazed given all the things she forgot that she remembers the floor plan with any accuracy."
.
Well, in her defense, she does appear to have a very selective memory. 😉
.
But if she can't remember where the party was, the month (or even year) the party was held, nor apparently who was there (her best friend she placed at the party claims to never have met Kavanaugh!), then it is clear she basically remembers nothing of substance. I should add: that seems a feature of her accusation, not a bug.
SteveF,
There is no evidence to my knowledge that socialist governments are greener or are decarbonizing faster than non-socialist governments in anything other than lip service. In fact, the contrary might be true. The idea that a world government would be greener than separate national governments doesn't hold water, IMO. IIRC, the EU, for example, isn't decarbonizing even as fast as the US.
Mike M.,
If total debt doesn't count, how come the Federal debt ceiling is based, more or less, on the total debt, not just the debt held by the public? Once again, real question. My answer, of course, is that the total debt is the more important number.
The only reason intra-governmental debt 'doesn't count' technically is because the government uses a flaky cash flow accounting that would be illegal for any private entity. They do that precisely to disguise how bad things really are.
I interpreted 'trouble removing my clothes' as the clothes included her swimsuit, which Kavanaugh didn't know about.
I don't think it is typical for people to wear their swimsuit under their clothes AFTER swimming, unless maybe if this country club had dryers installed.
Lucia,
I'll agree that if the swimsuit is included in the clothes Ford's attacker was trying to remove that it would make removal difficult. Ford refers to the swimsuit and "clothing" as separate, but that may not mean much; and while it would be logical to remove the outer clothes *before* attacking the swimsuit, expecting logical behavior from drunk assailants is a bit of a stretch. We can say that Ford does not allege any articles of clothing at all were successfully removed or even displaced.
.
Ford *did* say she could sketch a floor plan, she just wasn't taken up on the offer. I'm not sure how strange it is to recall those details — I think I could sketch a floor plan of at least part of a number of houses I was at in the 80s, at least those I stayed at overnight more than once — but I would have no hope at identifying when they occurred or the names of those I didn't already know well who were present. Of course, nothing more traumatic than losing at Risk or D&D happened to me at such parties, but trauma cuts both ways when it comes to memories. Perhaps Ford has a good memory for layouts. She has altered her description slightly between the letter and the hearing (the living room became family/living room, the staircase changed from short to very narrow), but the varying descriptions can both be correct.
.
Her concern for floor plans was lasting, after all, since it was psychologically necessary for her to have a second front door to the house. Since the second door appears to be have used to rent out part of the house I'm not sure how it benefited her psychologically, but unlike Dr. Ford I do not have a degree in the subject.
.
Nor is it obvious to me how a second front door in the mid80s/early80s/summer1982 would have benefited her. Yes, she testified that she had to pass through the living room to escape the house, a bit of an architectural oddity in my experience, but at the time she escaped the bedroom the living room was where her good friend, another "good guy", and mystery person X were located while her assailants were still in the bedroom. The assailants were only able to get themselves between her and the door because she locked herself in the bathroom instead of actually escaping. However, expecting logical behavior from a minor assailed, especially if she's already had exactly one beer, may also be stretching things.
While we are speculating, another option exists where they are both lying or misremembering. Ford is amplifying a failed and confused grope into attempted rape and Kavanaugh was drunk and it wasn't really something beyond "I tried to kiss a girl 36 years ago and it didn't work out". Confusion on intent. Kavanaugh either just doesn't remember it, or knows admitting to being there and debating the specifics would be fatal for his case and decided to go all in on denial.
It may be true that admitting to being there and debating the specifics would have been fatal for his nomination, although with the aid of his calendar he could (in that hypothetical) provide a wealth of detail that Ford could not — perhaps even witnesses.
.
However, I don't find it plausible that Kavanugh would remember being at the party and would *still* apply a complete denial strategy, escalating the ante from a he-said/she-said about activities as a minor to committing willful perjury, with full knowledge that at least four other people could prove him a liar. That would be a wildly reckless strategy. I've noted more than once that Kavanaugh has been reckless in his defense, going beyond denying the specific allegations to denying the claimed behavior (or anything close to it) anytime and anywhere. That's bold behavior for an innocent man, but it's downright suicidal for a guilty.
.
That does leave open the possibility that something happened between him and Ford that he doesn't remember because he was blacked-out drunk. He's also denied, under oath, that happening *any* time, though I'm not sure how anyone can guarantee that they remember all the times that they couldn't remember. How would you judge such a thing?
.
Interestingly (to me), I actually *have* had the experience of waking up in my bed and not knowing how I got there. I was hosting an all-night party with some of my friends, expected to sleep in the same room with them, in a sleeping bag in the family room. I woke up downstairs in my own bed. According to my friends, I got out of my sleeping bag and headed towards the stairs. They asked where I was going and I didn't answer. When they started to follow, I ran downstairs. I don't doubt their account, even though it seems incredible to me that I managed to run down a set of stairs (with a turn at the bottom) while sleepwalking.
.
OK, that's not relevant to Ford/Kavanaugh. I was just struck that he could testify to a level of knowledge that I *can't* testify to, when I've never had a beer in my life. I will say that if someone outside my high school social circle came forward to allege I assaulted her in such a state back in mid-80s/early-80s/summer'82 I would reject it out of hand. While I can't remember what happened after I went to sleep, I *know* there wasn't an unfamiliar female there. I also know the described behavior is wholly inconsistent with how I have treated women my entire life.
Dale that sort of things happens a lot. I feel a few times I have driven a car while sleeping.
The last time, I realized I was doing it, stopped and called for someone else to drive.
I know of someone who while sleeping dreamed a burglary and held a guy against a wall while yelling thief.
>I am still not sure how she was pushed in the *back* into the bedroom at the top of the stairs.
Well she couldn't have been pushed in the front. At the top there is a room on each side.
What's also strange about her story is she says she locked herself in a hallway bathroom until they went away. Who refers to it as a 'hallway bathroom' after previously mentioning
it as her destination? Why not just say I went into the bathroom?
The issue with the floor plan is to try and clear up a discrepancy that Ed Whelan pointed out. My guess is the floorplan she draws would have matched Mark Judge's house that was looked up on Wednesday. Her previous reference was probably based on a house she had been in. The repeated mention of the Safeway was a tell. She really wanted them to look up the 'independent' corroboration.
Complete denial was the only path to not having his life ruined, he is motivated to do that. Admitting he has ever blacked out would have been fatal given the witch hunt in progress. This wasn't a reasoned process. It's likely he has blacked out given the other drinking descriptions. People who drink a lot experiment with drinking a lot lot eventually. The storyline of drinking too much means he's an attempted rapist was strained, but his nomination was on a thread. Lie a little, or be disgraced the rest of your life. The way we separate all these fantasies is with evidence, and we can't. Given that too many people have potential ulterior motives it is just a mess. We went to overtime, it ended up a tie score. In a search for the truth Ford would have been put under more scrutiny, the prevailing empathy for potential victims limited that.
Tom Scharf,
I don't think it's true that complete denial was the "only path to not having his life ruined." It may certainly be true, given what a close-run thing it was, that it was his only path to the Supreme Court. But *if Kavanaugh believed* that the allegation might have been true, and especially if Kavanaugh *knew* the allegation was true, then complete denial is the path that's mostly likely to *really* have his life ruined — because there were witnesses!
.
As it stands, nearly half the country thinks he's guilty anyway, and with the cooperation of the media that percentage will only increase over time. He hasn't saved his reputation with his denials, even with the utter lack of any supporting evidence for his accusers. But adopting a strategy where anyone who can place him at the *party* amounts to testifying that he attempted rape is to maximize the chance he'll be forced to resigned from the circuit court and possibly face perjury charges. Given the stakes involved, I'm not sure I'd have the guts to follow that strategy if innocent, let alone if I thought I might be guilty (or worse, knew I was guilty).
.
While I don't expect to see more evidence, I don't think it's true that we have to throw up our hands and claim we'll never know what *really* happened. There's quite a bit of evidence, and it's all on one side of the ledger. The witnesses not remembering the party *is* evidence, the best we can get from this distance with so little to go on. The accuser changing the few material details in her story *within the last few months* is enough to cast doubt on the veracity of her story or the reliability of her memory. And the actions she has taken voluntarily within the last few months are enough to impeach the motivation she claimed under oath.
.
I have no experience with drunkenness, so I have no way of knowing how improbable Kavanaugh's claim to have never experienced blacked-out memory is. (Note — this is not the same as drinking to loss of consciousness, which he admitted to under oath). This isn't as easily impeachable as claiming never to have been in a room alone with Ford and Judge, or to be a virgin throughout high school and many years after. However, it's certainly *potentially* impeachable — if I had made such a claim (without regards to the alcoholic element) my friends all could have impeached me, because I told them I didn't remember.
DeWitt,
"There is no evidence to my knowledge that socialist governments are greener or are decarbonizing faster than non-socialist governments in anything other than lip service."
.
Of course not. Climate alarm is just one of the many 'tragedy of the commons" arguments (AKA excuses) for taking away sovereignty from national governments (and individuals, of course) and imposing socialist controls. I would never suggest a socialist government would be better at anything, save for destroying wealth. It is the control they want, the rest is window dressing.
Thanks for the update on swimsuits.
.
As for fighting out of an assault, it might come naturally or not, it might work or not, but it would indicate to a jury that it was not a matter of consent being revoked retroactively. Time for self-defense classes in high school?
.
BTW, that Safeway she referred to seeing Judge at? Someone found that it did not exist at that time.
Ledite, I read that the Safeway existed, that it was confirmed it had two doors like she said, and more importantly Judge talks about working there in his book. I think the book was the source for including seeing him at Safeway in her story, and why she was talking about it so much at the hearing.
Ledite,
I have no idea why a jury would interpret a frightened woman as acting like a frighted woman during an attack as indicating consent which was revoked retroactively. It would not be rational. Of course, juries can be irrational, so pretty much anything can be taken as evidence of anything in that case.
I think we are mostly past the era where people decreed that a woman couldn't have been raped unless she not only risked death but actually either got killed or ended up battered to smithereens and in a coma because she "fought back" against an clearly overwhelming opponent who could kill her. I hope we are past the era where that is the theroy.
But perhaps you are suggesting the juries ought to go back to that old theory. I hope not.
Ford testified both that she tried to get away and that she tried to yell. And assuming an incident actually occurred, there is simply no other evidence for her state of mind; this isn't a she-said/he-said situation, there is no "he-said" to claim the encounter was consensual or misinterpreted as such.
SteveF,
I've always thought of The Tragedy of the Commons as an argument against socialism. I must be seriously misguided. /sarc
As I remember, you have to be a heavy drinker to have enough tolerance to alcohol to have a blackout. Without that tolerance, one would pass out first rather than blacking out. A person who is having a blackout is still apparently conscious and functioning, but there is no conversion of short term memory to long term memory as in senile dementia or after a concussion. Since everyone around you is likely also intoxicated, I suspect no one notices. Having blackouts means you're well along the road to becoming an alcoholic.
lucia (Comment #171380). Is that what I wrote? I don't think so. I parsed it again. Maybe it's too convoluted, but I still think it is correct.
.
In the case of an unwanted sexual situation, there are two possibilities.
Woman fights: she means it when she says no.
Woman doesn't fight: does she mean yes when she says no?
Of course, nobody else can know that. She might be too afraid or intimidated to want to act, or terrorized so badly she is incapable of acting.
.
In an investigation of a claim of rape, the question is whether the claim is true. Was it consensual and the woman denied it later? Did it happen at all? Was it rape? Juries are unpredictable, but what is the evidence? Signs that the woman fought would be good for the claim. Reporting to the police immediately would be good for the claim. Lack of either of these neither supports the case nor disproves it. It's not going back to the old era.
.
So, for anybody being raped, my advice is to get out at the earliest opportunity. The longer you are involved the harder it is to escape. The attacker has more time to subdue you and limit your options. Don't wait for your chance. It won't come. Use surprise, shock and awe. Fight tooth and nail. Don't let being smaller discourage you, you don't need to win a fight, you just need to escape.
.
Is that more clear?
What are the odds that Kavanaugh would be so perceptive as to only assault future progressives who all were simultaneously struck by a lightning bolt of civic duty decades later? Maybe there is an additional degree of freedom I am not taking into account.
DeWitt,
"I've always thought of The Tragedy of the Commons as an argument against socialism. I must be seriously misguided."
.
I don't know. From Wikipedia:
.
"The 'tragedy of the commons' is often cited in connection with sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming."
This is kind of hard to believe, you can't make it up.
.
Columbia Journalism Review
Kavanaugh and the fallacy of cause and effect
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/kavanaugh-ford-trump.php
By: Kyle Pope is the Editor in Chief and Publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review.
.
"Yet these days, so much of what we do is either ignored by a public who no longer reads us or dismissed by a political class intent on casting us as partisans … It certainly doesn’t help morale, or our own sense of justice, when it doesn’t, as was the case in coverage of Brett Kavanaugh, who has been sworn in to serve on the Supreme Court. He was approved by the Senate, defended by President Trump, and embraced by supporters, despite an extraordinary push by journalists—at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, and elsewhere—to prove that Kavanaugh was, at worst, a sexual predator and, at least, a liar with a drinking problem"
.
Cause (media bias) meet effect (you are ignored).
Ledite
>In the case of an unwanted sexual situation, there are two possibilities.
>Woman fights: she means it when she says no.
>Woman doesn't fight: does she mean yes when she says no?
>Of course, nobody else can know that. She might be too afraid or intimidated to want to act, or terrorized so badly she is incapable of acting.
Well, that's an odd way to look at it. For some reason, you want to frame it as reading her *internal metal state*. That's not a reasonable standard because no one is psychic. It's also not the law. No jury needs to guess her internal mental state. They need to determine if she gave consent.
She fights: Did she consent? No.
She doesn't fight, but does not say yes. Did she consent? No.
Lack of fighting doesn't mean "consent" by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't in other crimes. For example: If some big goon comes up to you, grabs you and immobilizes you and seizes your wallet, the fact that you didn't fight doesn't mean you consented to his taking the wallet.
A Whataburger teen had a guy come up, throw coke on him and grab his Trump hat. The teen did not fight back. That doesn't mean he consented to the other guy taking the hat back.
It's true we can't delve into the reason the teen did not fight back for his hat. But neither the law, nor normal people think merely not fighting a much bigger, potentially violent person means consent.
Of course having been killed, or smacked about enough to sustain injuries will tend to convince juries that the woman didn't consent. So does getting murder. But lack of these things doesn't mean consent.
>So, for anybody being raped, my advice is to get out at the earliest opportunity. The longer you are involved the harder it is to escape. The attacker has more ti
Which, of course, is why I was terrified when a guy in college suddenly jumped up and locked the door.
Yet, your response to the idea that a guy locking the door on me was to minimize his locking the door as somehow normal, not scary and to suggest the reason for suddenly jumping up and locking the door is to keep others out and not make it difficult for me to get out. You wrote:
>Nobody except real pervs have doors that prevent leaving when >locked, so whatever the reason is, it is to keep others out.
>Assuming of course he just closed the door; how would you know >he actually locked it?
And yet NOW you are 'advising' that a woman try to get out as fast as possible and so on. Welll…. uh… Yeah. And let me assure you that a 6'2" guy standing between a locked door and a small woman he is assaulting is scary. The reason is: the door makes it harder for the small woman to get away.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2018/aug-31-thread/#comment-171037
>Don't let being smaller discourage you, you don't need to win a fight, you just need to escape.
.
>Is that more clear?
Yes. You are suggesting I risk getting beaten up by a much larger person. As you recall, in my story, I did consider other options: Escape through the window and so on.
But beyond that, your advise not withstanding: It's important to recognize that fighting tooth and nail is not a natural reaction, and lack of fighting tooth and nail should not be taken as consent.
Tom
Yep: This definitely reads like media bias. He doesn't write that journalists tried to uncover whether he WAS a predator, but that they *pushed* to prove he was one. That's bias.
> despite an extraordinary push by journalists—at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, and elsewhere—to prove that Kavanaugh was, at worst, a sexual predator and, at least, a liar with a drinking problem.
I used to think that this positive consent rule was just crazy and unnecessary, I think I have changed my mind on that. It seems that it is too easy for there to be confusion on consent, and a woman freezing up in fear can be misinterpreted by people who are bad at reading nonverbal cues.
Tom
There are *versions* of positive consent that are crazy. "May I place my hand on your shoulder?" Yes. Hand on shoulder. "May I kiss you"? Yes…. Kissing begins. "May I move my hand to 2nd base?" and so on.
But there are lots of indications of positive consent. "Hmmm… that feels good." "Oh… don't stop that.." Most of the time, there are positive indications of consent.
It's one thing to recognize there can be a he said-she said issue afterwards regarding what each did and said. But Ledites rhetorical question:
>Woman doesn't fight: does she mean yes when she says no?
Uhmm… No not fighting doesn't imply she means yes when she says no. If she *actually says no* that's definitely no. If Ledite's rhetorical question meant to imply that she might actually mean yes… well… Perhaps he thinks it. But it would seem even he is not willing to quite *say* he thinks it means yes, and so uses the rhetorical question ploy.
If a woman is playing games (which is likely rare) and the guy treats yes as no, but she really meant yes, she will presumably either turn around and say yes OR she will realize she was an idiot and lost out on the sexual experience she wanted. Too bad for her for being an idiot. But no certainly has to be treated as no both legally and morally.
Merely not trying to scratch someone's eyes out, kick them in the balls or do something that looks like fighting should certainly not be taken as consent. No one should suggest– even by rhetorical question– that not kicking someone in the balls means "no" might mean "yes".
Tom Scharf (Comment #171387),
Indeed that article was hard to believe. Buried in it was even a climate change whine "editors ignored a terrifying new United Nations report about the rapid acceleration of the global climate-change threat." The only terrifying thing about the new report is if countries were daft enough to try to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2040, as the report deems necessary to stay under the arbitrary +1.5C limit. Evidence of *actual* acceleration of anything harmful was conspicuously missing, the SPM has forms of "accelerate" three times in it and none relate to effects.
.
I will give one thing for the report — it does mention, as these things so rarely do, that there might be some actual costs in attempted mitigation. In fact, on page SPM-27 there's a remarkable graph that contains "tradeoffs" showing negative effects against a variety of presumably-desirable goals. Alas, they aren't actually quantified, and they are displayed in conjunctions with "synergies" from mitigation strategies. Prior to seeing this remarkable graph, I had no idea that mitigating carbon could be a net *positive* for all 17 "sustainable development goals". I'll give them the "clean energy", but they had to spoil it with saying SDG7 is "affordable and clean energy", which makes their claim ridiculous. No poverty? Zero hunger? Decent Work and Economic Growth? What lunatic would think that ending fossil fuels by 2040 would actually *help* with any of those issues?
.
I'm also not sure how they expect mitigation strategies to address goals like "Gender Equality" and "Peace and Justice Strong Institutions". I'll grant them "Reduced Inequality", as beggaring us all will do that nicely.
.
In a report with so many lame actual impacts, one prediction stands out for its boldness:
—
Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a
further 70–90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2ºC (very high confidence).
—
Approximately 1 degree of warming from not-really-preindustrial-times has already occurred and the coral reefs are still very much with us. But just a half degree more and they will decline by 70-90% and one degree more causes *greater than 99%*. How sure are they off this apocalyptic prediction? It's classified as *very* high confidence in a paper littered with dubious "medium confidence" projections. The very high confidence items:
1) Warmer in 2006-2015 than 1850-1900
2) Lower risks of *heat-related* mortality at +1.5C than +2.0C
3) "Context-relevant design and implementation requires considering people’s needs, biodiversity, and other sustainable development dimensions." (What does that mean? Not much, but it follows a confession that "poorly implemented" carbon dioxide removal schemes could have trade-offs. You think?)
4) "The potential for climate-resilient development pathways differs between and within regions and nations, due to different development contexts and systemic vulnerabilities." (What does that mean? It means their precious mitigation strategies aren't *actually* in the interest of all nation-states.)
5) The REEFS WILL ALL DIE! DIE, I TELL YOU! EVERYBODY PANIC!
.
And yet, there are journalisms majors who believe with all sincerity that us ignorant rubes are just ignoring God's own truth that they labor so hard to bring us. Heck, the Columbia journalist specifically mentioned the good work of the New Yorker, who published a sexual allegation "corroborated" by a non-participant who claimed to have heard it from a person that the New Yorker tracked down and knew *nothing* about it. Instead of hanging his head over such a clear violation of what passes for journalistic standards, he bemoans the ignorant masses.
.
Terrifying.
Lucia,
Actually I thought it was me who put forward the idea that guys lock the door to keep other people out.
Maybe I spoke poorly or maybe I was flat out wrong. Certainly wouldn't be the first or last time. 🙂
[Edit: FWIW – I agree with you about not fighting. Heck, I'm a guy and I actually *like* sparring; I'm not scared of getting hit. And yet with absolute certainty I can say there are many many many people in this world I would do my darndest to avoid having a real fight with, because I'm quite sure I'd get beaten to death, or as close to death as they decided to take it.]
The quote was Ledite.
You brought up a situation *with your wife*. That's a different situation because married people already know each other quite well and are nearly always already in a sexual relationship and it's normal for one to consider privacy a concern for both.
But that's not what happened in my situation. I was sitting in a room with two acquaintances sometime during day time (broad daylight.) One decides to leave (to work on his car) and the other gets up, follows him and locks the door. This other one is someone I hadn't so much as held hands with. So… not the same.
Ledite's statement is rather different from yours.
>Nobody except real pervs have doors that prevent leaving when
>locked, so whatever the reason is, it is to keep others out.
>Assuming of course he just closed the door; how would you know
>he actually locked it?
Obviously, the *whole situation* suggests the possibility the guy who locked the dor IS a perv. And Ledite questions whether I know he locked it. As I told him, locks make noise. I heard it. (Later his roommate used his key to get back in.)
This really has a tone of doubting my idea that I was in a situation I might need to fear.
Thanks Lucia.
Not that I think anyone is particularly interested in this last bit, but my instructors would be disappointed in me if I didn't mention at least – sparring is play. In real situations, the rule is 'get home alive'. Typically that means running. Obviously there aren't hard and fast rules for every situation, but – the idea is to get the heck out of there, not beat up your attacker/s.
I should add: I think it's clear that Ledites "whatever the reason is, it is to keep others out". Well… that might be part of the reason. But I'd say "whatever the *other* reason might have been, in that case it was to make it difficult *for me to leave*".
Locked doors are an obstacle both to the person inside who does need to get to the closed door, get their hand on the lock, turn it, open and get out.
Prior to his closing and locking the door, the door has been open, not closed. Open doors are not obstacles.
Since there was no need for privacy, the door could certainly have remained open.
Lucia said:
"If a woman is playing games (which is likely rare) and the guy treats yes as no, but she really meant yes, she will presumably either turn around and say yes OR she will realize she was an idiot and lost out on the sexual experience she wanted. Too bad for her for being an idiot. But no certainly has to be treated as no both legally and morally."
It's not as rare as you think. There were a few times where a girl would say yes all the way to being naked in a bed together and then say no. Invariably, regardless of the amount of alcohol I'd consumed I'd get out of bed, get dressed and leave. In one case I made her get out of my bed, get dressed and I drove her home, while she's asking me if I'll call her tomorrow.
I could never tell if these encounters were some kind of power play or if they were somehow trying to deflect moral responsibility of having sex. Either way I didn't want any part of it and it was a major turn off.
Sorry, just wanted to put my two cents in on the Kav situation but it was all so baffling to me I couldn't get a word in edgewise.
Jerry,
I'm not going into detail about my past sexual experiences on a public blog, but I will say I've had at least one similar experience. I wouldn't say it's common, but yeah. Such occasionally happens.
Yeah, I was trying really hard not to say anything specific lest this post somehow becomes why I can't be a Supreme Court justice.
Needless to say, the current view that females are pure driven snow and guys are leacherous bastards needs some tuning.
Jerry,
Heh. I meant to write
""If a woman is playing games (which is likely rare) and the guy treats no as yes, but she really meant no, she will presumably either turn around and say yes OR she will realize she was an idiot and lost out on the sexual experience she wanted."
So obviously, I didn't say what I meant at all!!
I agree some women will be "yes" and change to "no".
>In one case I made her get out of my bed, get dressed and I drove her home, while she's asking me if I'll call her tomorrow.
I assume you did not. (Just a guess!)
Mark,
It's reassuring to hear that it's not only women who don't necessarily think the best strategy is to get into a fight. I've always thought situational awareness and staying out of situations where I might need to fight my way out was probably a better strategy than fighting my way out.
Franklin Foer in The Atlantic justifies his Trump Tower story as 'I wouldn't sleep well if Trump won the election and I held back my story because it wasn't thoroughly nailed down'.
Here are two other examples of the danger of being charged with rape.
.
First, a story from a Panamanian movie (Panama Canal Stories) about the interaction of the US and Panamanians, from 1913 on. This story is in the 1964 segment. A young Panamanian guy becomes involved with a Zonian (US) woman. His father warns him against it and tells about a guy who had an ongoing sexual relationship with a Zonian, until they were caught. The Zonian woman denied the relationship, so the Panamanian was sentenced to 30 years in jail for rape. "He's still there". Fiction. Who knows if it's based on a true story.
.
Ronaldo is "the most popular person on the entirety of Facebook" and truly loved. Mayorga claims he raped her, he denies it but admits she said no. Some call her a gold digger.
https://www.rt.com/news/440450-cristiano-ronaldo-sexual-assault-metoo/
"One scalp they didn’t want: Why Cristiano Ronaldo accusations are a dangerous test for #MeToo"
.
"One of the reasons for the establishment of universal justice is the idea that all people, men and women, accusers and accused, should be equal before the law. By taking extra-judicial steps and ignoring settled norms such as police investigations, weight of evidence, and presumption of innocence in its quest for quick retribution #MeToo has bitten off more than it can chew, and risks looking weak and hypocritical by doing the right thing."
Ledite
>Fiction. Who knows if it's based on a true story.
If you know it's fiction, it's not an example.
>“she said that she didn't want to, but she made herself available… But she kept saying 'No.' 'Don't do it.' 'I'm not like the others.' I apologized afterwards." Within a “No means no†model of consent, this does not leave much wiggle room.
Uhhmm…. HE says she said no. Also: he apologized afterwards, which suggests he *knew* she meant no– otherwise, he wouldn't apologize.
I await to hear his interpretation of "making herself available".
I'm confused by your intended point which is, evidently, to show us being charged with rape is dangerous. Of course it is. No one says otherwise. Being charged with murder, theft, assault, burlary, copyright violation and many other things is also dangerous. It's especially dangerous if there is evidence it's true. It's also dangerous if you are innocent– you'll spend money at a minimum. If you get convicted you can go to jail for a long time. This is obvious and no one disagrees.
Whatever your point is, you admit your first "example" is a fictional account and the second is one where the woman did not consent. Having sex without the other partner's consent is legally rape. Do that and you run a high risk of being accused, charged and found guilty. Because you are guilty. You're guilty even if you are a popular sports personality.
It's not just the women who might be helped by positive consent. I read a story the other day where a woman said she turned in two people to the university because "she didn't want them to become SC justices later". One of these was a friend who she claims she woke up in the morning and they were apparently doing it, having slept in the bed over night I guess. She didn't think it was rape then, but … now she wants it on the books. This is both appalling, scary, and completely understandable at the same time. Given the hysteria it would be wise to remove as much confusion from consent as possible. Perhaps 3rd base and further.
.
There are 3 areas, denied consent, positive consent, and hard to explain in words consent. If a woman can play the no positive consent card later based on changing her mind for a lot of different reasons it can result in some bad outcomes. Of course the man or woman could always lie about the consent. Maybe there can be a rule of "taking off your own clothes is consent" or similar. Make rules, teach the rules, remove confusion.
.
If society wants to lower the threshold for proving sexual assault and expand its meaning, then it should also lower the penalty I think. It needs to stop conflating unwanted contact with attempted rape. Perhaps there should be some misdemeanor penalty that can have a lower threshold that gets people on the books without ruining their life.
The discussion about locks reminds me of a point I wondered about from Ford's testimony. In the dorm rooms I lived in the locks were ponderous things, with a loud heavy lock and the necessity of a key to get in — which makes sense, since the bedroom door is what separates you from complete strangers. In my current house the interior locks (such as on the bedroom) are much flimsier things, and setting them is very quiet. It still would be an impediment to escape since you have to (separately) turn the lock before turning the handle, and of course it also prevents outsiders from getting in without a bobby pin. In the house I lived in back in 1982, the interior locks were push-button — still quiet, still vulnerable to bobby pin, but released automatically when the handle was turned from the inside — still an impediment to rescuers, but no impediment at all to escapers. It would still be creepy as all get out, of course!
.
In Ford's testimony the door lock could only have been an interior lock, and as we would expect did not impede her from actually escaping once she was off the bed. She testified that Mark and Brett came into the room and locked the door behind them. If she saw them enter (which her testimony allows, but does not claim) she could have seen *one* of them lock the door. Locking an interior door is a one person job and can't be plausibly done by two people. If she didn't see the locking but merely heard it she could attribute it to them jointly, but there was already music playing in the room and interior locks are not loud. The final possibility would be that the act of locking was recognized in retrospect, since when she exited the room first she would of course discover the door was locked. I don't bring this up to impeach her testimony, because I don't think it does, but to point out that the attribution to "Brent and Mark" is likely incorrect. Unlike in Lucia's experience, the actual door-locker cannot be identified even if Ford's testimony were 100% correct.
.
The subject also makes me reconsider the old Kenny Rogers song, "The Coward of the County". When Tommy "stopped and locked the door" it was a dramatic moment, but it likely didn't actually prevent the Gatling Boys from getting away. (I also wonder why Kenny Rogers is just standing by, watching, as his own nephew takes on three rapists by himself.)
My impression is wives have no problem expressing denied consent, ha ha.
This entire article is worth reading. This has been on my list of selection bias problems with the media. Why don't you go ask people in a scientific way what they really thing about political correctness? The media covers this stuff constantly in a positive way.
.
Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
.
"Most members of the “exhausted majority,†and then some, dislike political correctness. Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.†Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages."
.
"Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness." (75% black oppose).
.
"If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? (more) Income and (more) education."
I think one point here is that if you rob somebody then it's unlikely there is confusion that a crime occurred. It's not typically a victim saying he just opened up his wallet and gave a mean looking person his money without being threatened. In all cases the victim does not want to be robbed, so we don't have to sort out intent. The robber doesn't say "she said no, but she really wanted to be robbed, I could tell".
There are predatory women who go after sport stars. In LA a long time back there was a service that women could subscribe to that texted them locations where sports stars were hanging out at. Sleeping with Kobe Bryant is going to be a trophy for many women. Actually now that I think about it he was involved in this exact scenario.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case
.
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did."
DaleS
> In the dorm rooms I lived in the locks were ponderous things, with a loud heavy lock and the necessity of a key to get in
Yes. That's why I could definitely know the guy who got up and locked the door on me locked the door on me. The locks were heavy deadbolts, on doors that had been built in the 50s. The walls were cinderblock. Everything was heavy. The roommate used his key to get in.
In houses, when there is a lock on bedroom door, it is generally one of those light push in things that can often unlock when someone inside merely turns the handle. There is generally no key, but the locks are easy to jimmy (which my siblings and I learned to do when I was in 5th grade and we'd just move into the house.)
With respect to a person inside the room escaping, it's often no more difficult to exit a bedroom in a typical home than if the door was merely closed. Turning the handle unpops the lock.
Hillary Clinton: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.â€
.
That is very near a call for civil war. Except that she seems to think that the Democrats can go to war while the Republicans remain civil. Dangerous incompetence.
Tom Scharf
>he robber doesn't say "she said no, but she really wanted to be robbed, I could tell".
No. That *specific* way likely doesn't happen. But it hardly exhausts the possibilities of a thief claiming consent. I've watched the people's courts. There are frequent cases where one person alleges the other used their credit cart w/o permission and the defense is they had permission. There are also frequent cases of one person saying they had permission to take money from the 'cookie jar' in situations where people had cash. There are cases of mothers being co-signatories on accounts their children own, and the mom's taking money for reasons the Mom considers valid. Chidren doing similar things for eldery parents also occurs, as does cashing of social security checks and so on.
In many cases, one took money ostensibly "for the benefit of" or "with the permission of" the person whose money was taken. The other person claims the money was taken without permission.
Some rapes involve grabbing someone on the street and threateing maiming possibly with a knife or gun. Some thefts involve grabbing someone on the street and threatening with a knife or gun.
But both theft and rape can occur without a knife or gun, and yes, "they gave me the money" is not an uncommon defense at least in civil cases. I bet it happens in some criminal cases, but I don't get to watch those on "The People's Court".
Tom
>I read a story the other day where a woman said she turned in two people to the university because "she didn't want them to become SC justices later"
This defies googleing. I wonder if it didn't happen. Do you have more details that might help us create a successful google search?
Found it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-reported-my-rapist-today-so-he-cant-become-a-supreme-court-justice-later/2018/10/04/09d7bf10-c74d-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.df642f21413e
Tom,
There well may be plenty of women going after sports stars. But in the case Ledite brought forward, the soccer star in question himself reports the woman said no, and he knew she didn't want to do whatever. After she said no, he did whatever and he apologized immediately afterwards. So both the man and the woman agree *she said no* to the act in question before it occurred. Then the man did it anyway.
We don't know much more, but evidently police reports have leaked.
(The accusation is anal intercourse. It's hardly unbelievable that a woman might be up for sex but not be up for anal. She could certainly have been "available" for vaginal or oral and not wanted anal. )
Perhaps we'll hear more as this moves along. There's some talk he paid her hush money, but perhaps not.
The ability to predict hurricane strength at landfall is still incredibly bad. Two days ago it was predicted to make landfall as a Cat 1, now it is Cat 4. The tracking continues to be very good. This storm is moving really fast so that will limit some of the damage. It looks like there will be an unfortunate timing of high tide and landfall to the east of the storm.
Yes, if both parties agree that he was apologizing after the event it is evidence of guilt. One assumes he was apologizing for doing it against her will. He better check his bank account. If only all rapists were super rich. I think the Kobe Bryant affair was also about unwanted back door action.
I looked at the Kobe Bryant story. It's more odd.
That one involved:
(a) initial consent.
(b) intercourse began. It seems to have been vaginal, but she was bent over the back of the couch. Then
(c) From wikipedia: "This was the sex act in question, as the accuser claims she told Bryant to stop but he would not, and Bryant claims he stopped after asking if he could ejaculate on her face." So both agree she withdrew consent.
The story afterwards had all sorts of other issues– like whether she immediately went out and had sex with others. ( "It was revealed that she wore underpants containing another man's semen and pubic hair to her rape exam the day after the alleged incident.[9] Detective Doug Winters stated that the yellow underwear she wore to her rape exam contained sperm from another man, along with Caucasian pubic hair." Also: wikipedia.)
Obviously, cases where the both agree there was consent before "the act" was initiated but withdrawn during the act tend to be the murkiest. Results of rape kits are not going to be definitive. Whether she had sex with someone else immediately doesn't tell us if Kobe stopped when she asked and whether he stoppled quickly enough.
(I've got to say… while I think the guy should stop, it's a bit murky how quickly– and equally murky how to interpret evidence if he thinks he stopped right away and she think he took unduly long. I mean….. even considering something innocuous like driving a car. If I as a passenger tell my husband to hit the brakes. There is time between when *think* STOP, then *say*, stop, he *understands* stop, process and then reacts– and then it takes time for his foot to move to the brake. Then only after the jerk involved in the brakes engaging do I know he has stopped. That's not a LONG time. But between his hearing "STOP" and reacting and hitting the brakes easily be 3 seconds. So…. let's say 6 seconds. If the reason for the "STOP" was pain, that could seem like a long time. She probably doesn't have a stop watch on her– so unless the claim is he went on for over a minute, and his is "immediately", the difference in time might just be an issue of perception.
lucia: " If I as a passenger tell my husband to hit the brakes…. Then only after the jerk involved in the brakes engaging…"
That's a little harsh, calling your husband a jerk. 😉
HaroldW,
I was using jerk in the technical sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)
"In physics, jerk is the rate of change of acceleration; that is, the time derivative of acceleration, and as such the second derivative of velocity, or the third time derivative of position."
lucia,
Yes, I know.. 'twas just an attempt at humor. I had to crop the sentence rather severely to remove enough context to make it seem that you were using the non-technical meaning.
…
On a tangent — would you consider this an instance of misquoting? That is, using the exact words, but removing words which provide context, in order to create a misleading impression.
HaroldW,
If the person does that and then claims they meant what the out of context quote says, it's out of line. Not sure if it's literally misquoting. I think when ellipsis is used, it can definitely be a misquote if enough stuff in between is left out.
Tom Scharf (Comment #171417): "The ability to predict hurricane strength at landfall is still incredibly bad. Two days ago it was predicted to make landfall as a Cat 1, now it is Cat 4."
I don't think that is true at all. Here is a map from two days ago predicting that Michael would be a major hurricane before landfall.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c6/20181008232223%2114L_2018_5day.png
Democrats chances of taking the Senate are slipping away.
42 Republican Senators are not up for election.
Republicans are very likely to hold seats in Mississippi, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Utah.
Another seat in Mississippi is actually a primary on Election Day.
This means Democrats would have to win at least 2 of:
Tennessee, Texas, North Dakota, and Arizona.
I think Dems have a good shot at Tennessee and Arizona.
North Dakota is currently held by a democrat, it's one of a number of D-held states (ND, MO, IN, FL, MT) they could conceivably lose. The other vulnerable R-held seat is in NV.
They updated it as time went by, it was shown as Cat 1 "several" days ago when I first looked at it when it became news. Here is a prediction for it to not even become a hurricane:
http://weatherplus.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2018/10/06/development-chances-high-for-tropical-disturbance-in-gulf/
Florida can go either way in the Senate, it's very tight. Hopefully we can get crazy lefties screaming at people soon.
Tom Scharf (Comment #171428): "They updated it as time went by"
The link I sent is what the forecast was on Monday. That is the oldest one I could find.
.
"Here is a prediction for it to not even become a hurricane:
http://weatherplus.blog.palmbe…..e-in-gulf/"
That is from Saturday, when it was not even a tropical depression.
I do seem to recall seeing a map showing the forecast as not reaching Category 3. Maybe from Sunday when it first became a hurricane.
A Damaging Bid to Censor Applications at Harvard
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/opinion/harvard-affirmative-action-lawsuit.html
"Imagine this scenario: An admissions officer sits down to read a stack of applications, but they’re heavily redacted because the college must censor all references to an applicant’s race."
.
I can very easily imagine that, in fact that sounds completely reasonable. Trigger warning: Colorblind racism will be explained here.
Forecast from ~60 hours before landfall, showing Michael as less than category 2: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c6/20181008171818%2114L_2018_5day.png
Forecast from ~48 hours before landfall, showing Michael as a major hurricane: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c6/20181008191233%2114L_2018_5day.png
I don't think that is bad, considering how rapidly Michael intensified. It appears to have from a potential tropical cyclone to a hurricane in about 48 hours and then to a major hurricane in another 24 hours.
Tom,
I don't see how eliminating references to race would result in *heavily redacted* applications. Presumably, people writing letters of recommendation don't all include, "Oh, and btw, this kid is [fill in race here]". Your high school transcript shouldn't include a race. Your list of activities shouldn't include a race. Your board scores shouldn't include race.
Most of the time, excluding race would involve:
(a) not asking the question in the first place,
(b) blotting out names and replacing them with a code of some sort. (They could just replace all male names with "John Doe" and female ones with "Jane Smith". Then mass change the names to John or Jane in letters of recommendation.
That's pretty light redaction.
Anyway, since Harvard claims they don't discriminate against Asians, it won't make any difference. After all, the admissions department that never met the students but diagnoses their personalities probably doesn't need to know Asians are Asoam to diagnose their substandard personalities. So surely, redacting names won't make any difference. Since they obviously can, and everything is on the up and up, there's nothing for Harvard admission to worry about. 🙂
I find this funny:
>Eventually, applicants might stop discussing their race altogether, omitting things like leadership roles in their high school’s Latino Student Alliance or choosing not to write about icons like Dolores Huerta — all because they might be worried about indicating their racial identity.
Or consider the even worse alternative! If the applications don't list race but allow students to discuss their icons and clubs, a nonHispanic applicant could write about Dolores Huerta to make the admissions board think they might be latino. Whites, and asians could create a club called the "Latino Cultural Appreciation Club" dedicated to promoting Salsa, Merengue and Bachata that hosts an annual dance party to trick the board.
Lucia,
"I looked at the Kobe Bryant story."
.
Seems to me there is already much too much information about these 'stories'. If the basketball and soccer stars involved were out of line (as seems to me plausible!), let the police handle it. I am sure they will regret (financially at least) what they did, and will certainly regret ever being involved with the women in question. Should they be sitting in prison? Who knows…. let the courts have at it.
Lucia,
"I looked at the Kobe Bryant story."
.
Seems to me there is already much too much information about these 'stories'. If the basketball and soccer stars involved were out of line (as seems to me plausible!), let the police handle it. I am sure they will regret (financially at least) what they did, and will certainly regret ever being involved with the women in question. Should they be sitting in prison? Who knows…. let the courts have at it.
.
I should add: This is as far from the 36 year old accusations against Kavanaugh as any scandal could be.
The NYT article is a strawman, the author assumes his own remedy to the problem and then argues against that remedy. There are many ways to remedy the problem that don't include his assumptions. One can put Latino Leadership Club or Asian Leadership Club on their application, they just can't favor one over the other based on race. One gets the impression from their somewhat desperate argument that they aren't expecting a win ("entrenches whiteness", why does the author keep talking about white people?). If they are incapable of not discriminating by race then maybe they will need supervision.
Kobe was not convicted. He seems to have settled with the woman, which tells us very little about the truth.
The soccer guy– I'm guessing he's not going to jail either. A police report was filed. It was leaked (which verb suggest this would not be public material. ) There's evidently been money given to the woman in question and presumably it's not being pursued. Possibly that's because after filing a police report, the woman later didn't want to press charges and doesn't want to go to court. Her call, not mine.
The article linked suggested there was some issue with the #MeToo movement being somehow inconsistent if they didn't "go after" the soccer player. But that article is also overstating the power of #MeToo. Social disapprobation alone can only take down certain types of people and then only under certain circumstances. Sports figures aren't politicians– so there's no issue about having him lose an election. They aren't government employees. The soccer player is unlikely to be fired by his team. As long as he's playing lots of people aren't going to care.
The police aren't going after him. #MeToo really has practically no power to do much. Being less powerful than the writer of that story intimates is not the same as being hypocritical (which is what the writer accuses them of being.)
Most team fans are going to suggest that if he's not convicted…. then …. so? Other people don't even know who he is and aren't thinking about him. I'm not going to think about him much more and wouldn't have heard of this if Ledite hadn't linked it. Not sure what he wanted us to make of the story. But as long as he did, I'm going to point out that this happens to be a case where she said no, he agrees she said no and so on.
If some people think less of him because they know facts he agrees are true, so be it. I'm not seeing a grave injustice to him.
>I should add: This is as far from the 36 year old accusations against Kavanaugh as any scandal could be.
Absolutely. And they have nothing to do with those accusations.
The other thing that strikes me: Bringing up *these* stories where the guy *admits he did something* is hardly helpful to those who defend Kavanaugh. After all: Kavanaugh's position is not that he should be forgiven or given a free pass for doing something, it's that he *didn't do it*.
Pulling in these stories is more likely to harm people like Kavanaugh by confusing people into thinking Kavanaugh's "defense" is that he did it, but it was kinda-sorta ok. Or something.
Looks like epic damage in Panama City Florida, it was still Cat3 in GA because it was moving so fast, probably a huge number of trees down there.
Not listing race on an application is the primary step. I assume after that, black applicants will be talking about their race so as to try to get a placement from friendly admissions people who still believe in quotas.
It's not like there aren't alternate pathways to a more balanced class (in Harvard's reductionist view) than lazily looking at race. Economic status and then some made up standard of favoring people who live in a city. However they aren't going to be able to keep their process secret, pretend they stopped doing what they did previously, and then ending up with the same results. They are going to have to change. It is just so strange they seem dead set on on overtly discriminating against lower class whites and Asians. The defense of this is so weak given their own words on discrimination.
.
The trial could spend a week straight quoting Harvard professors own words on the evils of racism. The anti-racists are incredibly proud of how racist they are in the right directions. It's a home court trial where Harvard has a lot of pull, but Boston is also 9% Asian. Anyone want to guess who the very first people the defendants kick out of the jury pool? Chinese Americans.
Tom Scharf,
"Anyone want to guess who the very first people the defendants kick out of the jury pool?"
.
So cynical….. no, strike that, so honest. The idiots at Harvard really do think they are doing good, of course. But since they are idiots, that they are doing the exact opposite of good is completely lost on them. Most of the subject matter taught at Harvard (most everything outside the 'hard' sciences and math) is either economically meaningless or pure garbage, so who enters and suffers this informational garbage dump is less important than it might at first seem. Still, the issue is if taxpayers are going to fund the ongoing idiocy at Harvard or not. I certainly hope not.
> Still, the issue is if taxpayers are going to fund the ongoing idiocy at Harvard or not. I certainly hope not.
Tax exempt at the state level, they are branching out into real estate.
Taxachussetts is going to have to pay their bills eventually, and that humongous pile of money in the endowment may be too tempting.
Harvard Endowment: $37.1B
Massachusetts debt: $82.9B ($11K / person, $33K / taxpayer)
.
At least they aren't NJ, $61K / taxpayer
For comparison Florida debt is $2K / taxpayer
https://www.statedatalab.org/
Alabama's just as bad as Massachusetts. That's sad.
[Edit: Well, less total debt. Smaller taxpayer base. Same deal; 11K per taxpayer.]
Uhmm…Don't complain to me about Alabama. Illinois here $50/taxpayer.
Alabama's not as bad as Mass, since Mass is 33.5K per taxpayer. Here in Georgia it's $3,900 per taxpayer, which doesn't worry me much.
Humor break — Hilary as Palpatine:
https://babylonbee.com/news/let-the-hate-flow-through-you-cackles-cloaked-hillary-clinton-at-campaign-rally
It's a bit ironic that the states with the most debt are also historically the ones with the highest tax burden. If you go to high debt states and see gleaming cities and wondrous infrastructure then you might get the feeling there is a reasonable trade-off involved. For example if you visit neighborhoods with high HOA fees they tend to be nicer. I don't get that feeling in high debt states. Instead infrastructure is just monumentally expensive to build and maintain in those places.
Tom Scharf,
" Instead infrastructure is just monumentally expensive to build and maintain in those places."
Can you say "union friendly"?
Oops good point. I missed that mass was 11k per person.
HaroldW,
" Hilary as Palpatine."
.
Not very far from reality, which is what makes it funny. She simply can't get over herself, nor accept there might be legitimate alternatives to her policy preferences. Her 'basket of deplorables' gaff was not a fluke, nor really even a gaff…. she actually believes that nonsense, which reveals just how appallingly arrogant she is. That appalling arrogance likely cost her the election. That loss couldn't have been more richly deserved.
Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/11/victims-of-hurricane-michael-voted-for-climate-deniers
.
For entertainment purposes only. Absolutely shameless.
SteveF (Comment #171456): "Her 'basket of deplorables' gaff was not a fluke, nor really even a gaff"
Of course it was a gaffe. A gaffe is when a politician unintentionally speaks the truth, or what they see as truth.
Hillary Clinton: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.â€
Ummm, Hilary, conservatives normally manage to be civil to progressives that want to destroy what conservatives stand for and care about. So it can be done. That excuse for bad behavior won't wash. But then it's common to blame your enemies for your behavior, but somewhat juvenile.
To take the Senate, the Democrats not only need to flip two Republican seats, they need to hold all their own. According to RealClearPolitics, North Dakota, Heitkamp (D), leans Republican right now. The Republicans have 46 seats that are safe or not up for re-election, one more that is likely Republican and two more that are leaning Republican.
There are 7 tossups in the Senate races, three that were held by Republicans and four by Democrats. The Democrats will have to win all of them to gain control, not just TN and AZ. Considering that the enthusiasm gap in the two party's bases doesn't exist any more after the Kavanaugh hearings, Republicans seem likely to retain control of the Senate.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/2018_elections_senate_map.html
Don't forget Eric Holder's "When they go low, we kick them" comment recently. What a bunch of fools, a gift to the right. It's red meat for their side, but likely a net negative. They may be overlearning the Trump lesson. When their side says stuff like this it seems rehearsed.
.
They have no power now, so that's all they can do is stamp their feet and have a tantrum. They are pretty good at it usually, but it does get repetitive and tiresome.
It *is* silly.
.
42 % of voters identified as independent in 2017.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/225056/americans-identification-independents-back-2017.aspx
The media does a fine job of magnifying Trump's admittedly real flaws. All the Dems really need to do is be the more reasonable and attractive alternative to woo a larger number of independents than Trump. Be moderate. Dems should give the Trumpster his due; everybody loves the booming economy. Then talk intelligently and persuasively about what they can do that Trump can't. Whatever the heck that is.
.
Maybe this militant rhetoric is all about that; that the Dems have no vision to sell of where we ought to go. Not a Dem myself, so I wouldn't know.
.
*shrug*
Also complicating Democrats chances is in New Mexico a seat widely considered safe now has former Governor Gary Johnson running on the Libertarian line. A mass defection before election day from the Republicans could get him elected.
MikeM,
Here is a common definition for gaffe:
.
"an unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder."
.
In Hillary's case, it doesn't look unintentional, and I doubt she is embarrassed at all. She believes it all 100%. YMMV.
I expected that Hillary's “You cannot be civil …" line was the setup for a good-cop/bad-cop routine, with other Democrats pretending that being civil is a sign of moderation. But no, it seems that they want to play bad-cop/bad-cop instead. (E.g., Holder)
SteveF, MikeM was referring to a definition that Michael Kinsley gave on Crossfire of a gaffe for politicians.
Tom Holder's quote is requoted on twitter…. with this recent video inserted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7SqtIe5rZQ
lucia (Comment #171441) ,
I'll agree that stories of disputed or semi-disputed behavior by other males aren't helpful to Kavanaugh. His claim of innocence under oath means that even if the allegations weren't originally considered disqualifying, they would be if believed because he would be lying about them *now*. He has given not a hint that even if the allegations were true they should be ignored.
.
But Kavanaugh raising the stakes and dropping a possible line of defense just defers the issue until someone admits to having a youthful skeleton in their closet. For the most part, the prominent #metoo scalps are adults abusing a position of power; I can't think of a prominent figure who has been dragged down for misdeeds committed in high school or college. The closest thing I can think of is Roy Moore, and in that case it was his dates, not him, who were in high school and college. This isn't to say that sexual allegations against males *currently* in college and high school haven't been affected by changing standards of proof, just that *retroactive* sanctions aren't apparent, at least to me.
.
Maybe the Kavanaugh hearings will change that. You linked a WP post article above headlined "I reported my rapist today so he can't be a supreme court justice later". The headline is incorrect because she reported *two* rapists, and the "report" is not actually filing a complaint against either man, just putting it on file with a title IX coordinator so that at some future date she *could* pull out the accusation and bring either man down if she needed to. On it's face this seems troubling to me — if it's not worth punishing them *now* for misdeeds actually committed, why hold it as a trump card to destroy them if and only if they conduct their subsequent lives such that they attain prominence and success? She says in the article that "…We can show them they won't have unimpeded paths to power" — but the two men, unless they happen to read the article, *weren't* shown. They can only be ambushed at a point when they've had years, possibly even decades, to forget details they could use to defend themselves against an incident where the writer states that "I didn't let myself call the incidents rape until months later."
.
As a society, we generally protect minors who have committed crimes, even serious crimes. Their names are not revealed, their punishment is less, and their record is concealed when they reach adulthood. I don't know what percentage of those who commit felonies as minors and are given a second chance by the justice system go "straight", as opposed to those who continue to prey upon the law-abiding. I think it's possible that more serious consequences for some crimes (as is often the case for murder) would be appropriate to protect society. I would expect would-be rapists as teenagers to strike again in succeeding years. However, if someone who commits a serious crime as a minor *doesn't* re-offend and keeps his behavior clean, should they be disqualified from high office? Senator Booker and Justice Kavanaugh may well have different opinions on this point, but it's a discussion that I think should be had before any *particular* individual is put in a position where politics will cause people to lean one way or the other.
.
There actually is one historical example along this line. Two-time presidential candidate Adlai Stevensen shot and killed a girl when he was 12 years old. It was almost certainly not intentional, according to the official account he was handling a rifle that he believed another child had determined to be safe. (There are other versions of the story, but no one believes he *intended* to kill the girl.) But it had terrible consequences and if his actions had been performed by an adult there could have (and should have IMO) been serious charges. This incident did not prevent him from entering politics, and when he became prominent the media of the time were both aware of the incident *and* determined not to publicize it. To this day it is not well known. It's inconceivable to me that the same would be true of a modern candidate, even if they were Democratic. Is that a change for the better? I'm not sure it is.
NYT: Michelle Obama Wanted Democrats to ‘Go High.’ Now They Aren’t So Sure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/trump-democrats-insults.html
.
“It depends on where Republicans are going low,†said Steve Israel, a former New York congressman and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “If they’re going low in North Dakota, you offer to build a bridge to bring them back. If they’re going low in Brooklyn, New York, you hit them on the head with a two-by-four.â€
.
I don't believe for a second this is all random. HRC and company don't do anything that isn't group tested and decided by committee. Exactly why they decided this is a good idea is a bit mysterious. I suppose it is to counteract the depression from losing the Kavanaugh fight and the recent surge in polls from the right. If one of their crazies does something overtly violent then it won't be helpful in November.
.
There are plenty of isolated incidents, Antifa themselves posted this recently, the amusing thing is police just stood by because they didn't want to make it worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq-dcJrnGTM
DaleS
>But Kavanaugh raising the stakes and dropping a possible line of defense just defers the issue until someone admits to having a youthful skeleton in their closet.
Sure. And then we can have an argument about that person based on what they are accused of, what they admit and what the other evidence is. I don't consider the fact that this lies in the future any sort of problem.
> This isn't to say that sexual allegations against males *currently* in college and high school haven't been affected by changing standards of proof, just that *retroactive* sanctions aren't apparent, at least to me.
On the woman in the article: Honestly, I think she's a crackpot. Nothing can prevent crackpots from doing things now or in the future. Sad, but it's lie.
Yes. It's troubling someone can file a report with no intention it to be acted on now. Likely, the accused won't be raising a defense if it's not acted on. Also, the fact that she knows it won't be acted on and the accused has no real possibility of defense tells us her motive actually would raise suspicions it could be false.
IMO: IF the university office takes requests from graduates against other graduates which it then doesn't act on, it ought to at least send the accusation to the accused and allow them to file a response. That response might be "This never happened". In fact– my opinion is if the University does keep the report of what is filed, they should be *required* to send the accusation to the accused and put their response in the file. Perhaps, the University should be *required* to list named witnesses and go to the expense of interviewing them and getting them on record as knowing or not knowing anything.
The University should be required to indicate whether they think there is any evidence making the accusation more probable than not. If they decide there is, the accused should get the report. *And the accued should be able to sue the university if the university says the evidence is credible when it is not.* If the accused wins, the university should be required to add the court findings to the record. AND the accused should be able to get their court fees from the initiator — that is the crackpot, or if the initiator has no money, from the university.
The university should carry their own costs as part of doing business.
If you look to the future: Suppose this woman accuses two men, has given us her motive but there is NO corroboration even now? I would think that many people will interpret her reports as likely false even now.
>As a society, we generally protect minors who have committed crimes
Sure. But in the WAPO article, the college students weren't minors.
>However, if someone who commits a serious crime as a minor *doesn't* re-offend and keeps his behavior clean, should they be disqualified from high office?
Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the office to some extent. Also depends on compared to whom. If it's an elected office, voters make the call. Adlai was an elected office: People get to discuss it and air their views. Voters made the call. Voters making the call is a feature, not a bug.
Tom,
I suspect that's the Portland, OR incident. There's an opinion piece about that in today's WSJ. That place is getting even scarier.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-leftist-mob-polices-portland-1539298766
"The crowd targeted other drivers. “You’re lucky you didn’t hit me. I would have beat your a—,†yelled a demonstrator at another driver. One person punched the back of a passing car whose driver dared to honk. In downtown Portland, law-abiding drivers were at the mercy of marauding street thugs.
A block away, police officers looked on passively. Why didn’t they respond? The department told me in a statement that it feared intervention would “change the demeanor of the crowd for the worse.â€
Such lawlessness is increasingly typical here. Portland’s Resistance organized a protest after Election Day 2016 that turned into a riot. Masked vandals smashed stores and set fires, causing over $1 million in damage. Portland’s Resistance raised $55,000 on GoFundMe ostensibly to help pay for the rebuilding effort. Two years later only $2,450 is known to have been dispersed. This summer a mob occupied the area around the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement office for more than a month.
When people find out that I live in Portland, one question I’m frequently asked is if the comedy show “Portlandia†is anything like real life. I tell them real life is much worse."
Yet more proof that irony increases, an organization which claims to be anti-fascist engaging in what can only be called fascist tactics.
Lucia,
"MO: IF the university office takes requests from graduates against other graduates which it then doesn't act on, it ought to at least send the accusation to the accused and allow them to file a response. That response might be "This never happened". In fact– my opinion is if the University does keep the report of what is filed, they should be *required* to send the accusation to the accused and put their response in the file. Perhaps, the University should be *required* to list named witnesses and go to the expense of interviewing them and getting them on record as knowing or not knowing anything.
The University should be required to indicate whether they think there is any evidence making the accusation more probable than not. If they decide there is, the accused should get the report. *And the accued should be able to sue the university if the university says the evidence is credible when it is not.* If the accused wins, the university should be required to add the court findings to the record. AND the accused should be able to get their court fees from the initiator — that is the crackpot, or if the initiator has no money, from the university."
.
Or you could just simplify: Universities should always give both parties due process. It is the obvious desire to do away with due process for the accused which is so dangerous here, and we can thank the Obama administration for most of this nightmare. State legislatures could easily pass laws requiring all universities within their jurisdiction to give all students due process, and make any refusal by administrators to do so a criminal offence, which is also explicitly actionable in civil proceedings. Problem solved.
DeWitt,
"Yet more proof that irony increases, an organization which claims to be anti-fascist engaging in what can only be called fascist tactics."
.
Those who believe they are absolutely right are too often willing to do most anything they believe will advance their cause; the horrible examples of this are almost unlimited in number.
lucia (Comment #171470)
Adlai Stevenson was indeed running for elective office — and had run in the past. But that he'd killed someone as a youth I think was *not* generally known to voters and judged by them. In 1952 a Time reporter named William Glasgow got wind of the story and asked Stevenson about it. Stevenson told him it was the *first* time a reporter had ever asked about it (this was 40 years after the incident). He gave him the details and said it was the first time he had told anyone — and Glasgow didn't write the story. The story (including the interaction with Glasgow) was told in an unauthorized 1952 biography of Adlai Stevenson, but AFAICT the story never became nationally known in 1952 or even 1956.
.
Should it have been? I don't know. In general I don't like the idea of the media making judgement calls on what the public deserves to know. But when it was so long ago and the politician was a minor, I can't help but think that Glasgow was right to bury it. But this was a different time, I don't know that any reporters were trying to dig skeletons out of Eisenhower's closet while covering for Stevenson. I can't imagine today's media ignoring something like this unless it was a politically favored candidate.
Btw, the Portland incident was set of by the police shooting of a black man. Of course this man had an extensive police record and the police were responding to a call that the man had shot two other people. But that, of course, is irrelevant to the faithful. Apparently now any use of deadly force by police against a black individual is out of bounds regardless of the provocation. Blacks killing other blacks is also irrelevant.
Dale S
>But that he'd killed someone as a youth I think was *not* generally known to voters and judged by them.
> He gave him the details and said it was the first time he had told anyone — and Glasgow didn't write the story.
Sure. In the past reporters often did a disservice to voters of deciding not to inform them. My opinion is it's better if voters know. Then they can decide. Other than that, I don't think it's worth debating some "rule" about what the voters should have decided.
> I can't imagine today's media ignoring something like this unless it was a politically favored candidate.
I don't know details. For all I know Stevenson was Glasgow's favored candidate. I think Glasgow was wrong to bury the story. But lots of reporters buried stories in the past. Some still do.
lucia,
"But lots of reporters buried stories in the past. Some still do."
[blockquote still not working]
I saw an interesting article a while back on the different policies of Fox News vs. CNN and MSNBC. It's not so much the slant of the reporting, it's that they pick different stories to cover. One side can be upset about something the other side doesn't even know happened.
DeWitt,
Yep.
That said, it's harder to bury stories now relative to Adlai Stevenson's time. Even back in Adlai's day, I suspect the child of a prominent politically connected family was the only sort who would have had that story buried when he was a child. Otherwise, all the locals would have known and it would have followed him around through gradeschool and high school. There'd be no question about anyone "burying" the story because he would not have risen in politic sufficiently for the question of whether his killing a kid when he was a kid to be important in any election. He would simply not have been running.
Reporters not burying this sort of thing would tend to equalize the effect of killing on his life relative to the effect on other, poorer kid's with less powerful parents. What voters would have decided I don't know. Bear in mind: voters did not elect him President.
lucia,
Even in Eisenhower's time, the meme (although that term hadn't been invented yet) was that Eisenhower was not very smart and Adlai Stevenson was a brilliant intellectual. Not true, of course. I read somewhere that when Stevenson died, the only book in his bedroom was the Social Register. That's probably not true either.
Eisenhower was an avid golfer. Predictably, he was criticized for spending so much time on a game.
The media sells a story that if they don't lie then they are being fair, while it is obvious to any media critic this is a … lie. It is easy to lie by omission, how stories are framed, how they choose experts, and what anecdotal (human interest) stories they cover.
.
One example from the past couple days is covering the link between climate change and hurricanes. They commonly ask M. Mann and K. Emmanuel who tell them what they want to hear, even though they heavily covered the recent "catastrophic" IPCC report released just a month ago that says this about tropical cyclones:
.
"Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy"
"There is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades."
"There is consequently low confidence in the larger number of studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones."
.
I can't even read these articles anymore, not to mention both the NYT and the Guardian both ran stories about how Florida voted in d***iers and imply they deserve what they got.
When you are in the worst case location of a very strong hurricane this is what happens:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/12/us/mexico-beach-fl-damage-map.html
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/before-and-after-images-of-hurricane-michael-destruction/
.
Mexico beach was on the eastern part of the eyewall (counter clockwise rotation), like an F5 tornado only the cement pads are left. Mostly from storm surge. Very similar to Hurricane Andrew.
Tom Scharf,
From the wikipedia entry on Adlai Stevenson II
>Under prodding from his father he then went to Harvard Law School, but found the law to be "uninteresting", and withdrew after failing several classes.[16]
Yes. He must have been brilliant. Brilliant.
Dale S,
" I can't imagine today's media ignoring something like this unless it was a politically favored candidate."
.
Sure, the MSM ignores damaging stories about favored candidates all the time. Heck, they ignore stories which have been widely report elsewhere all the time. It's a bit like climate scientists: they long ago stopped being reporters and started being advocates for policy outcomes The MSM will become ever less relevant until/unless they end the advocacy…. I won't hold my breath. Same for climate scientists…. won't hold my breath there either.
DaleS, SteveF would you think it should or would be reported if hypothetically Laura Bush in high school killed her boyfriend?
> One side can be upset about something the other side doesn't even know happened.
When Obama made a joke, "What's the difference between Sarah Palin and a pitbull?
Dog is delicious!"
some people who only get news from New York Times and the like didn't understand why he was saying this. Fox News and others had reported about writing in his book that he ate dog in Indonesia.
DaleS, SteveF, not a hypothetical.
MikeN,
Laura Bush never ran for office, so it is a bit of apples to oranges. If she just had a bad day and figured she would shoot her boyfriend, then, sure it would be something that would likely be reported. If she accidently killed someone (say ran over an pedestrian), then maybe there would be no real need to report that. The details matter.
MikeN
>SteveF would you think it should or would be reported if hypothetically Laura Bush in high school killed her boyfriend?
Given that reporters cover all sorts of things about first ladies, I'm sure they would have. They told us where she bought eye shadow for heaven's sake. (She bought cheap drug store make up. )
MikeN (Comment #171484)
As a campaign issue it's not relevant at all, she wasn't running for office. On the other hand, a biography of her would be incomplete without it, it apparently dramatically changed her personality and life.
.
Was it treated different than Stevenson's incident? Well, I don't think it was ultimately widely known, but the police report came out in 2000 because the Globe sued for it, which is a pretty dramatic difference from Time's reporter burying a story. And to this day Stevenson's account of what happened is generally accepted, while Laura Bush is remembered for killing her boyfriend despite saying (in her autobiography) that he was a close friend but *not* her boyfriend. Heck, there are even implausible rumors about her *intentionally* killing her ex-boyfriend. This site from 2015 came up 4th for me on a google search for laura bush killed boyfriend (snopes was first):
.
https://www.thomhartmann.com/users/zapdam/blog/2015/09/laura-bush-killed-her-ex-boyfriend
.
This site takes seriously the allegation of intentional vehicular homicide, and ends with "Like FOX NEWS likes to rant, you've got the facts , now you decide". For the ex-boyfriend status he cites "press releases" (from whom?)
.
"Laura was apparently driving that night under a bright moon on a clear night. Shev [sic] hads [sic] driven through that intersection a hundred times over a couple of years. Her now ex boyfriends car was a ver [sic] destinctive [sic] bright yellow Corvair and should have been easily seen."
.
Snopes casts shade on the theory chiefly based on the limited time she would have to recognize the car on the crossing street, both traveling at high speed, and properly ram it — aside from the inherent risk in doing something that might kill *you* and your friend in the car with you. And in "bright moonlight" I'm not sure the other car would appear "bright yellow" at some distance and not in your headlight's path.
.
"Over the next few mionths [sic] Laura gave many people conflicting stories as to how the accident had happened."
.
Not sure where this "fact" came from. Laura said she didn't talk about it, and the Daily Beast said "several" of her friends confirmed that. According to a named neighbor (Jeannie Bohn) she didn't return to school for at least a month.
.
"First she claimed she didn't know that the person killed was her boyfriend, remember now that distinctive bright yellow Corvair."
.
I do know where this "fact" came from. Another account summarizes this from Laura Bush being interviewed by Larry King: 'Laura says that after the accident her and Judy stood to the side of their car and watched a man rush over to the injured victim. Judy said "I think that's [the victim's] father." Bush responded, "No, that can't be the father. That's Mr. Douglas." Laura simply couldn't believe that her close friend was the victim of the car accident.' Judy was the passenger in Laura's car.
.
"She even said the young man killed had NOT been her boyfriend."
.
She said that in her *autobiography* decades later, contradicting reports that he had been her boyfriend. It would be absurd for her to tell anyone that in the "months" after the accident, since the students at her high school would know perfectly well whether they were dating or not.
.
"Yet the police report stated that the young man killed had been her boyfriend."
.
I examined the picture of the police report. It doesn't mention "boyfriend", nor is there any obvious reason why it should. Actually, it doesn't directly mention *Bush* by name at all, the description is "Veh #1" and "Veh #2", with Veh #1 being the sole cause for the accident by ignoring the stop sign. Under speed limit box is checked, driving under the influence box is not checked.
.
I apologize for the lengthy analysis. But I think it is illustrative of the casual nastiness that so often passes for "facts" when unexamined. To be clear, like many "accidents", blame can certainly be assessed. Laura Bush caused someone's death by driving unsafely and it was her decisions, not any unavoidable circumstances, that led to her driving unsafely. But she was also unlucky, teens driving unsafely are as common as dirt, and most don't end their lives or someone they know well in the process. I've never been so unlucky, but I'm grateful that I'm not important enough for the Globe to go mucking around in my past.
DaleS
>police report stated that the young man killed had been her boyfriend.
Some people use "boyfriend" for a kid she went on 1 date with. Or a kid she went out with in a crowd. Others don't use the term unless they were pretty steady.
I've never heard of Laura Bush killing her boyfriend. The rules are different for candidates. Ted Kennedy never heard the end of Chappaquiddick, some of it is the Kennedy family palace intrigue. Certainly ten years ago it was a hard rule that the media just never attacked the family of a candidate, and never mentioned them if that's what the candidate wanted. It's changed some, but criticism is OK if the wife / family become political themselves.
.
Trump Jr. took a political job and regularly makes scathing comments, so open season on him. Melania Trump is a very interesting story. They kind of leave her alone, but I find it ironic that Obama's wife was put on the cover of endless magazines and Melania Trump, who is an actual model, has kind of been blacklisted. Occasionally people take cheap shots but they are generally vilified for it. Barron Trump is pretty much left alone after some idiotic early criticisms.
.
There are still red lines, who knows if they will stay that way.
Tom,
"They kind of leave her alone, but I find it ironic that Obama's wife was put on the cover of endless magazines and Melania Trump, who is an actual model, has kind of been blacklisted."
.
There is some irony of course, and the supermarket checkout line would be a little less unpleasant (for me at least) if Melania Trump made it to some magazine covers. 😉
.
But people choose cover photos to sell magazines, not to make the supermarket checkout line any nicer for a 68 year old man, and the publishers probably don't want to offend a fraction of potential magazine buyers. I think the 24 year age difference with Trump, that she is stunning and he average looking, and the obvious fact that he was very rich, are likely all off-putting to some women. Michelle Obama did not carry that kind of personal history. Besides, the magazine publishers didn't mostly hate her husband… another big plus.
Tom,
"Ted Kennedy never heard the end of Chappaquiddick, some of it is the Kennedy family palace intrigue."
.
I know the (now very elderly) wife of a long dead stenographer who recorded testimony in the Ted Kennedy investigation. She says there was damaging information about the incident that was never publicly disclosed. It probably cost Ted Kennedy the presidency, but it seems to me he basically paid no other penalty for multiple very unlawful acts.
I only heard of the Laura Bush incident on a blog with someone was calling for her to be arrested for murder. I get the impression people here hadn't heard of it.
Journalist Khashoggi was killed by Saudi Arabia at their embassy in Turkey, bringing in commandos for the operation and reportedly chopping his body up and taking at back to Saudi Arabia. This complicates the arms deal and the general relationship between Trump and Mohammed Bin Salman.
In early reporting, Al Jazeera said investigators who looked at the footage saw Khashoggi leaving after 20 minutes. Jake Tapper reports that the whole murder was captured by Khashoggi thru his Apple Watch transmitting to his Iphone that his fiance was holding.
If Tapper is correct, then how did the video/audio get from the watch to the Iphone?
Lucia (Comment #171488),
It's true the term boyfriend is not defined. My objection is that the police report referred to as evidence for that particular "fact" never used the word (not that I would expect an accident report to investigate relationships in the first place).
Tom Scharf (Comment #171489),
Since Kennedy was a sitting senator when Chappaquiddick happened, it was newsworthy immediately. The contemporary criticism never really went away. Aside from the Birther controversy, I can't remember a presidential candidate where something they allegedly did as a minor became a campaign issue. But I certainly could be unaware of something, especially in the hyperbolic days of our founding fathers.
MikeN,
Wi-Fi or cellular.
MikeN (Comment #171492): "I only heard of the Laura Bush incident on a blog with someone was calling for her to be arrested for murder. I get the impression people here hadn't heard of it."
It was news to me. The idea that it was murder seems laughable.
DeWitt,
I think the link to the iPhone is via bluetooth (if very close by) or WiFi. The newest watches can communicate over a cell phone system, but I don't think they use a cell phone system to link with a paired iPhone.
Mike M,
Lunatics will believe many strange things.
SteveF,
Assuming a cellular Apple Watch, I'm pretty sure you could call an iPhone from the Watch and leave it on.
Too far for bluetooth, and it's unlikely the embassy has an open wi-fi running.
For cellular, does this require a separate cellular modem or hotspot?
MikeN (Comment #171500): ?For cellular, does this require a separate cellular modem or hotspot?"
Apparently not: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207578
.
But wouldn't an embassy have sophisticated electronic security measures?
.
The story being told about Kashoogi seems a bit much. A 15 man hit team seems like about 14 too many. And they still managed to let audio and visual get out? The whole thing sounds like the Saudis were simultaneously trying to keep the murder secret and let the whole world now they did it. People are capable of impressive stupidity and incompetence, but still.
The iWatch can’t do video.
MikeM,
I think the Saudi crown prince definitely wants all Saudis to know they will be killed if they criticize him. I also expect the crown prince is
not likely to be around for too long; he is making a lot of enemies, both religious and royal, and that tends to shorten lifespan in a place like Saudi Arabia.
DaveJR (Comment #171502): "The iWatch can’t do video."
It seems there is a watchband for it that adds that capability.
SteveF (Comment #171503): "I think the Saudi crown prince definitely wants all Saudis to know they will be killed if they criticize him."
What evidence do you have of that?
.
SteveF: "I also expect the crown prince is not likely to be around for too long; he is making a lot of enemies, both religious and royal, and that tends to shorten lifespan in a place like Saudi Arabia."
He is certainly making enemies; reformers do that. Smart reformers are careful about which enemies they make and are also careful to make powerful friends. All reports seem to agree that MBS is smart. So although the path he is taking has major risks, we should not assume he will fail.
.
I find it interesting and disturbing (but not surprising) that the western press seems to be mostly ignoring the fact that Khashoggi is an out-and-out Islamist and, as such, is an enemy of the West. That does not make it OK to murder him, but it suggests that there are ulterior motives behind the story being told. That makes me suspicious of that story, the more so since the story itself is both suspicious sounding and evidence free.
If you have audio / video you need to release it pronto, or else suspicion it was created will be hard to fight against. I got the impression that this was more likely normal espionage measures that picked it up, which you don't want to typically let people know. But claiming you have it is zero, producing it is different.
Tom Scharf (Comment #171506): "If you have audio / video you need to release it pronto, or else suspicion it was created will be hard to fight against."
Yep. Turkish sources claimed to have audio and video and the press bought it uncritically. Then Erdogan said he hopes that Khashoggi is still alive. Then they said they were looking at Khashoggi's iphone, which is supposedly the source of the audio and video.
.
Tom Scharf: "I got the impression that this was more likely normal espionage measures that picked it up, which you don't want to typically let people know."
There have been all sorts of conflicting statements. Surely, the Saudis are not so incompetent as to allow bugs in secure areas of their embassy. I doubt the Turks would be so reckless as to install such bugs.
.
The whole thing smells fishy. And the fish is rapidly rotting.
"I doubt the Turks would be so reckless as to install such bugs."
I dunno. The Soviets bugged the US Embassy more than once.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/15/world/the-bugged-embassy-case-what-went-wrong.html
MikeM,
"What evidence do you have of that?"
.
Well, he has imprisoned or killed many who have opposed his policies. He hasn't tried to make that secret. My impression of Saudi Arabia (based on several visits of multiple weeks each) is that the King usually doesn't tolerate any more dissent than British kings of the 12th century did. Which kind of indicates where their priorities are. Yes, Khashoggi was (is) an out-and-out islamist… as are nearly *all* people in Saudi Arabia. Most I have talked to are adamantly and permanently opposed to the existence of the state of Israel. It's just one of the reasons the Crown Prince is making lots of enemies
Sure, the Saudi government does not tolerate internal dissent. But that is a different thing from assassinating people overseas.
Mike M,
"But that is a different thing from assassinating people overseas."
.
Autocrats of all stripes assassinate people all the time… at home and elsewhere. Sometimes it happens with more fanfare and sometimes with less.
.
In the sensitive eyes of westerners, murdering your political opponents is a real issue, of course. But Saudi kings probably don't give much of a $hit about our sensibilities. Which is why this particular murder is so bad for the crown prince. He has misjudged those sensibilities, and he is putting military and political support from the USA and other Western countries in serious danger. Had he simply taken the guy to Saudi Arabia for a show trial, then tossed him in prison for a while, it might have worked out. Killing and dismembering your political opponents is very un-cool in western eyes, no matter who those opponents are, and people in the west won't forget this one.
SteveF (Comment #171511): "Autocrats of all stripes assassinate people all the time… at home and elsewhere."
At home, yes. Overseas, probably. There are few, if any, clearly established cases (as opposed to accusations and rumors) of that since it is not done openly, not even by Putin.
.
SteveF: In the sensitive eyes of westerners, murdering your political opponents is a real issue, of course. … He has misjudged those sensibilities"
I don't see how that is possible. If MBS ordered this, then he is surely not surprised by the reaction. The Turkish story makes no sense. Even if it does turn out to be true.
If Khashoggi had been mysteriously stabbed to death by a mugger, I could believe that MBS might be behind it.
Also bizarre is how Ergodan's government suddenly has so much credibility with the western press.
Mike M,
"..not even by Putin."
.
Fatal polonium poisoning…. humm… from Wiki:
.
"Today, polonium is usually produced in milligram quantities by the neutron irradiation of bismuth."
.
Neutron radiation found in nuclear reactors. Your next door neighbor who is unhappy about when you cut your grass doesn't have easy access to polonium. Putin does, just like he has easy access to nerve agents developed in Russia, and nowhere else. Kim murders his half brother in an airport with…. yup… nerve agent. Now the crown prince has a vocal opponent silenced (and cut into smallish pieces). To suggest assassinations by autocrats outside their own country are not common is to ignore observed reality.
SteveF (Comment #171513): "Fatal polonium poisoning …"
I never said Putin never had anyone killed. I said he does not do it openly. The Russians have always denied killing Litivenko. Polonium was used because it is nearly undetectable; the identification of polonium as the poison was essentially an accident.
.
SteveF: "Your next door neighbor who is unhappy about when you cut your grass doesn't have easy access to polonium."
You can buy it from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Static-Master-4331991414-Static-Master-Refill/product-reviews/B0000ALKDH/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_top?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews
It would take 100 of those to get the amount thought to have been given to Litivenko.
.
SteveF: "Kim murders his half brother in an airport"
OK, I'll accept that one as doing it openly. But Kim was already an international outcast.
.
SteveF: "Now the crown prince has a vocal opponent silenced (and cut into smallish pieces)."
There is still no evidence of that.
.
SteveF: "To suggest assassinations by autocrats outside their own country are not common is to ignore observed reality."
Two cases is not "common". And I did not say it is never done, I said it is not done openly.
Let's not forget Leon Trotsky, assassinated in Mexico in 1940 by an agent of Stalin using an ice axe, not exactly covert. Or Georgi Markov, killed by a pellet containing ricin fired from an umbrella in 1978 by an agent of the Bulgarian secret police.
The Nork's Kim killed his half brother with VX nerve gas at a Malaysia airport in a fairly brazen fashion. It seems it was meant to send a clear message to others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Kim_Jong-nam
Tom Scharf (Comment #171516): "The Nork's Kim killed his half brother with VX nerve gas at a Malaysia airport in a fairly brazen fashion."
Yes. Kim suffered no real consequences since he was already a pariah. Trotsky was blatant, but that was almost 80 years ago. There have been plenty of other suspected assassinations, but all were covert (but not always successfully covert).
.
So far, the only evidence against the Saudis is the word of Ergodan's government. I don't see why should we trust their word, especially since Ergodan and the Turks are no friends of the Saudis. There are centuries of baggage between Turks and Arabs. Ergodan is a big supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood who are the biggest internal threat to the House of Saud.
Skepticism is warranted.
Mike M,
"So far, the only evidence against the Saudis is the word of Ergodan's government."
.
Khashoggi's fiance who was waiting for him outside the consulate probably begs to differ.
The claim of being a fiance is suspicious. Someone caught that the released picture of the two of them under a tree was faked. The person located both of the original single shots that were mashed together.
MikeN,
Looks like the Saudis will (finally) admit to killing Khashoggi…. but only 'by accident' during an interrogation. Which is a bit like Nazis saying the Holocaust never happen.
.
The interesting question is if they can produce a body….. that isn't in small pieces. My guess: they can't; the small pieces were long ago dropped into an incinerator. No physical evidence of the murder will ever be produced, and the Crown Prince will essentially get away with this one. But his hands are now mostly tied: no more spectacular murders of his opponents, or he will for sure lose support in the USA and Europe . The guy seems to be an idiot.
Oddly enough, wattsupwiththat appears to be down. (Internal sever error)
WUWT is now back up. Very odd.
Well, it seems Elizabeth 'Pow Wow Chow' Warren is in fact somewhere between 1/64 and 1/1024 Native American, although that may be challanged technically. Her 'family recipe' in the Pow Wow Chow cook book was actually from a fancy NY restaurant. Let the political games begin.
.
She looks injun enough for me. 😉
I can't say Warren's ancestry has ever been a big issue for me.
Even if she had been 1/4th Cherokee, I wouldn't necessarily expect her to have lots of recipes.
Lucia,
"I can't say Warren's ancestry has ever been a big issue for me."
.
Nor me. But her claiming to be of native American descent when it gave an advantage is an issue. When identity politics works for you based on the race of a great, great, great….(etc)….. great grandparent, then identity politics is wildly out of control.
I wonder what the threshold is in practice for claiming to belong to a particular ethnicity. I'm about 25% Scot (none of my grandparents are 100%, but three of four grandparents have 25-50% Scottish blood), which is enough for me to feel some affinity for my Scottish ancestors but not enough to claim to be a Scot. I'm 1/16th Dane, it would never occur to me to claim to be Danish. My wife is 1/4 Czech and 1/4 Polish (two grandparents who are 100%) but doesn't claim to be either. I'm not sure my father-in-law (50% Czech, 50% Polish) does either.
At 1/1024 I could claim to be a *lot* of things.
On the plus side, if 1/1024 is sufficient to qualify for minority status, we could make "white privilege" go away entirely with sufficient testing. Probably >50% of America could claim to be Native American alone. Just imagine how diverse Universities could claim to be even without preferential admissions!
Dale S(cot),
I'm 50% Irish (2 of 4 grandparents), but would never consider myself anything but American. My first grandchild is 50% Polish, but I would never consider him anything but American. The entire exercise of worrying about your 'heritage' is very strange to me.
Dale S,
It's easier to discuss what ethnicity you "are" when you take the employment and scholarship advantage out of the question. People could debate all of these:
My grandmother was born of a Cuban mother in Cuba and she was raised there. My grandmother's mother was white– from one parent was from Madrid, the other Basque. Her father– last name Harding– had moved there from the US. Spanish was her first language, and her English was accented and remained so. Her whole family was white, white, white. Their last name was Auza. They owned significant amounts of land in Auza county in which Santiago Cuba is found. Cuban's considered them Cuban. Was she Cuban? Latina? If yes, how much?
She moved to the US when she was 14 and eloped with an Irish American when she was 16. She had three kids– and for economic reasons went back to Cuba, where most spent significant amounts of their lives. These were totally Irish looking kids. Popsie-Wopsie was one of them. He was a ghostly white shade of skin and nearly white blond hair. The Cubans considered him Cuban. He had an irish surname. Was Popsie-Wopsie Latino? If yes, how much?
Dad took all his first jobs in Latin America. He married an American of basically British genetics. My younger sister and I were born in El Salvador. My older sister was born in Guatemala. We went to local Catholic schools (not the American school). We moved back to the US when I was in 1st grade. Am I latina? If yes, how much?
In these: how important are genetics to the decision? Does it matter where one was born? Does it matter what your last name was? Real questions to ponder. I've heard all sorts of theories– like it's last name that matters. (Huh?) Genetics (I get this to some extent– but not to others.) And so on.
The NYT's trots out another token Asian for their "I graduated from Harvard and I don't care if Asians are discriminated against" series.
The Shared Benefits of Affirmative Action
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/opinion/harvard-affirmative-action-lawsuit-asian.html
.
"Like many Asian-Americans and many Harvard graduates, I vigorously oppose the lawsuit. I reject the false equivalence of the argument that taking into consideration the race of applicants from underrepresented groups is the same as discriminating against everyone else."
.
There my friends is what is being taught at Harvard. Too bad I'm not smart enough to figure out the complex argument here, I guess I was never Harvard material. This is all part of the "Race can only help, never harm, applicants' chances" argument, ha ha. Harvard admissions is a zero sum game, period.
.
Meanwhile … in an alternate universe at yesterday's trial …
https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-trial-will-open-with-admissions-dean-in-hot-seat-1539601200
"In a recent admissions year, white students in 20 underrepresented states—which Harvard calls “sparse countryâ€â€”received a recruitment letter if they scored 1310 or higher out of a possible 1600 on the combined verbal and math components, according to the plaintiffs’ exhibit. In all U.S. states, Asian-American women had to score at least 1350 to receive a letter, while Asian-American men had to score at least 1380.
The PSAT is considered a preview of how a student may score on the SAT.
Black, Hispanic and Native American high-schoolers nationally who scored at least 1100 received a letter, the plaintiffs’ exhibit showed."
SteveF (Comment #171528),
I think there's a distinction between ethnicity and nationality. I'm American and nothing but, but if I'm trying to breakdown my genetic heritage "American" is not useful and English, Scottish, Danish are. When my wife's Czech and Polish ancestors came to America, their nationalities were listed as Austrian and Russian respectively, and that wasn't wrong. My Stewart ancestors were Scottish but migrated to American from Ireland, where they had spent a generation marrying other Scots in Ireland.
.
Of course, there's also a significant difference between blood and culture for ethnicity as well. A full-blooded Basque in Boise, Idaho may sometimes have nothing in common culturally with his cousins across the sea; an adopted child with no blood in common with his adoptive parents is likely to share their culture entirely. Fortunately this rarely actually matters — the world does just fine when 100% Polish people (by blood) aren't exposed to Perogies and 0% Polish people love them. Unless you're hung up on "cultural appropriation", of course. If American is a culture at all, it's the culture of appropriating any culture you feel like.
.
For the purposes of racial preferences, race is a crude proxy for real cultural issues that disadvantage people through no fault of their own. But applied to individuals, the cultural issues don't always apply; and in the case of preferential admissions can actually harm the people they supposedly benefit, both by causing failures that could have been avoided if a student had gone to a less competitive university, and by stigmatizing those that succeed with the suspicion that they did not earn their success.
.
In the case of Harvard, the disfavored Asians who are excluded will make the schools they go to more competitive than they would otherwise be. Setting up a situation where Native American (indigenous) college students are always competing with more qualified Asian Americans no matter where they go is the logical end result of racial quotas being generally used — that may not be the best way to help them succeed.
What Harvard et. al. will want to do if they lose this case is take a bunch of spots from white people and give those to Asians, this outcome has already been proposed by the NYT and others. I doubt that is going to fly. Harvard will likely have to go under court supervision for their admissions because it's hard to see that they can be trusted to be race neutral.
.
They are really painted into a corner here. I think this case ended with discovery and the few smoking guns that were found. The Asian angle has prevented the white privilege argument, and they will have to admit some minorities are more equal than others.
.
Someone made the argument that Harvard winning the case is almost as bad as losing the case. Watching the media celebrate a victory for Asian discrimination isn't going to win hearts and minds. It is fascinating reading articles from the left media tying themselves into Gordian knots of logic and finding no way to have righteous indignation on a race issue.
.
This case is being decided by a judge, but it is only preliminary. The chances of appeals are 100% and the SC is likely, unless Harvard loses at the appellate court.
.
Ultimately Harvard may decide to forgo federal funding to control their own admissions process, which is somewhat understandable, and this trial is all a signalling exercise to other elites. It's going to be hard to erase the legal "Harvard is racist" stain. If they lose this case then Asians that were denied admission may be open to class action compensation, there are probably 1 bazillion lawyers already lined up for this.
Tom Scharf,
"It is fascinating reading articles from the left media tying themselves into Gordian knots of logic and finding no way to have righteous indignation on a race issue."
.
'Fascinating' is probably not the adjective I would use. 'Horrifying', 'disgusting' and 'revolting' strike me as closer fits. The simple fact is: Harvard insists upon equal outcomes for 'disadvantaged' races, and nothing else will do, no matter what the causes may be for different outcomes. The "disadvantaged" label is itself phony: a poor first generation Asian kid, or a dirt-poor white kid are at a huge disadvantage relative to an upper-middle class African-American kid.
.
I agree it is likely Harvard would forgo Federal funding of all types to preserve existing race based admissions should they lose at the SC. The left never yields and never compromises.
Re: Asians & Harvard
…..
I have an interesting take on this with regard to my 17-year-old son. He is half-Chinese by ethnicity and I always hide this on his college applications, thinking of Harvard. We went to a college fair, and a good MAC school (won't mention it because I don't want to jinx my son.) said he would get a "diversity" bonus of $2,500 per year if he went to that school because he was considered Asian by the school. He may end up going to that school because with his high scores, putting aside the "diversity" bonus, he will get at a minimum half of a free ride.
……
Also, my son with a high ACT score and grades and very good extra-curriculars is borderline admissable to Harvard or Yale. I have such a low opinion of Harvard and Yale that I have told him that if he were to get accepted I wouldn't pay 1 penny for him to go; the only way for him to go would be if either institution gave him 100% full ride. Don't really think he is that interested, but if something weird were to happen, I want him to know my position at the outset.
JD
It's worth going to Harvard of Yale even if you hold a low opinion of them. They are undoubtedly a pathway to success. It may also be the case that this year may be the best time ever to say you are an Asian on an application to those places, ha ha. It's not too hard to apply, but expectations should be low.
.
Maybe he should write an application that he intends to shake up Harvard with conservative viewpoints, that should stand out. Or he could go with the pandering "As an Asian I support affirmative action …" which would probably be more successful.
Tom Scharf
>This is all part of the "Race can only help, never harm, applicants' chances" argument, ha ha. Harvard admissions is a zero sum game, period.
Look at the delicious apple pie. There are 8 slices; 50 people want a slice. We'll consider race and high school rank when deciding who gets one. Race can only benefit, but not harm.
Presumably the "argument" is getting the slice is a benefit, but not getting the slice is not harm. Because otherwise, I don't see how it doesn't harm the person with a high school rank who would have gotten it if the decision was race neutral but didn't get the slice because they were the wrong race.
Tom Scharf: "It's worth going to Harvard of Yale even if you hold a low opinion of them. They are undoubtedly a pathway to success."
……
I don't agree with your point here although I understand where you are coming from. An example of how stupid the people at Harvard can be is Elizabeth Warren thinking that claiming that she had a minuscule amount of Indian DNA supports her claim that she had a significant Indian heritage. One commenter on another site cut to the chase and said that Trump should pay her $976 because that is the percentage of the million dollars that is equivalent to the minuscule Indian DNA that she has. Warren is going to be mercilessly mocked for her stupid claim, and I would guess that this would kill her presidential campaign down the road, but we will see.
……
Also, in the next several days there will be a Yale representative at my son's high school. Am thinking of asking his to trigger the representative by saying that his father won't allow him to go to Yale even if he was accepted because it is run by uninformed, narrow-minded people. (Then having him give examples like Yale's treatment of the Kavanaugh nomination and Yale law school cheering Hillary Clinton in 2013 and giving her an award of merit) Because he is as conservative as me, he might do it.
JD
Trouble brewing: climate change to cause 'dramatic' beer shortages
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/15/climate-change-to-cause-dramatic-beer-shortages-extreme-weather-price
.
“If you still want to still have a couple of pints of beer while you watch the football, then climate change [action] is the only way out. This is the key message.â€
.
Not a parody.
Tom
>What Harvard et. al. will want to do if they lose this case is take a bunch of spots from white people and give those to Asians, this outcome has already been proposed by the NYT and others.
Lifting the asian penalty at the expense of whites is the only logical path if your argument is we consider race in order to achieve "racial diversity". Whites are the largest block (just under 50%). Asians are about 22%. So until the block of Asians and Whites are equal, whites are the group to penalize if you *really* want to maximimze racial diversity and you consider the blocks to be limited to "White", "Asian", "Black" and "Hispanic".
I think Harvard doesn't really want to slam down white admissions significantly otherwise they would have done so instead of stomping on Asians. They were willing to ding white a little for Blacks and Hispanics because in that case, they actually barely put a dent in white admissions. But Asians are a threat because they have better grade and extra-curriculars. They apply to Harvard. If treated evenly, they school could be majority Asian.
I don't know why they don't want to totally slam down white admission, but they obviously don't. (I could speculate why.)
Yale recruiter thinks to himself "Why did I come to this backward place full of racist morons?". He will be more successful if he does the required performative art and tells the recruiter how he needs to get out from under his father's oppressive conservative lectures which he detests, and little does his father know that he is a gay transexual Muslim who identifies as an African American. In the middle he can do his best to honestly ask "My father says I have no chance to get into this school because I'm not a progressive, what do you think?". "I'm worried I won't be welcome at Yale". It's not going to look sincere if he bursts out laughing.
Tom,
I prefer wine. But Jim likes beer. I guess we need to set aside money for the increase in beer prices.
Harvard alumni / legacies are predominantly white. I would argue that it's simple reasoning of diversity for thee, but not for me. Legacies are 29% of students.
Lucia: "I don't know why they don't want to totally slam down white admission, but they obviously don't. (I could speculate why.)"
…..
I think it would be because whites have money, and if Harvard comes to be perceived as an Asian school, it will lose the white money that funds its endowment. If you respond, that many Asians have money — that is true. However, at least for the non-citizen Asians, they would prefer to go to a white majority school, because it would be considered to have better connections than a school that would be, for instance, 60% Asian and 20% Black and Latino.
JD
JD, instead of Kavanaugh, have him complain about Halloween costumes.
Surely you can claim Native American status under the Liz Warren rule.
JD Ohio,
I would speculate the same thing. . .
As for Asians having money– they tend to be recent immigrants. There is money which can be high income and there is wealth which is capital and established.
Wealth tends to take time to accumulate and overall, right now there is more "wealth" with whites. This will eventually change, but it has not yet done so.
>non-citizen Asians, they would prefer to go to a white majority school,
Often, the whites who do get in are from established families with connections to companies, social networks and so on. So… yeah… And Harvards lean toward legacy admits, wealthy people, celebrities, children of celebrities and big business owners means these aren't "striving" white kids (who actually want to get in for the same reason the striving Asians do!). The white kids who are there are the group let in almost specifically because they ARE the "connections" people want to make.
The desire to meet these "connections" (i.e. the white kids from the 'right' families) is likely why the can find plenty of Asians who don't mind *other* Asians being kept out. As long as *they* got in, some are happy the demographics give them better access to established white families.
Harvard is in something of a bind in the lawsuit though. They don't really want to admit that to some extent, those white kids they do let in aren't in there mostly because they have good grades. (Though many do have good grades.)
Those kids are "the product" that makes Harvard valuable to other kids who then want to apply! They probably also don't want to admit the "element" that is valuable is family connections. That makes it sound like Harvard undergrad is more a country club than a school. 🙂
Lucia: "As for Asians having money– they tend to be recent immigrants. There is money which can be high income and there is wealth which is capital and established."
…..
I agree mostly with this. However, there are large numbers of very wealthy Chinese in all of China and particularly from Beijing and Shanghai (which has the most demanding schools in the world), and so long as Harvard wasn't 80% non-white, they would happily and easily give several million dollars to get their children in.
JD
JD,
I suspect you are right. For them, the whole point of Harvard is to get into a non-Asian school otherwise, they'd just stay in China!
The same would go for any number of *non* Chinese schools. They are looking for connections they don't already have by virtue of being wealthy Chinese.
Harvard is known as being a great school because Harvard is known as being a great school. It's very unlikely they are teaching anything spectacularly different up there than the next 100 schools, especially in undergrad. These reputations are 100+ years old. The only difference between Harvard and the best Chinese university is social power.
.
Elite schools and admissions have some pretty severe problems. The halo of elite schools needs to be brought down to reality. It is one of the many contradictions that these places preach equal opportunity and outcomes but make no effort to solve the one they have actual power to do so. They could expand their enrollment 10x if they wanted.
Tom Scharf (Comment #171535): "It's worth going to Harvard of Yale even if you hold a low opinion of them. They are undoubtedly a pathway to success."
That is true if you want to eventually run a Fortune 500 company, or be a partner in a Wall Street law firm, or hold a high post in government. But it is doubtful if you plan to pursue a career where what you know is more important than who you know.
Tom
> The only difference between Harvard and the best Chinese university is social power.
This is precisely why Harvard wants certain demographics. It needs to be seen as giving promising blacks and hispanics a break for the "social justice" cred. but it absolutely needs to continue to let in the people with social power. For now, that's whites. The path they've chosen appears to have been to ding Asians.
We'll see what happens in the lawsuit.
Tom Scharf & SteveF,
"Ultimately Harvard may decide to forgo federal funding to control their own admissions process…."
Not going to happen. Harvard is a research university. There is no way that their professors can possibly forgo all federal research grants, like from NIH for example, nor accept NSF graduate research fellowships.
In 2018, six new Harvard graduate students were awarded NSF GRF's. Two are apparently Asian.
https://www.mcb.harvard.edu/education/six-harvard-grad-students-selected-nsf-graduate-research-fellows/
Tom Scharf,
"Not a parody."
.
Actually most of the climate scare tactics are essentially self-parodies. That is lost on those who promote such nonsense. Which is not really a surprise.
DeWitt,
At least 3 look Asian to me. Two are east Asian, one south Asian. Don't forget that Indians, Pakistanis and Bengalis are lumped into the Asian grouping. That tells you just how fierce the competition is for those 22% Asian spots.
DeWitt,
I hope you are right, but I fear you are wrong. Harvard's endowment is sufficient to fund all research, plus all student loans if they maintain current undergrad fee collections. Based on how desperate some people are for a Harvard degree (in any subject!) I suspect they can increase undergrad tuition almost without limit. I know a Brazilian who went to Harvard…. nice enough fellow. I can only imagine what his family paid to get him in (EXTREMELY, OMG, wealthy family).
lucia,
Those are graduate students, not undergraduates. I'm betting that a lot more than 22% of the graduate students at Harvard qualify as Asian.
I know they are grad students. I was commenting on "Two are apparently Asian.". It looks like at least 3 are.
Because I suspect you only counted the two east Asians as Asians, I pointed out that the category of Asians is broader. Because Asian is a YUGE set of different groups, that there are only 22% of them in Harvard undergraduate tells you how restrictive 22% really is.
DeWitt,
Here is the Harvard grad school demographics:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University
.
International students increase, African American and Hispanic decrease.
Lucia,
The fourth looks latina to me. And two white kids.
I'd lose that bet. Only about 10% of the grad students at Harvard were Asian in 2017.
https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/166027/harvard-university/enrollment/
Another interesting statistic from the above link: Only 12 of the 9,915 undergraduates are transfer students. I'd still like to know how Obama managed to get into Columbia as a transfer student.
DeWitt,
Obama got in to Harvard law school after getting an undergrad degree from Colombia. The transfer was into Colombia (after Occidental College). That transfer is the real mystery.
SteveF,
"That transfer is the real mystery."
Did I say Harvard Law? No, I didn't. From my post:
"I'd still like to know how Obama managed to get into Columbia as a transfer student."
I doubt Columbia's fraction of undergraduate transfer students is much, if any, higher than Harvard's.
Columbia University
Among 8,124 enrolled in undergraduate programs, 628 are transfer-in students. The percentage of transfer-in students is 7.73%.533 students have transferred in as full-time status and 95 students transferred in as part-time status.
Stats like that shift over time depending on what they are currently prioritizing. Transfers are usually a better bet to succeed than HS students. Better chance than Harvard currently anyway.
DeWitt,
Sorry, I misread your comment.
SteveF,
I was way too snippy in my reply. Sorry.
DeWitt
Tom Scharf: "The only difference between Harvard and the best Chinese university is social power."
…..
This is an interesting question, and from what I know now (which is not enough), I tentatively disagree with your conclusion. Here is one list of the world's 100 best universities and not one from China is included. https://thebestschools.org/rankings/best-universities-world-today/ (Have no idea of its underlying validity) US News & World Report has another list which only has 2 Chinese Universities in the top 100. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/china?page=2 [Interesting that Wuhan University is 11th ranked in China and 321 in world. I have a lot of contacts in Wuhan and have been to the University]
…..
Here is what I do know from a good number of contacts with Chinese academics and people. I have observed that most of the Chinese I know prefer that their own, or the education of their children, occur in the United States. I have also wondered why because I have a very low opinion of university education in the US. Have never got around to asking the question directly.
……..
About 3 years ago, I did host an environmental engineering professor and his wife for about 3 weeks while they found a 1-year rental (extremely nice people from Jiangxi province). The professor had a 1-year post-doctoral appointment, and a good deal of his time in the US was spent traveling to places like California and NY for what were essentially vacations. When I visited him in Jiangxi about 3 years ago, a good number of the professors in his department were glued to their computers watching every blip in the stock market. My point being that he, and his department colleagues, spent much less time on his own research than I believe most Americans in his position would do.
…..
My first wife was a doctor in China and a biomedical researcher here. To her success in research meant getting a job and improving her economic and social status. She really had very little personal interest in her own research — it was a means to an end. She often careened from research topic to research topic, looking for something that would make her well-known and lead to a job. She had no sustained interest in any topic.
……
I am sure you are aware of the large amount of cheating that occurs in conjunction with college entrance examinations by Chinese students. To me this is a reflection that education in China is mostly viewed through economic and social status lenses and not through anything close to pure learning or discovery motivations.
……
I guess much of this post is a long-winded way to state that from what I know Chinese university professors have a low level of interest in knowledge or research for their own sake — they are mainly interested in the monetary angle. That being the case, my reasonably strong suspicion is that the quality of the Chinese universities is comparatively low.
JD
My very liberal (feminist?) daughter was aghast at my proding that she apply for and join the American Indian group at CU Boulder even though she's only 6% Indian. Could have paid huge dividends with regards to tuition but she felt showing up all blonde haired and blue eyed might have been a negative.
I thought it would be hilarious. Old man hilarious isn't necessarily good.
Can't remember if I told this story here. When we went to visit CU on the gifted and talented tour, we were most interested in the science presentation since she was most interested in physics. The head of the science department gave a weak talk about their many Physics Nobel prize winners for five minutes and the next 55 minutes were devoted to diversity.
My daughter commented upon leaving, 95% were white kids, 90% were white guys, what's the point?
The quality of a university very much depends on what you wish to get out of it. I went to a top 5 university (in my field) for graduate school, but going to the same school for my field as an undergraduate would have been a waste of money. Rankings in Computer Science (at least then) were by driven by reputation (circular) and research dollars generated, which naturally meant that the professors were selected for their ability to generate research dollars. This is distinct from actually doing research, which was the province of an army of highly intelligent (but inexperienced) graduate students. Professors spent very little time teaching and neither they nor the graduate students who taught most classes received any training in teaching. Undergraduates would have to be very lucky to have meaningful involvement in any interesting research going on. So they wouldn't graduate with any better proficiency in CS than many other schools, though the benefit of the school's reputation may well be something.
.
Even as a graduate student, I am unconvinced that the school was exceptional in any way in communicating knowledge. Brilliant alumni were the natural byproduct of brilliant students, attracted by the high ranking (and availability of research funds to support their education). The goal for PhD students was to master a very tiny sliver of the field, with no expectation that mastery of the entire field was to happen (this is one reason why I am put off by bold pronouncements of "climate scientists" in areas where they don't *personally* research — the other reason is being unimpressed by the papers I've read that are in the areas where they do).
.
If professors spent their time doing nothing but fill out grant proposals (this in fact may be the case) it would make very little difference. A degree may be valuable based on the reputation at the school, even attending the school may have value, connections with numerous and well-positioned alumni may have value — but learning? How quaint. That's to a large extent an optional byproduct of attending a University, and requires voluntary investment by the student if it is valued. Getting the school's name on a piece of paper is the real product being sold at very high cost.
SteveF (Comment #171520): "Looks like the Saudis will (finally) admit to killing Khashoggi…. but only 'by accident' during an interrogation."
That is starting to look like another groundless rumor.
Interesting graphic in today's WSJ. Unfortunately, I can't find it on-line. It shows that while the listed annual undergraduate tuition for private colleges is somewhere around $35,000, the net paid after financial aid is less than $15,000. The rate of increase for net paid is also declining and the curve is now nearly flat. The gap is much smaller for public schools, as is the total.
JD,
I defer to your experience as I have very little. My point is a more high level one of that undergrad knowledge acquisition between the #1 university in the world and the #100 university in the world is not very large for a given student. University rankings are prestige rankings and have a lot of non-teaching factors involved, research grants, etc.
.
A student graduating from the #1 university will have better opportunities than the #100 university but not because of the knowledge he acquired there. This I believe is a myth that needs to be dismantled. Google, Apple, Facebook only recruit at certain universities and graduating from Stanford opens those doors. A huge number of people have the brains to graduate from Stanford but are not afforded an opportunity because of the elite admissions system.
.
If all these super great research professors actually taught undergrad classes and were actually good at teaching then maybe I would be more convinced. Harvard/MIT don't hire people because they are good at teaching, they are good at bringing in research grants. To the extent these abilities are connected, that makes a school better, but I question how much. I find the correlation between my favorite professors / teachers and their academic prestige to be low.
I would agree that cheating in China is more socially acceptable. There are lots of anecdotal stories to support this.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/how-sophisticated-test-scams-from-china-are-making-their-way-into-the-us/474474/
.
This is cultural and also common in India as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/mar/20/relatives-scale-buildings-indian-students-cheat-exams-video
.
Where Asia falls behind after a more rigorous "rote" education is innovation. Most innovation in the world over the past century has been in the West. While this is undeniable (patents, schools, big inventions, Nobel prizes, disruptive companies, music, etc.) it is not entirely obvious why this is so. One might argue that the less rigorous education might help free thinking, or one might argue it is western culture in general where out of the box thinking is a feature, not a bug. One might argue it is the vast amount of available capital that enables this to happen.
.
What I do know is that I'm not afraid of China and India learning how to innovate. Imagine a world where we have 10x the people striving to invent new things with the resources to do so. We will all be better off unless of course this ends up in a military confrontation.
"Getting the school's name on a piece of paper is the real product being sold at very high cost."
.
Yes, and this gatekeeping and toll taking is the pressure point for the academy that they will protect at all costs. All costs. I could barely live with situation if they weren't so arrogant lately, which just makes it enraging (open letter to the morally inferior anyone?). Online education is a huge disruptive opportunity that will reduce this cost and flatten the playing field.
.
Unfortunately you are going to need to defeat Big Academy on the way and that is formidable. I'm no fan of government intervention and regulation but forcing the academy to provide equivalent degrees for equivalent demonstrated knowledge would be a plus to society. This is yet another contradiction where the academy can help solve social problems but refuse to do so due to their own self interest. The academy is doing the unenviable task of turning an honorable profession into a profession worthy of scorn.
DeWitt: "…while the listed annual undergraduate tuition for private colleges is somewhere around $35,000, the net paid after financial aid is less than $15,000."
Do you recall if "financial aid" included loans (whether taken out by student or parent)? Financial aid packages, received when my kids were applying, included loans. I thought that was a misleading extension of the definition of "aid", although technically accurate. E.g., say they determine (by formula) that the family contribution can be $20K/year. With financial aid, the immediate cost can be reduced to that amount. If the total cost/year is $55K, they might offer a scholarship of $15K and a loan of $20K. Now it's affordable! Of course, the fly in the ointment is that four years later, as the next one heads off to college, one has $80K to pay off, at a relatively high interest rate. Even without another child in college, one would be paying $20K/year for four years more, maybe 5 when accounting for interest.
Tom Scharf: " My point is a more high level one of that undergrad knowledge acquisition between the #1 university in the world and the #100 university in the world is not very large for a given student."
I agree. In fact, after 1 year at UCSB (only top 12% of students accepted at the time) which I really didn't like, I transferred to Bowling Green, OH, which was much less selective. Looking back at it, I see zero advantages for me (ultimately went to law school) at UCSB as compared to Bowling Green. Although the narrow academic quality of UCSB students was much higher than Bowling Green, the actual quality of the student-professor interactions and student to student interactions was no better at UCSB than Bowling Green. Elizabeth Warren proves that you can be part of Harvard and be extremely stupid.
……
My son is looking at UCLA, Miami of Ohio and OSU, and I can see no advantages for UCLA over Miami of Ohio except that my son is interested in film (business equally, also) and UCLA has many contacts in film industry. My son has friends who like Miami, and it looks like, at a minimum, he will get 60% off at Miami, which currently appears to be the front runner. Miami was also ranked as the 3rd best school for undergraduate teaching in one publication, which is interesting.
JD
HaroldW,
The article states that it's grants and scholarships, not loans:
"Net costs are flattening or falling thanks to a rise in grants—student aid that doesn’t need to be repaid. Grants and tax benefits at private schools climbed to $21,220 on average this year, up from $13,860 in 2008 (adjusted to 2018 dollars). At public institutions they rose to $6,490 this year from $4,970 in 2008."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-college-costs-flat-to-down-after-years-of-growth-1539682200?mod=article_inline
Small private colleges with minimal endowments are in trouble.
"Schools’ diminishing pricing power is causing tremendous stress among many less-prestigious schools as their enrollments decline. In July, Moody’s Investors Service said that private-college closures rose to about 11 a year, roughly double the rate in 2015. Moody’s predicts annual closures will continue to rise to an average of 15 in coming years."
My very limited knowledge was USC was best for film, but would cost you 3 arms and 2 legs. He would need to be totally committed to film I would say. The photography profession was destroyed by technology (minimal barrier to entry), not sure what the case is for film. One of my wife's friends has a son who went into film, they are currently paying his rent in NYC after he graduated. YMMV.
.
These art related majors are much more dubious for expensive schools I think. My daughter wanted to go into "art" and I grudgingly accepted after being lectured by a few tut-tutters. Long story short is she ended up at UCF with a scholarship and a digital art/media degree, got hired in Huntsville by a company that does Blackhawk helicopter simulations. She sits next to someone who went to Full Sail University which is a private art school a few miles from UCF and he has a $100K in debt. But the story is the same, if you want to work at Pixar then going to art school in SF is going to improve those odds.
.
If you go to College Confidential you will find more info than you ever need on schools, scholarships, and inside knowledge. It is full of Type AAA parents.
Miami of Ohio had an advantage in the 60s & 80s where they were able to use selective admissions where the other public Universities in Ohio were prohibited. Part of this was due to the lack of dorm space. 70% of their degrees are in business or education with little hard science, graduate, or A&S degrees. It has a rep as a finishing school for the upper-middle-class students who failed to get into an ivy, U. of Illinois, U. of Michigan, Notre Dame, etc. 54% of the student body come from a family income in the upper 20%. While that might be low for an Ivy, it's high for an Ohio public University. The recruit many of their students from the suburbs of Chicago. Having a rural campus instead of urban it's a safe option in parents eyes. It's not a bad choice for business or education, but the diversity of the student body can be lacking. When I was in college it was considered a girls college.
The requirement for open enrollment for the main campus of Ohio Public Universities was reversed in the 90s and they now use their regional branches to full fill their open admission mission. Ohio State has shot up the rankings because of this change. I believe they are now offering grants of up to 10k for those with 28-30 act scores to spend their freshman year at their Newark campus before transferring. That removes them from the main campus freshman class cohorts whose results are tracked for selectivity, retention, and graduation rates. Gaming the system for better results in other words.
Yet more irony in today's WSJ:
The Dark Money That Funded 'Dark Money'.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dark-money-that-funded-dark-money-1539730524
So here we have a prize winning (Sundance) documentary about the evils of corporate electioneering. But who funded the production? It was, of course, progressive 'dark money'. We have first the Ford Foundation, the third largest private political-advocacy philanthropy in the US. In 2013, of the top ten largest private foundations by giving, eight of ten were aligned with the political left.
Second, the CrossCurrents Foundation, led by Ken Grossinger, a long time strategist for the SEIU and the AFL-CIO. He's now a principal in Democracy Partners, a Democratic political consultancy.
"The message of “Dark Money†and similar projects is that conservatives’ post-Citizens United advantage in electoral spending by independent groups is corrupt. Liberals’ far larger advantages in foundation funding, on the other hand, are never mentioned. That’s kept in the dark."
The Citizens United decision resulted in a somewhat more level playing field between progressive and conservative advocacy funding. That's obviously anathema to progressives. No wonder some of them want to repeal or rewrite the First Amendment.
Mike M: "
Tom Scharf (Comment #171535): "It's worth going to Harvard of Yale even if you hold a low opinion of them. They are undoubtedly a pathway to success."
That is true if you want to eventually run a Fortune 500 company, or be a partner in a Wall Street law firm, or hold a high post in government. But it is doubtful if you plan to pursue a career where what you know is more important than who you know."
Exactly the way I think. I would rather my son actually know something and do something, rather than be mostly given positions above his competence merely because of his connections. One prime example of that is Al Gore.
JD
My daughter was accepted at Caltech and Furman back when. Caltech doesn't give scholarships to freshmen, or at least they didn't then. At Furman, she was offered a full tuition scholarship. So she went to Furman, where she ended up getting an NSF graduate research fellowship in Chemistry and went to UNC Chapel Hill to get her Ph.D. in Chemistry.
I went to Caltech as an undergraduate and it was a great experience. But if you're planning to get an advanced degree, it's not worth the $100,000 or so it would have cost me to send my daughter there. While Furman has a small graduate program, allowing them to call it a university. The professors concentrate on teaching, not research.
DeWitt,
Thanks for your response above (#171576) and the WSJ link.
The striking increase of college costs seemed uncalled-for to me, and I've long expected a reaction in terms of reduced demand, resulting in fewer students and/or a reduction in price. Perhaps this is finally setting in.
As for the value of a degree from a "name" university — when hiring (or recommending for hiring) a new college hire, I did consider their education. That is, a young engineer who had just earned a degree from (say) RPI, WPI, or Northeastern got "points" for that over schools with lesser reputations. However, when hiring experienced engineers, say 3 or more years removed from college, I considered the educational history to be completely irrelevant, never factored into a decision. Their education might well have been an indirect factor, having influenced the skills they exhibited and success in previous employment. But over my career, I don't think I observed much correlation between college and productivity; personal characteristics were much more relevant.
I think you'd be crazy to turn down MIT / Harvard / Yale / Stanford / Princeton. These will pay themselves off no matter what major you choose. I think it is about $20K / year over a career. The acceptance rates here are about 80% and I think the only reason someone turns it down is to go to one of the other schools. Unfortunately most of us don't have to worry about this decision, ha ha. All options are open after you go to those schools, maybe you decide you want to be a CEO or a Wall Street trader.
.
Everything below that is not worth $50K / year if you can go for almost free in state. At least that was my view. One of my relatives went to Cornell and racked up >100K debt and I doubt that will pay off.
.
I think someone would regret not taking those schools the rest of their lives and wonder "what if". Don't confuse this with an argument that those schools are justified by the education they give, only an observation that they are disproportionately respected.
I hear the same for CS, it only matters for graduate schools. However it is a lot easier to get into a good graduate school if you went to MIT. If you look at the pedigree of high end PhD's, they rarely start at State U and end at Stanford.
.
I think it is also pretty well established that one does not live a measurably happier life if you go to Wonderful U.
Think Professors Are Liberal? Try School Administrators
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/opinion/liberal-college-administrators.html
.
"I found that liberal staff members outnumber their conservative counterparts by the astonishing ratio of 12-to-one. Only 6 percent of campus administrators identified as conservative to some degree, while 71 percent classified themselves as liberal or very liberal."
.
Not to beat a dead dog, but this is losing the war by winning all the battles. Academia will eventually threaten their very existence by overplaying their bias. The comments here are the usual assortment of "this is only true because the right is stupid and doesn't understand facts" ironically proving the author's point.
MikeM,
You are free to believe whatever propaganda you want, of course. Still, the guy was almost certainly killed in the consulate building (and chopped into pieces) and almost certainly at the behest of the crown prince. Sure, wild and improbable alternative explanations will be proffered… that is just politics… but few will believe or care. The guy crossed the crown prince and suffered the consequences. I am not surprised at all by that. I am surprised anyone would believe the rubbish propaganda from Saudi Arabia.
SteveF (Comment #171586): "I am surprised anyone would believe the rubbish propaganda from Saudi Arabia."
I don't believe propaganda from Saudi Arabia. I am skeptical of propaganda from Ergodan's government.
>and so long as Harvard wasn't 80% non-white, they would happily and easily give several million dollars to get their children in.
Harvard's now accepting classes that are majority non-white.
About 25% Asian, 15% Hispanic, 15% Black.
US greenhouse gas emissions fell 2.7% last year. The media, ever focused on climate issues, celebrates with wild abandon.
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/18/658296161/epa-boasts-of-reduced-greenhouse-gases-even-as-trump-questions-climate-science
.
"The Trump administration is celebrating a drop in the nation's greenhouse gas emissions last year, even as the president himself continues to challenge the scientific understanding of climate change."
.
… and as expected …
.
"The trends that are driving the emission reductions that we saw in 2017 were baked in several years before"
"These achievements flow largely from technological breakthroughs in the private sector, not the heavy hand of government," EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement. Wheeler is a former coal lobbyist and, like President Trump, a skeptic when it comes to climate science."
.
This is almost being completely ignored by all media outlets at this time. Emission reductions don't count unless you have the right intentions and show fealty to the proper enviro-gods.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-17/trump-touts-lower-greenhouse-gas-levels-as-u-s-is-on-defensive
Even if Khashoggi was murdered by the Saudi's the outrage over that act is highly selective, ignoring, for instance the war in Yemen. Here is a level headed commentary: http://theweek.com/articles/802111/how-trump-broke-through-moralistic-bs-american-foreign-policy
It was this muddle that convinced leading figures from both parties that overthrowing the government of Saddam Hussein would be a splendid idea for everyone concerned — for the U.S., for Israel, for the Iraqi people, for the Greater Middle East, and for global order more generally. This turned out to be wrong in just about every single respect.
.
I suspect that what is really going on is that the elites in and out of government use moral outrage when they want to push an agenda that is not in the country's interest.
Middle paragraph above is a quote from the article, but did not appear as such and can not be edited.
Mike M,
The only legitimate outrage, and one that should be ongoing, is that Saudi Arabia (and a host of other despotic regimes!) want everyone to consider them "civilized", when in fact they are anything but civilized. The place is culturally closer to the 6th century than the 21st.
.
That a despot murders someone is not the cause of the current outrage; it is that some people imagined the Saudi regime is a civilized government… so they are outraged when they realize it is not. Which just shows they don't know anything about Saudi Arabia. (The editors at the NYT are an excellent example). When asked if anything will stop his modernization program in Saudi Arabia, the crown price replied: Only if my enemies kill me. He at least understands Saudi Arabia.
A "dog bites man" news story: Harvard favors applicants with ties to big donors:
https://nypost.com/2018/10/18/emails-show-harvard-favored-applicants-with-ties-to-big-donors/
>The correspondences revealed Wednesday show that officials catered to certain recruits with upstanding pedigrees over others, including the student who received the royal treatment after his family gave $1.1 million over the course of four years
At the end
>“If you get focused on things, no one claims that the admission of donors or donors’ children or donors’ relatives on the dean’s list has any effect on Asian-Americans. No economist claims this,†he added.
Probably true. If an Asian American family donated $1.1 million over 4 years, I suspect their kid would get special treatment on admission too.
Regardless of the outcome of this trial, it has exposed the corruption in elite admissions that everyone knew was there, but the institutions always hand waved it away with plausible deniability. They can do whatever they want (and accept the legal consequences), they just shouldn't be lionized for running a corrupt process.
Curiously the worst case scenario for the Harvard trial is Harvard loses and doesn't appeal. You can't appeal to the SC if you win, right? Then the plaintiffs have to try again with another college to get it before the SC.
That's worst case for people who want to use the case to overturn affirmative action across the country. But it would mean Harvard has to live with the ruling and other schools would know there's a potential to lose cases like this and so might modify their admissions methods.
I think everyone views this as a challenge to the entirety of affirmative action in college admissions even though they took pains to deny this at the trial. That's another hand waving exercise.
Tom Scharf,
Of course at the trial, they say the issue is limited to the specific case. The difficulty for affirmative action is that if this case wins, they need to find a different way to advance the goal they want to advance. They already can't have "quotas". They can't have race be a "dominant" factor.
Harvard is trying to do this "holistic" thing. But it looks suspiciously like the admissions offices evaluation of "personality" is just a proxy for race. I mean…. do we really think Asian's are less "kind", or lack other personality traits, and that somehow admissions officers *who don't even meet the kids* can detect this lack of kindness? That's impossible to believe.
Now, on the other hand, if it turns out that their method looks at what the kids claim is their ambition in life matters a lot, and they claim the wanted diversity of ambition and that the "physician" or "engineer" pile was too big, and Asians were disproportionately saying "physician" or "engineer", maybe Harvard will win this.
OTOH: If that turns out to be what they are limiting, the next wave of applicants will suddenly describe a vast assortment of ambitions. The ones who want to be doctors will suddenly claim the want to do basic research in genetics to solve the next generations genetic disorders. Or they will all want to do epidemiology. Or all pick things that make them be able to major in things that are essentially pre-med while claiming to want to do something else. (It's not hard to do that. Med schools don't require a degree called "pre-med". They want to see certain courses, may of which are basic science.)
Harvard doesn't have much of an engineering program anyway, so no problem there. 🙂
I suspect if appealed or not, this case will ultimately end up being reviewed. All that has to happen is a similar case goes before a different federal court and the decision goes the other way…. then an appeals court or SC review of both would be needed to clarify what is legal and what is not.
.
The evidence is overwhelming that Harvard has a quota system for the racial makeup of their student body… there is no other plausible explanation. They are a private institution, and and if they want to practice racial discrimination in who they admit, they obviously will (and pretty much always have!). But taxpayers should not be funding such an organization. Harvard has the endowment to abandon Federal money if they want to, but other competitive schools without such deep pockets will never never be able to forego Federal money. So if Harvard ultimately loses this case, that will motivate other competitive schools to abandon racial quotas (AKA drag them, kicking and screaming all the way, toward color-blind admissions).
Here is the real reason Harvard should lose this case (story from from the City Journal website):
.
"Lost in the abstract discussion of numbers and trends is the fact that the victimized students are real people, often from disadvantaged backgrounds, with their own legitimate aspirations built on years of sterling academic achievement. The most poignant section of a motion bristling with statistics and regression analysis is an excerpt of deposition testimony from a college admissions counselor at Stuyvesant High School in New York City. Admissions to Stuyvesant are race-blind and based on test scores—at least for now, though Mayor Bill de Blasio is advocating for a “holistic†admissions review there as well. Seventy percent of Stuyvesant students are Asian-American, and Harvard admits at least ten Stuyvesant students per year, though less than half of that group is Asian-American, generally. When the director of college counseling at Stuyvesant was shown SFA’s analysis in her deposition, she broke down in tears:
.
Q. Have you ever seen statistics like this before?
A. No.
Q. What’s your reaction to them?
A. My first reaction is that, mathematically, it looks like there’s discrimination.
Q. Do you think that something like—do you think that discrepancies that big could—Sorry—
A. (Witness crying.)
Q. I’m sorry this is upsetting you. Would you like to take a break?
A. (Witness shakes her head no.)
Q. You want to keep going? You want to tell me why this is upsetting to you?
A. Because these numbers make it seem like there’s discrimination, and I love these kids, and I know how hard they work. And these just look like numbers to all of you guys, but I see their faces."
When I applied for college, I expressed an interest in a certain major that I had no intention of pursuing, figuring it would be one that not many people would request.
What I don't get is why these affirmative action cases are based on argument of being unconstitutional violation of equal protection, with a made-up 25 year time limit, instead of just using the Civil Rights Act and declaring the programs illegal.
The official story on Khashoggi does not explain why he had to go to the embassy in Turkey instead of one in DC.
MikeN,
Maybe because his future wife was Turkish. Maybe he had been visiting Turkey for an extended time.
SteveF, it is reported that he flew to Istanbul on Oct 2. It is possible this was from within Turkey, but I assume it was DC to Turkey.
Interesting MeToo Development in Ohio involving Senator Sherrod Brown:
…..
A lawyer close to Brown challenger Renacci summarized very specific sexual abuse allegations by a woman who chooses to remain anonymous. Almost exactly the same situation as originally developed in Kavanaugh hearings. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/19/ohio-senate-race-sherrod-brown-responds-jim-renacci-abuse-allegations/1694840002/
Since the woman refuses to come forward these allegations, though very similar to what precitipated the Kavanaugh sexual assault questions, they shouldn't be given much credence. However, they could show Democratic duplicity on this matter.
…..
More importantly in my mind, are the allegations against Brown made under oath during his 1980s divorce, which I checked in response to the recent dispute:
" Divorce records from Brown’s first marriage, obtained by Breitbart News, show that during the contentious proceedings, his wife accused him of “extreme cruelty†and “harassmentâ€; she said she was “in fear for the safety … of myself and our children,†and accused Sherrod of “physical violence.†In fact, she said, Brown had “struck and bullied me on several different occasions.†Larke Brown was so afraid of Sherrod Brown, that she pleased the court for a restraining order against him to ensure her safety.
The motion asked the court to stop Sherrod from “harassing, including telephone harassment, annoying, interfering with or doing bodily harm to this Plaintiff at her residence or elsewhere.†The affidavit to the motion alleged that Larke believed that unless restrained, Sherrod would “harass†or “do bodily harm†to her; she further stated, “I am also intimidated by the Defendant and am in fear for the safety and well-being of myself and our children due to the Defendant’s physical violence and abusive nature.†The court apparently saw enough evidence to agree and granted the restraining order against Sherrod Brown in May 1986. He wasn't allowed near her house, except when he came to pick up the children for his allowed visitation. However, she claimed that that wasn't enough to stop Brown from intimidating her. Later, in October, she asked the court to reduce his visitation because he was using those visits to continue to abuse her. She also asked for an order that he not allowed to come any closer than the curb when arriving for his visitation. She described an incident that showed he was still being abusive and had violated the previous restraining order.
“[Brown] refused to return to the car, pushed me up against the wall with his arms in order to pass and entered the house. He refused to leave and began to say insulting, derogatory things about me, my mothering of the children and my character in front of my friends and the children … [Brown] then cornered one of my friends … and again started on his tirade of character assassination. … felt physically threatened because of [Brown’s] combative tone and his assault on [me] at the entrance to the house.†http://thirdbasepolitics.blogspot.com/2012/05/sherrod-browns-ex-wife-claimed-he.html
Now the ex-wife, who is a supporter of Brown says he was a good father and that everyone should ignore what occurred during the divorce proceedings, stating that: "Recchie continues to insist that her accusations “were only ‘angry words’ as part of an ‘unfriendly’ divorce.†However, her accusations were supported by an affidavit, which would make any false statements perjury. https://www.timesreporter.com/news/20180913/sherrod-browns-ex-wife-refutes-claims-of-domestic-abuse
The divorce accusations against Brown are much, much more documented than those against Kavanaugh. Interesting how the Dems and press will react.
JD
While an accuser who wishes to be unnamed and doesn't wish to come forward is similar, I'm not sure the allegations are too similar. The position of the alleged attacker is quite different (Secretary of State for Ohio rather than a 17-year-old high school student), and the details of the assault are quite different (assault stopped after she expressed dismay and pulled away).
JD, that's a sticky situation. I imagine there's going to be a few "fatal exception" errors over that!
Dale S: "I'm not sure the allegations are too similar."
I agree there are many differences in the specifics. However, big picture they are very similar. The question is whether anonymous accusations of sexual assault should be given any significant credence. In Kavanaugh's situation, the whole nomination process blew up even when no one knew the name of the accuser. The question is whether the press or other institutions with the ability to check out the accusations made against Brown should go full throttle to check these particular accusations out as well as others that may develop.
……
Will add that as far as I know there has been little inquiry into the allegations pertinent to the court case. There are lots of people who would be familiar with how Brown behaved in the 1980s (mostly family members) and also possibly friends of the ex-wife who would have been told of what happened. (May not wish to talk now, but so far as I know, no one outside of Renacci campaign is really looking.)
…..
I will say that the ex-wife's denial of her previous statements does not ring true to me. Her allegations were quite specific and were believed by the judge. She is probably a Democrat who considers the election of Brown to be more important than what happened in the 80s.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #171608),
There are several different questions that were raised during Kavanaugh's nomination, not all of which ended up being relevant to the actual vote. I think the biggest three are these:
1) How much credence should be given to anonymous sexual allegations?
2) How much should misdeeds by minors (or even college students) matter decades later?
3) How much credence should be given to a non-anonymous sexual allegation without any contemporary corroboration?
.
In the final analysis Kavanaugh's situation doesn't map neatly onto any of those three issues, though, because the allegations didn't stay anonymous, the seriousness of the allegations were granted by the defendant, and there was actual evidence against the allegations being true.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/19/ohio-senate-race-sherrod-brown-responds-jim-renacci-abuse-allegations/1694840002/
>Brown's campaign on Thursday sent a cease and desist letter to Renacci, demanding he stop "false and libelous statements."
Renacci evidently said multiple women approached him with allegations. If multiple women approached him, then what *Renacci* is saying is not false and libelous. Not even if all the women are lying. What the *women* are saying might be. Brown's never going to prove their statements false and libelous.
At least one of the women has a lawyer speaking for her. That strongly suggests at least one of them exists. (My guess is she will come forward in a week or two.)
>Brown's ex-wife, Larke Recchie, has strongly condemned Renacci's attacks on Brown.
She has no basis for knowing what Brown did when he was not in her presence. Evidently, according to the story, the women's stories are from the time between his divorce and remarriage.
Obviously, voters can decide what they think. The women haven't come forward, so we really don't have much to go on.
But anyone who insists people *had* to believe Ford but does not believe these other women should the come forward has quite a bit of explaining to do.
Dale S: "In the final analysis Kavanaugh's situation doesn't map neatly onto any of those three issues,"
…..
Kavanaugh's situation at the beginning was very much the same as Brown's — there was an anonymous accusation, which caused a huge ruckus. The question is whether the accusations against Brown will cause a big enough ruckus, that the accuser may want to give up her anonymity. The further points you make go beyond the starting point, which was my main point.
…..
Also, if it was me, even if what Ford said was true, I wouldn't have considered what Kavanaugh had done at age 17 relevant to his nomination. In his adult professional life, there were zero accusations of sexual assault, which means that there was no chance that sexual aggression would be an issue for his time on the Supreme Court. However, my view is apparently that of a small minority because people on both sides of the aisle would have voted against Kavanaugh if they had believed the allegations.
JD
JD
Saudi Arabia is now claiming that Khashoggi was killed in the embassy after getting into a fight with officials(perhaps resisting being killed?). They are blaming the intelligence chief and have arrested 18 people, with one dying in a car 'accident'.
Still unexplained is why he came to an embassy in Turkey, instead of just going to DC.
Anonymous allegations with political timing are non-existent in my view. If the person who stands accused (!!!) has previously pandered to the believe women movement then it becomes a humorous spectacle watching them squirm.
.
This is where intelligent leadership of the MeToo movement should step in and rescue their movement from those who wish to exploit it. This stuff could be fatal to it. Can nobody there stand up and say we can have both improved handling of harassment claims and due process at the same time?
I am sure Khashoggi was probably fighting before they dismembered him, that tends to cause an understandable violent reaction. What a load of BS. I'm not sure what the US is supposed to do about it.
Tom Scharf,
I think the crown prince has to go. Most of his actions have bordered on unhinged, and this murder is but the latest in a string of lunatic decisions. How he is forced out is less important than that he is forced out. The problem is that the crown prince has consolidated close to absolute power, and forcing him out will be very difficult.
Tom Scharf (Comment #171614): "This is where intelligent leadership of the MeToo movement should step in …"
I suspect that such persons do not exist.
Tom Scharf: "… and rescue their movement from those who wish to exploit it."
It seems to me that the movement is about exploitation of legit victims toward a political end.
.
Tom Scharf: "Can nobody there stand up and say we can have both improved handling of harassment claims and due process at the same time?"
I think they can't do that because that is not the objective.
SteveF (Comment #171616): "I think the crown prince has to go."
That leads to one of two possibilities.
(1) Replacing MBS with more conservative despots who will undo what modernization MBS has accomplished and keep the country as much as possible in the 18th century (or earlier).
(2) Bring down the monarchy and set off a civil war between the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahabis, to the great advantage of Iran.
Which one do you advocate? Real question.
Mike M.
I agree. #MeToo is not an organized movement. It's not a club. It's not an organization. It's a hashtag. People jump in and have discussions on Twitter, but that doesn't make it a "movement".
Mike M,
How about 3) putting most decisions in the hands of a group of a couple dozen of the thousands of Saudi princes, acting as an advisory counsel to the king.
.
This was in fact how it worked before the crown prince was elevated by his aged father.
BTW,
Saudi Arabia is unlikely to be destabilized. It is equally unlikely to become an enlightened democracy in the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is a despotic regime that doesn't cause too many problems. As I said before, the place is culturally closer to the 6th century than the 21st.
SteveF (Comment #171620): "How about 3) putting most decisions in the hands of a group of a couple dozen of the thousands of Saudi princes, acting as an advisory counsel to the king."
I don't see how that is significantly different from 1) Replacing MBS with more conservative despots who will undo what modernization MBS has accomplished and keep the country as much as possible in the 18th century (or earlier).
.
Forcing MBS out does nothing for the Saudi people (at least, nothing good) and does nothing good for our national interest. It would be good for Turkey, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood. But I guess virtue signaling makes that worth it.
.
SteveF (Comment #171621): "The best we can hope for is a despotic regime that doesn't cause too many problems. As I said before, the place is culturally closer to the 6th century than the 21st."
So why should we care who runs the place?
BLM and MeToo both suffer from the same thing as OWS did, no real leadership and extremists self electing themselves as spokespeople and doing damage to the organization, and I use that term loosely. It just doesn't work. If you want lasting influence you need to be able to lop off the crazies and disassociate from them, or the opposition, who have leaders and an organization, will effectively tar you with the crazies actions.
.
I also think it is very important to not get attached to a political party, or you just alienate 50% of your potential allies. The parties are just going to exploit you for their short term gain, it's a deal with the devil.
The US just needs to invade Saudi Arabia and do the Iraq plan. Except this time we will do it right! Where is Schwarzkopf, Cheney, and Rumsfeld? Let's get the A-Team on it. I pity the Saudi fools.
JD Ohio (Comment #171611),
It's impossible to say whether in an alternate universe where Kavanaugh admitted to groping as a minor whether that would have necessarily sunk his confirmation. Once Kavanaugh denied being in the room where it allegedly happened, anyone believing Ford's account would conclude not just that he had misbehaved as a minor, but that he was lying *now* and that certainly is disqualifying. I think a conversation could be had about what sort of ancient actions, if any, should disqualify a potential justice with no issues in his/her professional life; but Kavanaugh made that discussion impossible for him with his defense against the accusation. (Note that most Democrats' reactions to the allegations is also irrelevant, since they were determined to vote against him before he was nominated.)
.
I don't think the "anonymous allegation" period is significant in the nomination either. The existence of the letter was known on the 13th of September, the unnamed account on the 14th, and Ford went public on the 16th — Kavanaugh was questioned by Judiciary on the 17th, at which point the accuser was already known. Of course, at *no* point in the Kavanaugh hearings was the accuser anonymous to the ranking minority member of the committee. There were several actually anonymous allegations post-Ford, and they were completely ignored.
.
Judging by Ford's actions prior to the leak, and how quickly she went public after the leak, I have difficulty believing she ever really wanted to stay anonymous. It's also clear that she had no interest in getting information to the *only* senators on the committee capable of actually changing their vote to oppose Kavanaugh — the Republicans.
.
I wonder if the letter went through Eshoo to Feinstein in the first place to provide a vector for the letter to be leaked, while allowing Feinstein to claim it wasn't her. Ford's statement that Eshoo was contacted because she didn't know how to contact Eshoo is ridiculous; but even if it were true, Eshoo knew *exactly* how to contact Feinstein, and there's absolutely no reason that the letter should have been hand-delivered by Eshoo's staff to Feinstein's office, ten days after Ford met with Eshoo.
Tom Scharf
>doing damage to the organization
As far as I am aware, there is no true #MeToo organization. Same with BLM. They are hashtags just a hashtag.
Mike M,
"So why should we care who runs the place?"
.
We should only care that who runs the place doesn't cause problems elsewhere…. like beheading political enemies who are not in Saudi Arabia. Or poisoning people with nerve agents in other countries, etc. Keeping their savagry at home is something we can and should incentivise. It looks to me like the crown prince is immune to incentives, and is doing lots of bad things outside Saudi Arabia.
Not saying this justifies doing much of anything, but all other things being equal I dont see a problem with preferring a relatively free, relatively just, prosperous society on the Saudis instead of a repressive medieval regime. I dont want to argue about whether we should care, I think we do care to some extent even if we 'shouldnt'..
Mark Bofill (Comment #171628): "all other things being equal I dont see a problem with preferring a relatively free, relatively just, prosperous society on the Saudis instead of a repressive medieval regime."
Of course. I would love to see free democratic societies everywhere. But we have tried to "encourage" that in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. I, for one, hope that we are done with that.
.
Khashoggi was killed on Saudi territory, albeit an embassy. We should make our displeasure clear, not just with word but with actions (even if merely symbolic). But we should not sacrifice our own interests or try to destabilize MBS. The former is self destructive and the latter is none of our business.
Mike,
Fair enough.
And on the 'dark' money front, Tom Steyer is personally funding an Arizona ballot initiative to enshrine renewable energy, defined as solar and wind, and specifically not hydropower, in the state constitution.
"Progressive money man Tom Steyer has many causes—impeaching Donald Trump, electing Senate Democrats, and this year ballot initiatives to impose renewable-energy mandates on voters who don’t realize how their electricity bills will rise."
"This year’s ground zero is Arizona, where Mr. Steyer’s Proposition 127 would require utilities to produce 50% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030. This would more than triple Arizona’s current mandate of 15% by 2025. The Steyer mandate would also bar utilities from counting obvious forms of renewable energy, such as nuclear (now 29% of the state energy mix) and most hydropower (6%)."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tom-steyers-energy-orders-1539990945?mod=hp_opin_pos1
I think the use of the term 'renewable' doesn't really apply to nuclear, but as the apparent objective is to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear should be counted as a low or no carbon source.
What the propaganda for 127 leaves out, of course, is how much electricity costs to the consumer would increase.
"Arizona State University’s Seidman Research Institute analyzed the broader costs and found the initiative would kill thousands of jobs and knock $72 billion off state GDP through 2060."
An opinion piece in an Arizona newspaper referred to dark money supporting opposition to solar energy mandates but never mentions Tom Steyer or NextGen Climate Action's support for 127.
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/09/13/proposition-127-the-clean-energy-initiative-a-look-behind-the-propaganda/
DeWitt wrote "An opinion piece in an Arizona newspaper referred to dark money supporting opposition to solar energy mandates but never mentions Tom Steyer or NextGen Climate Action's support for 127."
.
Because that is "light money". Money which is put forward for virtuous and morally correct reasons purely for the betterment of all mankind. Only evil people could possibly disagree.
So the Saudi's are saying that they just wanted to arrest Khashoggi and return him to Saudi Arabia. Does international law permit that in embassies? Real question.
That Khashoggi might have physically resisted, even in the face of overwhelming force, is not entirely implausible; the prospect of being returned to Saudi Arabia under arrest might well have induced an irrational fight-or-flight response. That he might have died as a result of a physical altercation is not implausible; he was 60 and looks rather overweight. The Saudi's stonewalling for so long seems unreasonable if it was really an accident, but secrecy tends to have its own weird logic.
But what happened to the body? Islam requires rapid burial and careful treatment of the body prior to burial. Not doing so would seem to be a big no-no for an Islamic government.
.
Here is an interesting article on what Turkey hopes to gain from the murder: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/18/what-turkey-hopes-to-gain-from-khashoggis-murder-221609
It provides a good explanation for why Turkey has been making the Saudi's look bad via leaks while officially being conciliatory.
So maybe what has been going on behind the scenes is negotiations between Ergodan and MBS. If such negotiations have succeeded, then we might expect the Turks to officially support the Saudi story. That would be interesting.
Mike M,
"Islam requires rapid burial and careful treatment of the body prior to burial."
.
I do wonder if beheading and chopping him into pieces to carry out of the consulate building qualifies. I'm guessing it doesn't.
It is nothing more than a question of savagery:
"According to Amnesty International, in 2012 public executions were known to have been carried out in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Somalia."
.
Actually, it is a regular occurance in the capital of Saudia Arabia (chop-chop square). Which apparently draws a considerable blood thirsty crowd in Ryadh. Anyone who suggests Saudi Arabia is a civilised country knows nothing of what they speak. It is a country of stinking savages, nothing more.
The worst traffic jam I ever encountered in Saudi Arabia was when there was a fatal accident on the OTHER SIDE of a divided highway. The Saudis simply stopped their cars in the middle of the highway on my side, and walked to the other side to watch the people die. Save them ? Are you joking? Alah's will. Stinking savages.
And lest anyone think othherwise: my impressions of Saudi Arabia were formed over multiple visits of multiple weeks each over several years. It really is just about as close as one might imagine hell on earth to be. It is the worst place I have visited: no freedom, no beer, and no future. Truly horrible.
The 9-11 killers:
"15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and the others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt, and Lebanon."
.
This is a feature of Saudi culture and religion, not an anomaly. Anyone who imagines Saudi Arabia could be a civilized country is delusional. They are completely opposed to personal liberty, personal freedom, and the existance of the state of Israel.
SteveF (Comment #171635): "[public execution] is a regular occurance in the capital of Saudia Arabia (chop-chop square). … It is a country of stinking savages, nothing more."
The last public execution in the U.S. was in 1936:
https://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2001/apr/010430.execution.html
So I guess we are not much removed from being savages ourselves. Of course, since we still execute criminals, many people would say we are barbarians.
Mike,
Perhaps. But. The beer…
This caravan thing is madness, what do people think, it is open borders in the US? It looks like a political rally in disguise, the video I saw didn't exactly look like a bunch of destitute people. If this election is going to be a referendum on whether we should have border security, so be it. I don't see this as a sympathetic means to obtain goals. It's about 100% certain that when they show up at the US border they will be outnumbered by journalists about 2:1 just waiting for something to exploit. It's a transparent political stunt.
MikeM,
"So I guess we are not much removed from being savages ourselves."
.
Um… maybe if you are willing to discount 80+ years. But the numbers matter; public execution and public punishment (cutting off hands, beheadings, whipping nearly to death, stoning to death, etc) remain shockingly common in Saudi Arabia (and a few other 'enlightened' Islamic countries). To compare that to a few hangings 80+ years ago is a stretch… but whatever.
Saudia Arabia is not a country that has ever embraced Western values. But we have common interests with it in hampering other, more dangerous, regimes in the area that *also* don't embrace our values. If the crown prince's vices are *shared* by the people, it doesn't seem likely that removing him, if possible, will do away with those vices. The Arab Spring elsewhere has resulted in plenty of unintended consequences and zero western-style Democracies. It may be more rational to exact some sort of "consequences", combined with unconvincing denials by the Crown Prince that he had anything to do with this ("I'm *shocked* to find murder in this Kingdom!"), without abandoning or even attempting to destabilize Saudi Arabia. Just letting it pass unnoticed, as we surely would have if he was still living in Saudia Arabia, doesn't seem an option when he was living and working in our country.
Dale S,
"Saudia Arabia is not a country that has ever embraced Western values. But we have common interests with it in hampering other, more dangerous, regimes in the area that *also* don't embrace our values."
.
Yup, and that is a reality which needs to be honestly addressed. The sorry truth is Muslims, even those living in Western countries, mostly reject Western values. For example, most Muslims believe Sharia should be the law in their country, is the "revealed word of God", and a plurality believe any Muslim who tries to leave Islam should be put to death, as dictated by Sharia (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/)
.
There is little room for compromise on these sorts of things, so ongoing conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims seems to me likely.
Tom Scharf (Comment #171641): "This caravan thing is madness, what do people think, it is open borders in the US?"
If Republican candidates are smart, they will force their Democrat opponents to take a position on the caravans.
The left media doesn't seem particularly thrilled to cover this, Fox was covering it for days before the other side started writing about it. WSJ:
.
"At a rally in Elko, Nev., on Saturday, Mr. Trump claimed that Democrats are “openly inviting†immigrants and “want caravans.†Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), the Democratic leaders in Congress, issued a joint statement Saturday saying Mr. Trump is “desperate†to change the subject from health care to immigration because voters oppose GOP policies on health care. “Democrats are focused like a laser on health care and will not be diverted,†the statement said."
.
The left doesn't think this is a winning agenda. If people think the left believes that everyone who can walk to the border is entitled to US citizenship it will not be helpful. Fortunately there is no chance that Trump, the wise one, will overplay his cards and shoot himself in the foot. Carrying a large Honduras flag in front of the caravan is also not a good look.
Another reason to be careful when dealing with Chinese companies:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies
It's not clear whether it was just server motherboards that were compromised.
The NSA and CIA are into this game as well, except in the reverse direction. We got amazingly good at tracking people in Pakistan for drone strikes. I suspect the CIA went into the cell phone business and sold modified phones below market value. Then executed the usual tricks of keeping the microphone on all the time, and reporting GPS positions. Not to mention the possibility of installing a second hidden battery so it works when the battery is removed. Those ideas took me 2 minutes, imagine what you can do with buildings full of engineers and a vast budget.
.
Apple CEO Tim Cook calls on Bloomberg to retract its Chinese spy story
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/10/apple-ceo-tim-cook-calls-on-bloomberg-to-retract-its-chinese-spy-story/
Tom Scharf,
And we have the chutzpah to complain when other country's play the same game and even accuse them of committing acts of war. One of the tools used in the WannaCry ransomware attack was invented by our NSA. That wouldn't have been a problem if the NSA had better security. But pretty much their entire hacking tool kit was stolen and published.
Speaking of the NSA, has anyone watched the new show Manifest? In it, a man identifying himself as an NSA agent, complete with badge, claims legal jurisdiction over the local cops. Since when does the NSA have any domestic enforcement authority? Answer: it never did and still doesn't. For a long time the government refused to admit it even existed, leading to the acronym NSA meaning No Such Agency. But the sheep will believe it.
Tom Scharf,
To the tinfoil hat crowd, a strenuous denial by Apple and the NSA is confirming evidence.
DeWitt, Apple's denial is meaningless, but where are other companies coming forward with finding surveillance devices on their servers? This is a major supplier that China has allegedly breached.
Some wacko apparently sending bombs to liberal politicians, media, and so on. Obviously, but still – I utterly denounce this. I'm sure everybody here does as well.
Despite the stamps on the packages, these must have been hand delivered. You can't coordinate multiple packages to arrive on the same day with first class mail.
And I'm pretty sure six stamps will not be enough to ship a metal bomb.
This is quite counterproductive to do for your own side. There have been plenty of false flag hate crimes, so I'm not going to automatically assume anything, although it is 95% likely it is a right wing wacko. This seems unlikely to succeed, especially against people who would never open any package they didn't expect, so it is likely a very dumb person. These type of people like to call themselves the "Liberation Front Of I Take Politics Way Too Seriously" or such and tend to make sure they get credit. I think they will get caught, doing dumb things smartly is rare.
They were in envelopes and it is not clear there was even any trigger mechanism. They are being called "potentially explosive" and it seems likely they are hoaxes, rather than a real attempt to harm.
Tom
Whether hoaxes or not, sending these things was appalling. I do hope whoever did it gets caught.
MikeN (Comment #171654) ,
Packages sent to Hilary and Obama were intercepted while screening mail, so they weren't all hand delivered. According to New York Times the one to Soros was hand-delivered, and the one to CNN (pictured in their article) was delivered via courier despite being stamped (and the picture shows no postmark on the stamps). Six first class stamps ($3.00 postage) would cover 10 oz in a flat envelope, which seems light to me for a pipe bomb even if the envelope can still be considered "flat". But a quick google search didn't show me how much such a bomb (if real) actually weighs. (A fake bomb could obviously be much lighter).
.
Real or fake, hopefully the bomber is nailed quickly.
@Tom Scharf – Comment #171641
quotes –
"This caravan thing" & "It's about 100% certain that when they show up at the US border they will be outnumbered by journalists about 2:1 just waiting for something to exploit. It's a transparent political stunt."
from a UK news viewer of the BBC & most UK news channels –
its being presented as (mostly interviewed) woman & kids looking for a better life in the USA because they have nowhere else to go because their own country has failed them (tug on the heart strings of American men/women)
would like to know who started this march.
like how CNN report the "caravan"
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/10/23/migrant-caravan-weir-lon-orig.cnn/video/playlists/around-the-world/
Trump does his Trump thing and says he is proud to be a nationalist, the latest pejorative for patriotic. NPR takes exception, they want their pejorative back.
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/24/660042653/what-is-a-nationalist-in-the-age-of-trump
I did note that all the media's single person photos of the caravan were the usual sympathetic sad women and children, but the large group shots showed a large number of men. I don't trust the media to cover this honestly, maybe they will, but I can't tell the difference between this and propaganda.
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/photos-migrant-caravan/573604/
Tom
" I don't trust the media to cover this honestly" is an understatement.
the new (for a while now) agenda by news/reporting to the public is "make interview's emotional,if they cry, good, encourage that.
baby in distress- the best"
maybe not always a bad approach,but used to often the viewer (me) finds it uneasy viewing other peoples personal traumas/life experiences on camera, so I tend to feel I'm being manipulated.
ps your link will open photos for me for some reason – https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/photos-migrant-caravan/573604/
Photography is about showing emotion where possible, so those are photographers just doing their job for the most part, maximum emotional impact from photography. Some are obviously staged such as:
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/photos-migrant-caravan/573604/#img06
.
Then there were the endless Handmaid's Tale pictures during the Kavanaugh hearing. The media shouldn't take the bait here. There's a difference between photography as art and photography for journalism. When editors allow clear activism to creep in then they aren't doing their job. The left has become so addicted to appeal to emotion that they are getting rather lazy and barely try to put forth an argument at all. Let's shame them isn't an argument, it is a tactic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
I thought President Trump's initial response to the mailbombs was good. The media seems to find much fault with it, and Trump being Trump, of course he jumps right into the fight on Twitter.
What do you people think. Was there *any* response President Trump could have made that would have been praised by the media and his political opponents?
I don't posit that political leaders are responsible for the actions of crazy people, and in a nation as large as ours, crazies appear inevitable. I *do* think its counterproductive and foolish to bemoan the violence and lack of civility and then spit on political opposition when they extend an olive branch. It's not necessary to love President Trump. IMO It would help everybody if everybody on all sides would make an effort to remember we are one people and give some thought to laying off the business as usual attempts to denigrate the political opposition.
Spelling of Brennan was Brenan on the package. Labels were otherwise large and clear. Is the mailer or the postal service at fault for the poor spelling?
Perhaps a Gliek like investigation is needed. Seems very contrived and false flaggish and convenient.
mark bofill,
"What do you people think. Was there *any* response President Trump could have made that would have been praised by the media and his political opponents?"
.
Yes, he could have resigned from office effective today. Nothing short of that would have been praised by the MSM… who are also among his most strident political opponents.
mark bofill (Comment #171665): "Was there *any* response President Trump could have made that would have been praised by the media and his political opponents?"
Of course not. But it is worse than that. Much of the press seems to be implying that the bombs are the work of right wing crazies and are at least partly Trump's fault. But we don't know that. They could be from some random kook. Given the seeming incompetence of the attacks, it could be a false flag operation. If the incompetence was real rather than faked, the perpetrator should be easily caught.
.
mark bofill: "I don't posit that political leaders are responsible for the actions of crazy people …"
Exactly right. Democrats and the press agree when it is a left wing crazy, like the guy who shot Scalese. But right wing crazies are declared to be Trump's fault.
.
mark bofill: "I *do* think its counterproductive and foolish to bemoan the violence and lack of civility and then spit on political opposition when they extend an olive branch."
Right again. But it is worse than that. People like Clinton, Holder, and, most egregiously, Waters actually call for more incivility, provided that it is directed at Republicans.
Trump was going to get hit up no matter what he said. His rhetoric is a target rich zone for this type of thing.
.
CNN's Zucker calling out Trump for his rhetoric was a howler. Obviously Zucker doesn't monitor his own company. Zucker still thinks the old rules still apply that the media can say anything about anyone but nobody can criticize the media. CNN is a sewer now. CNN had to do something because their old school hard news model wasn't winning financially, but did they really have to go here?
.
Nobody deserves a pipe bomb for being petty in a political discussion, neither do they deserve to be shot on a baseball field. All the usual suspects are saying the usual things. I think it's highly likely this person will be caught. Too brazen, too much evidence. You can't spell a name but are too clever to be caught?
They may not have paid attention recently to learn laser printers put near invisible ID codes on printed pages.
.
It seems this is more a message sending exercise if it is a right wing terrorist, people get sick of being labelled and demonized. They might want to check into anger management, which should be available in prison.
.
It is also just sooooo obvious that this is what the left thinks a stereotypical right wing terrorist would do that I do not discount this could be the other side. The fact that nobody is getting hurt supports a false flag operation as well. Why send anything to Biden, and not the NYT? Of course you would be drawn and quartered to say that out loud in the media. The right wing fantasy is that it is determined this was a left wing false flag operation a few days before the election. Alas, there are enough crazy people with too much time on their hands spread across the political spectrum that this is just that, a fantasy.
.
We may be heading into another 1960's / 1970's period of political violence.
There are many weird things about this. You don't mail a pipe bomb in an envelope, you put it in a cardboard box with a trigger mechanism. You are super politically engaged but can't spell the names of your opponents? You don't mail them out all at once in identical packaging because once the first one is found the rest will be found as well due to heightened suspicion.
.
The picture of the bombs out of the envelopes don't seem to show any type of disarming had occurred. If the bombs were suspected to be live and still in an envelope, don't they usually detonated them instead of opening the package? You could put a photodetector as a trigger so it explodes once enough light was available. It was taken out without any detonation. The FBI is silent on whether they were capable of detonating, which seems to indicate they were not, or else they would be loudly warning people about live bombs.
.
A person so dumb he can't spell and make a viable trigger is going to get caught. A person who intentionally misspells names and is smart enough to not get caught can't make a viable trigger in all that planning?
.
It's obviously the Russians.
Tom Scharf,
"It's obviously the Russians."
.
LOL. They use undetectable nerve agents that degrade only over many weeks to kill their opponents. Pipe bombs are too…. shall we say… retro for the Russians.
(tin foil hats on)
Well, one could make the case that the events we are seeing (Hondoruan caravan and bomb mailing) could be explained by the actions of an agency that seeks to increase political turmoil in the US near midterms.
It might actually be the Russians, should we suppose that some agency explains this and not the workings of chance.
(remove tin foil hats now)
Trouble is it could be chance of course. Occam and all that.
To be fair, the Russians have been credibly charged with (badly timed and little watched) fake political posts intended to inflame both sides of the political spectrum, both before and after the last election. An incompetent bombing operation that could credibly be done by a right wing nutcase or a left wing false-flag nutcase could spawn division cheaply — and if caught, would *continue* to spawn division. Since the geographical center seems to be NYC, a provocateur hiding behind diplomatic immunity would actually accomplish something, unlike the actual bomber who can only hurt his own side politically.
.
I'm not saying it is *likely* to be the Russians at all, just because it might be a little clever if they did. Homegrown nutcase is easily the most parsimonious theory. And let's face it, the Russian social media division-strewing in 2016 was completely incompetent. Getting caught caused *far* more impact than the actual actions ever did, and I don't think that could've reasonably been foreseen by the Russians.
Megyn Kelly should have known better than go to NBC, where any conservative starts out on double secret probation. What an unforgiving world this has turned into. Apologizing just gets you fired quicker. I cannot imagine what it is like to work in an environment like that. How can you be an interesting person people want to watch if you have to only speak in platitudes within a very narrow corridor. My view on controversial topics is (read script in monotone). I personally only think it is morally acceptable to dress as yourself for Halloween.
.
I can tell you that if I had it to do over again, I would much prefer to grow up when I did then in today's world where everyone has a spear out and everything you say is permanently recorded and viewed in the least charitable way possible even decades later.
Tom,
My first reaction hearing about Meg[y]n was to think 'well, where the heck did she think she was, Fox News?'
Heh.
I just read things Megyn Kelly is supposedly in hot water for. Among them "Insisting Santa Clause and Jesus are white".
Uhmm….. I had a friend from Finland. He insisted Santa Clause was from Finland. Specifically, he is Sami.
Here are sami clothes http://www.arcticphoto.co.uk/gallery2/arctic/peoples/samirus/rko0004-29.htm
Sami drive reindeer. The ones in finland live about as close to the north pole as anyone. If Harry's theory is correct, Santa is white. Very white.
My mother insists Santa is St. Nicholas of Myra. He was Greek. Greeks are white.
Honestly, I think Harry is right. The Catholic church did like to "catholic-ize" local traditions and I think they super imposed St. Nick on Santa Claus. But Santa is really the Yul Tomta (Swedish version of same Santa the Finn's claim lives in Finland.)
I get the idea that "Santa" has now become worldwide and so some people see Santa as any race they like. But…well… the origin is from Northern people's legends.
mark bofill (Comment #171675): "where the heck did she think she was, Fox News?"
Nah, she'd have been fired at Fox. After all, how dare she observe that circa 1980 it was considered OK for a kid to wear blackface as part of a Halloween costume? Permit that, and people might start to mention that at the time blackface was still in occasional use by entertainers like Frank Zappa, Joni Mitchell, and Dan Aykroyd. And what if someone suggests that it was a routine part of the Mummer's Parade not much more than 50 years ago? The horror! What is consigned to the memory hole must stay in the memory hole. At least until retrieving it serves the purpose of those in power.
.
On the other hand, Kelly apologized, apparently in the belief that it might help her. So she is obviously hopelessly out of touch with the culture in which she lives.
I did an image search on Jesus and Santa. It looks like Google is pretty racist. According to my go to source, Monty Python, we can conclude they are white as fact. We can't rule out that they might be up to 1% Native American.
Well….according to the story, Mary, Jesus's Mom, was a middle eastern Jew. Generally speaking, that group of people are considered white as are Arabs. White is a pretty big group of people, but it does include Nordic types and Mediteranean types.
Having said that, Jesus was a product of a virgin birth. So we really can't speculate what the genetic make up of the male DNA, or if there even was any. Maybe it was sort of an implant and Jesus has no race at all.
On the other hand, nothing in the story suggest he looked much different from the other boys and girl he grew up with. So, the most likely appearance is pretty standard looking middle eastern Jew from the 0BCE era.
RE: Megyn Kelly Blackface
…….
Her quitting is stupid but entirely predictable considering who she works for. As pompous and self-righteous as she could be, as far as I am concerned, it could not have happened to a more deserving person.
…..
Would add that about 4 years ago my daughter attended a summer day care center that was about 97% Black in terms of both the students and the workers. Will say that both I and my daughter were treated well. However, when the women workers (mostly 25-35 years old) would get angry at each other the N-word flew fast and furious in very loud tones all of the time. On the one hand, I respect the general prohibition that society imposes on the use of the N-word. On the other hand, it is going to be freely used by one portion of society, then other portions of society can choose whether or not to use it in the same fashion that it is commonly used.
…..
I bring the N-word up because blackface on Halloween is much less offensive than the use of the N-word. However, for a (clueless, self-righteous) white woman even stating that blackface is acceptable is enough to have her banned by the Left.
JD
I think NBC just wanted an excuse to be rid of Megyn Kelly. Her show was a flop, because too many liberals were steering guests away from the show.
Megyn isn't even a conservative, but the association with Fox News was too much, despite her hostility to Trump.
CNN is nonstop about Trump hasn't called Obama and the Clintons personally.
So apparently the "pipe bombs" were only 6 inches long and made from PVC with glass shards inside. This isn't exactly what I was envisioning from that term. That makes sense with the minimal postage shown.
The "bombs" also seem to be missing a detonator if the published drawings are to be believed.
I guess that why they are referred to as a "bomb like device".
I was under the impression that the controversy this Halloween season was over non-blacks in Black Panther costumes, not blackface makeup. Shows how little I know. But then I didn't think that Iron Fist being a Caucasian was a big deal. It certainly wasn't when the original comic books were published. I just didn't think the first season (Netflix) was very good, particularly compared to Daredevil and Jessica Jones.
As a gauge of my political incorrectness, I can't stand Black Lightning or the remake of Charmed, not that I was all that fond of the first version.
MikeN,
"Megyn isn't even a conservative…"
.
True, but all political valuations are relative. Compared to the fish with which she was swimming, Kelly is a retrograde, nasty, and unacceptable conservative. She is quintessentially neutral; that is not acceptable where she has been working.
Lucia,
"Having said that, Jesus was a product of a virgin birth."
.
I suspect it more likely a Roman soldier was involved.
SteveF,
Oh Ye of little faith.
SteveF (Comment #171688),
I realize you're not on the #believewomen train, but the allegation tying Jesus to a Roman soldier can't be traced back past the second half of the *second* century AD, which makes Blasey-Ford look like a model of timely reporting. Fake News.
.
That it was necessary for Judas to identify Jesus with a kiss argues that his appearance was not remarkable or unusual among a group of 1st century Jews from Galilee.
Dale S,
Humm… if Dr Ford had said she was born without a biological father, I suspect you would have doubted her story. Kisses are never needed to discern factual reality from fantasy. So maybe not a Roman soldier…. maybe just a guy in the same village, who knows. I said "Roman soldier" not because I believe it really was a Roman soldier, but because that is a far more plausible explanation than a virgin birth..
Lucia,
Not little faith, no faith.
Tom Scharf,
"… everyone has a spear out…"
.
Watch out, that is dangerously close to cultural appropriation…. you can choose the culture.
SteveF,
Well… me too. So I really don't give a hoot about Jesus's race.
But it seems to me for those arguing Jesus's racial group, the official story is likely to count.
Having said that: Santa Claus does seem to be the Yul Tomte transmogrified into a saint by the Catholic Church. If the Yule Tomte has a race, it's white. (Mind you, he's variously an elf, dwarf or some such. So perhaps he's not Homo Sapiens, in which case the debate about race is rather beside the point.)
Tom,
Jim is going to dress as Bettlejuice for Halloween. I'm going as a Ninja. So I guess I'll be culturally appropriating.
SteveF (Comment #171691),
Ford told a story that was plausible on its face in broad outlines–there is nothing at all remarkable about the story of a teenage girl getting forcibly groped by a drunk teenage boy. However, there are inconsistent details, witnesses who failed to remember what they should have remembered, shifting details within a *recent* timespan, and actions inconsistent with what she claimed to desire. In short, though the story itself is not remarkable, I have both reason to doubt the story and reason to doubt that *she* believed the story.
.
Mary's story, as filtered through St. Luke, is a wholly incredible story, nothing less than a miracle and far outside the common experience. However, the claim made is not that Jesus has no "biological father" — in fact he is regularly referred to as the Son of God or the Only Begotten in the new testament. The claim is that Mary was a virgin when she conceived — given that modern science is completely capable of fertilization without sex, if God exists the miracle should be completely within his capabilities. Jesus as the literal Son of God would be consistent with the other remarkable things attested to in Luke/Acts. However, this is a story that *isn't* like Ford's in the sense that something like this regularly happens. Indeed, the claim that Jesus was the Only Begotten requires that his conception be unique.
.
If you have faith that God does not exist you can certainly exclude the possibility of the story being true, according to your beliefs. Those who believe they have communicated with God may well reckon the possibilities differently. But even if I believed there was no God and no possibility of virgin birth, I think the logical fallback would be that Jesus was the son of Joseph, the spouse of Mary and the man who was believed to be his father at the time. After all, if you reject the claim that Alexander was the son of Zeus-Ammon based on that deity's non-existence, the fallback position should not be that Olympias was unfaithful to Philip and some random Greek was Alexander's father's instead.
.
This is getting well off politics, let alone climate, so I'll stop there.
DaleS
>However, the claim made is not that Jesus has no "biological father" — in fact he is regularly referred to as the Son of God or the Only Begotten in the new testament.
Sure. But the New Testament doesn't discuss the dad's DNA nor the dad's race.
> think the logical fallback would be that Jesus was the son of Joseph, the spouse of Mary and the man who was believed to be his father at the time
Joseph and Mary weren't married at the time of the conception. They were betrothed. If I recall correctly, according to the New Testament, Joseph didn't think he was the father but accepted the claim that it was a virgin birth because an angel of the lord came unto Joseph in a dream and told him Mary was a virgin.
I googled and did find this which conforms to my memory:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/jesus/events-up-to-jesus-ministry/joseph-learns-mary-pregnant/
Dale S,
Mumbo-jumbo. Fortunately, Christians stopped murdering blasphemers a while ago. Now if the Muslims could only catch up with the Christians, they'd be making progress. And I'll leave it at that.
The stories in the Bible aren't factually true that way. Jordan Peterson makes the argument that viewing the Bible this way misses the point of examining these stories. I don't know to what extent I buy this yet, but it's an interesting idea. I can't present or argue his case and do it justice because I don't understand it well.
I can't find a good supporting link right now, but I'll dig one up if anyone wants it.
mark,
I agree the stories in the bible aren't factually true. Also, I think many were never intended to be so. (Especially consider parables.)
But still, if people are going to argue Jesus's race, the stories sort of have to be considered. Jesus is supposed to be a virgin birth. Joseph isn't supposed to be so stupid as to not know he's not the father. So DaleS's suggestion that we must somehow assume Joseph *is* the father if God is not doesn't quite work. According to the story, Joseph is *definitely NOT* the father.
lucia (Comment #171697),
Agreed that the Bible gives us no information about the DNA or race of Jesus' alleged biological father. The account does let us conclude that he was biologically male, and there's no hint that his appearance differed materially from other Jews of his time period. If 1st century Jews can be considered "white", and I think they can, depictions of Jesus as such would certainly be appropriate.
.
It's true that the biblical account has conception prior to the marriage of Joseph and Mary — but that was absolutely necessary for the claim that there was a Virgin Birth, and rejecting the latter claim undercuts the claim for accepting the first. In his lifetime he was supposed to be the son of Joseph and Mary and his genealogical claim to kingship is through Joseph. (Not to mention that even if you accept that Jesus was conceived prior to marriage and doubt the virgin birth, the most likely candidate would be the man who was betrothed to her and did marry her.)
.
mark bofill (Comment #171700),
To what extent stories found in the Bible are "factually true" may depend a good deal on which story. It also depends on the book, the Bible is a collection of many different books, and unless you are a believer in Biblical inerrancy there is no requirement to apply the same standards to all books. Job is a poetical work with no known author and a little prose buffer at the beginning and end containing events that could not have been personally witnessed by the unknown author–it's fair to speculate that the author never intended the book to be understood as "factually true". Luke/Acts is a different sort of animal, with a specific claimed author who claims to have interviewed actual witnesses and is also a witness himself for some of the events of the latter part of the work. You may doubt any number of his stories *are* true, but I don't think there's any room to claim the author did not intend his writings to be taken as anything other than literally true.
lucia,
'But still, if people are going to argue Jesus's race, the stories sort of have to be considered.'
Yep, that's certainly so. I sorta lost the thread there, sorry. 🙂
Maybe it was Monty Python's Life of Brian that colored my view, but for whatever arbitrary reason I'm with SteveF on this. I'd guess some Roman.
Decades ago I was more than mildly interested in finding out what was factually known (independently or as independently as possible from religious teachings) about Jesus. My recollection is that it was darn little. An actual specific man very probably actually existed is about what I could conclude.
Some appear to believe (Jewish Talmud tradition) Jesus was actually a guy named Ben Strada or Ben Pandira, born of Miriam and Pantera.
http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusnarr.html
*shrug*
Dale,
'Luke/Acts is a different sort of animal, with a specific claimed author who claims to have interviewed actual witnesses and is also a witness himself for some of the events of the latter part of the work. You may doubt any number of his stories *are* true, but I don't think there's any room to claim the author did not intend his writings to be taken as anything other than literally true.'
…
Interesting! I don't know if I agree. I'll think about that. Are Acts and the Gospel according to Luke directly linked somehow? If I ever knew anything about that I've forgotten. I was under the impression that Gospel according to Mark was believed to be the oldest, and that even it was probably written seventy years after the fact.
Huh, would you look at this. A whole discussion about it. Shame I gotta work today…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke%E2%80%93Acts
I sure hope he is not going to put whiteface on as Beetlejuice. That's going to make somebody really really fake upset. The only thing stranger than watching this appropriation madness from the outside must be living it on the inside. Stay in your lanes!
Dale,
Sorry, neither of my responses were particularly clear or pertinent. First cup of coffee and all that. Did the author (or authors) of Luke/Acts intend the account to be taken literally? I think you're correct, probably so.
“Myth is stories about the way things never were, but always are.â€
― Marcus J. Borg
I think that people 2000 years ago were much more concerned with truth than facts. We tend to see facts as the foundation of truth. But I think that before the scientific revolution, people saw facts as decorations on the truth. So a story could be true even if the seemingly factual details were incorrect, or even entirely made up.
I guess my hemming and hawing might have been rooted in this:
There was some unknown author (or authors) of Old Testament stories too, even if these stories were told over time and changed over time – fine. Multiple authors over time, I don't think this changes the point,
the point being, does it matter if they meant their stories to be taken literally? I'm not sure it does. What's interesting about the stories may be that for some reason they were perceived to be of enough value that we are still aware of them today.
And maybe not. Maybe we aren't aware of them because they were valuable, maybe they persisted for some other reason. Dunno.
The (alleged) letter bomber was arrested in Miami area. A white male in his 50s, a former New Yorker, who lives in Aventura, Florida, who had prior arrests for terroristic threats. From the video I saw they were towing away a van covered in political stickers. Looks like a right wing wacko.
DaleS
>but that was absolutely necessary for the claim that there was a Virgin Birth, and rejecting the latter claim undercuts the claim for accepting the first. I
Not at all. If you don't believe in God or a virgin birth, Joseph *not* being the father provides motivation for the cockamaimie story. The angel story could come about by Mary and her family drugging Joseph and concocting some sort of apparition to save Mary from stoning.
>the most likely candidate would be the man who was betrothed to her and did marry her.)
No. The most likely candidate would be someone who lived near Mary's residence when she got knocked up. According to the story, that would not be Joseph because Mary was residing with her family far away from Joseph when she got knocked up. Engaged or not, a male requires physical proximity to impregnate a woman. Whether the guy later marries her or not, he still needs to be near her to get her pregnant, and according to the story, he was not.
Lucia,
"Engaged or not, a male requires physical proximity to impregnate a woman."
.
Well, 2100 years ago, yes. But not in the days of artificial insemination. 😉
Tom Scharf
>Looks like a right wing wacko.
That was always more probable than left wing whacko.
SteveF,
Good point. Perhaps they had refrigeration and a turkey baster. . .
After detailing different scoring thresholds by race, dismissing this as not a smoking gun, a New Yorker article has this to say:
"It is rather hard to imagine Harvard losing a case of such importance to its brand as social equalizer, especially in a courthouse in a town so palpably dominated by its footprint and its alumni."
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/at-trial-harvards-asian-problem-and-a-preference-for-white-students-from-sparse-country/amp
.
So the fix is in, or something. Intentions determine outcome, and as everyone knows Harvard's intentions are by definition wholesome and good. This was also illuminating:
When Fitzsimmons was asked whether he thinks “it’s impossible to abuse a holistic review process like Harvard’s,†he replied, “I do.â€
Tom,
I think it's hilarious that he claims he believes it's impossible to abuse a "holistic" review process. Almost *any* review process can be abused. Those that aren't 'blind' almost always are.
I'm sure those who used to run non-blind orchestra auditions insisted the reason so few women were picked has to do with merit. But the minute auditions went blind, women suddenly started gaining spots.
https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias
The same people who lecture about unconscious and implicit bias insist that their processes are bias free and impossible to be biased as they build in bias from the very start. They then obfuscate the entire process which has significant and measurable disparate outcomes, which the same people lecture others that disparate outcomes are proof of bias, and disparate outcomes likely means intentional bias for others. Does not compute, stack overflow, core abort. The answer was ludicrous, but likely a legal necessity to answer that way.
.
Ultimately Harvard's argument is that their bias is intentional and the morally correct bias, at least that's what they believe. This is why we have a Constitution, to protect us from exactly these types of people.
.
One of the problems many people who know they are very smart have is a belief they can BS their way through anything. The people are rubes, they can't possibly decode my masterful BS prose and misdirection.
Luica,
"…an angel of the lord came unto Joseph in a dream and told him Mary was a virgin."
.
Maybe poor Joseph just liked and cared for Mary (and maybe she was beautiful to boot!), and he figured that if he made a stink about her being pregnant, she would likely be stoned to death. Nobody knows, of course. But lots of men today marry pregnant women, even when they are not the biological father. None of this seems to me even remotely surprising… plenty of we humans are very flexible when it comes to caring for other people and not wanting to see them put to death. Thumbs up to Joseph if that is what happened.
lucia (Comment #171711) ,
If you look at the Virgin Birth claim as a pre-nativity story to avoid trouble with Joseph, your analysis makes sense. However, we lack any evidence of it being a pre-nativity story, we have it only as a post-crucifixion story, with Matthew's account being Joseph-centric and Luke's account being Mary-centric. And the point of the *post-crucifixion* Virgin Birth story is not at all to cover for pre-martial straying — it is intended to *refute* the idea that Christ's father is Joseph, "as was supposed". (I think it unlikely that Joseph was around for Matthew to directly source his information, FWIW. There's no reference to a living Joseph during the ministry, Christ passed responsibility for Mary on to a disciple, and Christ's claim on the kingship requires a dead Joseph.)
.
Matthew's brief account doesn't say if Mary told Joseph she was a virgin; but if she did she was not believed until Joseph saw an angel in a dream. If you disbelieve in angels, you may judge for yourself whether it's more likely that Joseph just had a dream; or that Mary's family somehow drugged him and playacted convincingly in the effort to keep the future marriage to a poor man (albeit with an impressive lineage) intact — if you credit Matthew's claim that he intended to end the marriage contract privately the danger from stoning was quite remote; stonings were extra-judicial lynchings in this time period and Mary had an isolated cousin to hang out with far from Nazareth.
.
Note that Mary visited her cousin *after* the conception. According to Luke 1:26 Gabriel visited Mary in Nazareth, and from Luke 2:4 we know Joseph also was resident in Nazareth. There's absolutely no "physical proximity" barrier to Joseph being the father of Christ; and that appears to be exactly what the folks in Nazareth believed. If seeking the most parsimonious explanation while rejecting all supernatural possibilities, I still think it's most probable. If I remove all the supernatural elements from Mark 1, I'm left with a story told decades after the fact, after his death, with information that could have come only from him, where he knows the child is not his but marries her and presents himself as the apparent father anyway. I think if the main claim is false, it's reasonable to think the supporting details *required* by the main claim may be false as well.
Mike M. (Comment #171708) ,
As politics and climate science alike so often illustrate, what a person believes to be truth *still* is prioritized very high in the face of contrary evidence, and "facts" are still a very flexible thing.
.
As a lover of ancient history, the principles of science do not apply well — forming hypotheses is easy, testing them is impossible without a time machine. So instead we rely on expert judgement, with historians deciding which words from ancient texts they will believe, and which they will discard instead to substitute their own idea of what must have happened. Perhaps they are right; but I must say similar approaches in more modern areas where the views *can* be checked leave me with little faith that they actually are correct. Consensus is sought, but overturned from generation to generation; the requirement for novelty when publishing demands it.
.
I prefer to rely directly on the ancient sources when possible despite their many issues, but treat it like wikipedia — this is what is said, and it might even be true.
DaleS
"We lack any evidence" applies to nearly everything about the story.
What do you mean by we only have it as a post-crucifixion story? The story line certainly has Mary pregnant before marrying Joseph. Afterwards Jesus is born. After that, Jesus is crucified. The angel coming to mary and telling her she was knocked up and another later telling Joseph would seem to be "pre-crucifixion" events according to the story. So, presumably, you mean something different by "post-crucifixion. If you only mean the stories were told after the crucifiction… well.. yeah. That's true for everything. They were all written after the events took place. They weren't announced on Twitter contemporaneously.
> it is intended to *refute* the idea that Christ's father is Joseph, "as was supposed".
Well… you seem to have decided what the story was "intended" to do much later on based on…. something.
>if you credit Matthew's claim that he intended to end the marriage contract privately the danger from stoning was quite remote; stonings were extra-judicial lynchings in this time period and Mary had an isolated cousin to hang out with far from Nazareth.
Even if she wasn't afraid of being stoned, like many families and women, she might just have wanted to get married now that she was knocked up. That's hardly implausible.
>If seeking the most parsimonious explanation while rejecting all supernatural possibilities, I still think it's most probable.
I don't. I think it's just as likely she got pregnant by someone else. That happens frequently, and could have in her case.
Anyway, for the record, in Luke 1, the angel tells Mary she *will* conceive. So she hasn't yet:
"29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.â€"
34 “How will this be,†Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?â€
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.â€
Afterthat mary heads off to Elizabeth's. So she does not seem to be pregnant while still in Nazareth.
Silly thread.
Snowing again in Greenland plus 2018 " exceptional winter snow accumulation and heavy, summer snowfall, drove the net snow input mass to 130 billion tons above the 1981 to 2010 average. This was followed by a near-average melt and runoff period, resulting in a large net mass gain for the ice sheet in 2018 of 150 billion tons. This is the largest net gain from snowfall since 1996, and the highest snowfall since 1972."
Ayn Rand Quotes. Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Relevant to weather and the Bible I would guess.
Steve,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_vv4Vk_vco
…
There! Now it's a silly thread. :p
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Npo0cmp-VY
…
This is what comes of me scripting in Python too long.
lucia (Comment #171721),
Yes, the gospels are written post-crucifixion and not immediately after, either. This means we know the context in which the gospels were composed, and *according to them* Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph. However useful stories of a Virgin Birth might have hypothetically been in the Mary-knocked-up scenario (I'm skeptical they would be useful), at the time Matthew and Luke were written that hypothetical scenario was many decades in the past — but the divinity of Jesus *was* a current issue, and all gospels claim that Jesus was the Son of God. Matthew is chock-full of stories that support the divinity of Christ and claim to be the fulfillment of ancient prophecies — this is just one of many.
.
You are correct, of course, that the Annuciation *itself* in Luke 1:29-37 is not the conception itself but merely announces such. You are also correct in saying that it is immediately followed in the text by Mary relocating to the home of Zacharias and Elizabeth (the actual time elapsed is unclear, since verse 39 simply says "in those days"). But since Luke *never* describes the actual conception, assuming that it must have happened *after* she left town is going beyond Luke. And when Mary arrives at Elizabeth's home, we have dialogue *immediately* between the two, including this from Elizabeth:
.
"Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
.
For her part, Mary's response seems to treat the conception as a past event:
"For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name."
.
I don't fault anyone who disbelieves the virgin birth for disbelieving this exchange happened as well, but the point is that within Luke, the story suggests the conception happens *prior* to Mary arriving at Elizabeth's home — and the conception itself, miraculous or not, provides an excellent practical motive for Mary to get out of town.
.
What Luke does *not* do is show that Joseph and Mary had no physical proximity at the time of the pregnancy and therefore Joseph could not be the father. If you believe Luke it could have been any time after the Annunciation, and that happened in Nazareth. If you *don't* believe that the Annunciation happened, than what you're left with is Joseph and Mary *in* Nazareth before Mary leaves to spend time with a cousin who had just spent five months hiding herself because she was pregnant. I don't see how that information could *possibly* rule out Joseph as the parent, and I think that information is entirely consistent with the conception happening in Nazareth.
.
I will freely concede that in the hypothetical Mary-got-knocked-up-by-someone-else scenario that it would be highly desirable for Mary to get married; that part is certainly plausible. It's also easy to imagine circumstances in which the actual father is not a suitable or possible marriage partner as an alternative to Joseph. It's more difficult for me to believe that a practical solution to the problem would be to invent a Virgin Birth story and somehow manufacture an angelic visitation, to be frank I can't see that working outside a bad sitcom. If she's capable of drugging Joseph to the point of believing a fake angelic visitation, she's certainly capable of drugging Joseph to the point where he will have sex with her, which would solve the problem in a *much* more practical way.
.
But that the problem existed at all is only speculative. Like the case of Alexander and Ammon-Zeus, the divine alternative to the assumed parentage is only publicized *after* Jesus has been acclaimed as divine. Neither Matthew nor Luke is written by Mary, and if Mary is Luke's source and *falsely* claims that she never had sex with anyone before Christ's birth, why should she be believed when she claims that includes Joseph, the man she married and the man who people generally thought was the father? Olympias supposedly told Alexander that he was conceived the night before her wedding by Zeus in the form of a lightning bolt; if I reject both Zeus and the lightning bolt as an impossibility, it does not follow that I then take Olympias at her word that Alexander was conceived the night before her wedding.
DaleS,
>and *according to them* Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph
Huh? Matthew and Luke are gospels. According to Luke which you cited, he's the son of God, not Joseph. According to Matthew, he is the son of God, not Joseph.
You later write
>all gospels claim that Jesus was the Son of God.
Look, either the gospels say he's the son of God or of Joseph. Not both. That's a matter of logic. In fact, they say he is the son of god, not Joseph.
Joseph brought him up. In that sense, he is like an adoptive father, but his "bio" father is supposed to be God.
>But since Luke *never* describes the actual conception, assuming that it must have happened *after* she left town is going beyond Luke.
Fair enough. But you said it happened in Nazareth according to Luke. But, in fact, that is equally beyond Luke.
She certainly had time to get knocked up at Elizabeth, where Joseph was not present.
I've got to go. But I think you should look at your argument a bit. Because you are able to see when *someone else* goes "beyond" the scripture, but not when you do. Also, you are saying contradictory, some not supported.
DaleS
>For her part, Mary's response seems to treat the conception as a past event:
"For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name."
Uh… that quite doesn't suggest Mary treats the conception as a past event. She's just been told it hasn't happened yet. She's been told God has chosen her. So: it treats the actual past event as a past event. That past event is God *choosing* her.
>but the point is that within Luke, the story suggests the conception happens *prior* to Mary arriving at Elizabeth's home
It makes no such suggestion in actual text. The angel describes her as not being with child *yet*.
here is a poem. Textually, she immediately proceeds to Elizabeths. It doesn't say immediate, but the text follows right after the announcement. That would suggest she's left before the conception.
But in anycase, there is certainly *zero* text suggesting she was pregnant when she arrives at Elizabeth's. None.
In terms of "real life", we know she leaves Nazareth. Certainly the very early days of her pregnancy are in a location where Joseph *is not present*. This 'suggests' she got pregnant in a location where Joseph is not. Mathew outright tells us Joseph does not believe he is the father and plans to divorce her. The only thing that changes his mind is the visit by the angel.
Now of this text "suggests" she was pregnant by Joseph before she left and it doesn't "suggest" she was pregnant at all.
It's rather amazing to me that with all this text that very *specifically* makes it seem impossible for Joseph to be the father, you are reading text as "suggesting" he could be. Yes. Some spots might be vague– the document is vague. But the reality is, for *whatever reason* latched on at *whatever time* the text does its best to *exclude* Joseph from being the biological father of Jesus.
If you go by the text, Joseph is NOT the biological dad of Jesus. Full stop.
>It's more difficult for me to believe that a practical solution to the problem would be to invent a Virgin Birth story and somehow manufacture an angelic visitation, to be frank I can't see that working outside a bad sitcom.
It's an unusual choice. But angels visit people with some frequency in the old testament. So I hardly think the fact that modern audiences find the angel angle ridiculous argues against the notion that Mary or her family might have cooked up such a scheme. Certainly, early christian's bought the angel angle.
>she's certainly capable of drugging Joseph to the point where he will have sex with her, which would solve the problem in a *much* more practical way.
Uhmmm… no. Your solution might not solve the problem at all. Not if she's already 3 months pregnant when returning from Cousin Elizabeth's. People knew how long babies take even back them! They could count. Joseph would still know he didn't have sex with her when she conceived.
>the divine alternative to the assumed parentage is only publicized *after* Jesus has been acclaimed as divine
In fact, the text suggests his being the son of god IS discussed before the crucifiction. In Matthew 26:63 (at least) the high priest asks Jesus if he is the son of god. If he's the son of god, he's not the son of Joseph. So, at least according to the gospels, this is discussed during his life.
(Now, if you are going to go back to the gospels were written after…. well… yeah. ALL of it was. But at least if we are going to base theories ON the gospels, Jesus's pop being god was discussed during his life.)
If you are going to discuss what would be consistent with the story *that is written* it is that Joseph is not the father and paternity being "God" was discussed before the crucifiction. Because that's what's written– same as creating loaves and fishes and so on. So if you want consistently with the story, Joseph is *not* the most plausible biological Dad. If you want inconsistency with the story, we can go all the way to Jesus did not exist. Or he existed, but didn't do anything to make people think he turned water into wine and so on.
For all you out of touch people, I present to you a video that has been viewed >1.8 billion times. Baby Shark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqZsoesa55w
.
This somehow ended up in news feed
https://twitter.com/_SJPeace_/status/1054093246736019456
.
My faith in humanity is restored. I have now used my one allocated cat video post coupon.
Tom Scharf,
Well, that expanded my musical horizons. I suppose it's well to acquaint oneself with popular cultural memes. Yet I will resist thanking you.
Tom,
I was not yet familiar with this important contribution to musical info-tainment. Nor with some of the cutest kids on the planet.
My wife tells me her friend's kids easily account for at least the .8 billion part of the views. Our kids are a little old for that sort of thing.
Those kids [in the video] *are* pretty darn cute though.
lucia (Comment #171727), lucia (Comment #171728),
I see I've created some confusion with my poor wording. I'll try to explain what I meant, but then let the subject drop unless I'm asked a question, because I think the poor frequently-beaten horse may have died a few posts back.
.
When I wrote that the gospels claim that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph, I'm using "supposed" for its meaning of "considered to be", not "ought to be". The gospels *do* claim emphatically that Jesus was actually the son of God, and have Jesus claiming that during his ministry — and as I've said, the story of the Virgin Birth is used as supporting evidence for this claim; if Mary had sex with *no* man before the birth of Christ, only God can account for his birth.
.
However, three of four gospels give evidence that during his lifetime Christ was considered to be Joseph's child *by others*. One of those attributions in the KJV is where I borrowed the word "supposed", in Luke 3:23 as Luke begins to give Joseph's ancestry back to Adam, starting with "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli". In Luke 4:22, after Jesus begins his public ministry by relating a messianic scripture to himself in the synagogue at Nazareth, the locals respond with "Is not this Joseph's son?" In Matthew 13:55-56 they ask "Is not this the carpenter's son", followed by naming his mother Mary, naming four of his brethren, and saying his sisters are all with them. In John 1:45 Philip tells Nathanael "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." The gospels are consistent on this point — as far as people in Nazareth were concerned, Jesus was the son of Joseph. And why not? Joseph was betrothed to Mary when she got pregnant and married to her when born; and when "his parents" (Luke 2:41) take him to Jerusalem in a group from Galilee at age 12 and Jesus stays behind, Mary tells him "behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing."
.
It's true that statements about Jesus being the Son of God, if taken literally instead of spiritually or adoptively (as some modern theologians at least still take it) would rule out Joseph as being the earthly father — but it only rules Joseph out at the same time that it rules every other male extant on the planet. And it *only* rules out fatherhood, it does not rule out Mary having sex with her future or current husband prior to his birth. If either Mary or Joseph made that claim pre-crucifixion that's not recorded in the gospels; if it was publicly made before Matthew/Luke recorded it, it is not known. (The claim that Mary *never* had sex in her lifetime would have to wait much longer to be made and is not found in any of the books of the Bible.)
.
With regard to the timing of conception, Luke does not give it but I had assumed it was immediately after the Annunciation, when Mary gave approval by saying "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." Commentaries I have read follow that timeline, and assume that John leaped in Elisabeth's womb because he recognized Jesus in the womb of Mary. Could I and they be wrong? Since Luke doesn't actually specify the event it can't be ruled out, but a short goggle search on variants of "was Mary pregnant when she visited Elisabeth" all turned up "yes". I personally believe the Magnficat doesn't make sense for a pre-pregnancy Mary calling the mere announcement "hath done to me great things". But YMMV — and stressing tense too much is problematic in any case, since they were unlikely to be speaking Greek. Aramaic/Hebrew doesn't have tenses in the same manner.
.
But in terms of an alternate explanation, Luke *allowing* the pregnancy to happen after she left Nazareth is not the same as Luke *prohibiting* the pregnancy from happening before she left Nazareth. The Annunciation happened in Nazareth, and Mary's departure was "in those days" — that's not immediate, so getting pregnant with Joseph in Nazareth is clearly physically possible according to the text. If you disbelieve Luke's claim that Mary had sex with no one before Christ's birth, that opens Joseph as an option.
.
If you disbelieve Matthew's claim that Joseph agreed to be a father to a child that wasn't his only because he saw an angel that reassured him, that opens the possibility that he didn't know the child wasn't his in the first place. To be clear on the angel angle, what I find difficult to believe about faking the visitation is *not* that visiting by an angel would be unbelievable to Joseph — it absolutely would not, I would expect Jews of Joseph's time to accept angelic visitation an as actual possibility, especially when (as in Joseph's case) it happened within a dream. I just can't imagine Mary could convincingly *imitate* such a thing, with or without the help of unknown relatives who would decide to cooperate in the deception for unknown reasons. Joseph would go on to have two further angelic visits during sleep, according to Matthew, which if you theorize that the *first* visit was fradulent either oblige Mary to somehow fake the second and third visit; or theorize that a legitimate angel-dream would be indistinguishable from a imitation done by a poor Jewish girl with 1st century BC technology.
.
The bottom line for me is that I don't believe the story of Joseph's reaction in Matt 1:18-25 is remotely independent of the claim that there was a virgin birth; in fact Matthew *interrupts* Joseph's story in verses 22-23 to explain this was all done to fulfill a prophesy of virgin birth. Matthew gives us Joseph's *thoughts* and Joseph's *dreams* and Joseph's *intentions* to handle the whole matter privately — the only things in the story that could be verified by somebody besides Joseph and Mary is that he married the girl he was betrothed to and acted as a father to her child once born. This is not at all remarkable if he believes the child is his, and is *highly* unusual if he knows the child is not his.
.
But I got into this digression by a claim that Jesus' father was likely Roman. Even if you believe Mary's story as it relates to Joseph, but not anyone else, I have difficulty believing that pre-marital sex done in Nazareth or Elisabeth's unnamed hill country home (according to tradition, Ein Karem) was chiefly done with Romans instead of other Jews. These are small towns, and Herod the Great was a client king with his own army — it's not known that there were *any* Roman soldiers stationed permanently in Israel before his death, let alone in small towns that to my knowledge never had any permanent garrison. Celsus' allegation is far too late to be taken seriously as evidence.
.
TLDR: If you believe in the Virgin Birth, Jesus probably looked Jewish. If you *don't* believe in the Virgin Birth, Jesus almost certainly looked Jewish.
DaleS,
As far as I can see, you treat lack of information asymetrically. If something is not said, but that thing would support your case, you assume it is true. If something is not said, but that thing would go against your case, you assume it is false. For example: the time line for Mary's pregnancy. Or the idea that John lept in Elizabeth's womb because Jesus was in Mary's womb even though the text says nothing of the sort.
You can assume lots of things, and that's fine.
But Mary was away at Elizabeth's and according to the story came back pregnant. It's true Mary may have left already pregnant and Joseph may not be ruled out. But there is really nothing to say he's the most likely father. Moreover, the one specific man who the story does say was not the father is Joseph.
Men accepting their spouses illegitimate offspring is not all that uncommon.
FWIW: I don't tend to think the dad was probably Roman. I just don't see Joseph as any more likely than "not Joseph". No matter who Jesus's bio Dad was — whether God or some man–, Jesus could be accepted as Joseph's son by adoption. Joseph treated him as a son. That's enough to explain Jesus being called Joseph's son. We use that terminology now adays, it's been common a long time. It's not evidence that Joseph was the bio-father. He might have been. Someone else might have been. We don't know.
lucia (Comment #171735),
Please forgive for me making one factual correction — the story does not say that Mary "came back pregnant". In Luke the first verse explicitly calling Mary pregnant is Luke 2:5 at which point Joseph is on the way to Bethlehem, "To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." Matthew's account does not mention Mary's visit to Elisabeth at all.
My kids may be too old for babyshark, but the band played it tonight at their football game. The cheerleaders did the little hands thing.
And now for religion and politics:
https://imgur.com/XYJ9TFb
Trump Derangement Syndrome is in full force this week, at least 4 mainstream outlets ran articles blaming Trump for the Pittsburgh shootings, even though he has been an ardent supporter of Israel and he has Jewish family members. Ironically they use that fact as why it is his fault in at least one article. The most strident believers of love and tolerance also went out of their way to say he isn't welcome to visit Pittsburg which the media sought out and amplified.
.
Before this word gets conveniently redefined by those who know best, here is the definition of tolerance in 2018:
"the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with".
.
But you can't tolerate the intolerant, can you? Of course you can. If you aren't tolerating the people who are intolerant (… of your views …), then who are you tolerating? Tolerance isn't tolerating people who think just like you but look slightly different.
.
Should we tolerate mass murderers? Should we tolerate pedophiles? Where does one draw the line. Society draws lines, and people can draw their lines differently. Love the person, hate that act was what I heard in my childhood at church. That's not an easy task, and it is honorable if one can really do that, but it's pretty rare in real life.
.
In any event, if you want to espouse your own brand of hatred all while covering yourself in a false cloak of tolerance I'm not buying it.
.
Trump is a perfect character test for those who overtly call themselves tolerant. These people need to look up the definition of psychological projection.
https://i0.wp.com/www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/donald-trump-wins-the-presidency-cartoon-beeler.jpg?w=620&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C9999px
DaleS,
Fair enough. The text doesn't say she came back from Elizabeth's pregnant. But in your interpretation, she did– even if that was only because she was pregnant before she left and did not miscarry.
DeWitt Payne,
I thought it was well accepted that Hell has a wall. Otherwise, it wouldn't need gates. Everyone knows Hell has gates.
You can check into Hell, but you can't check out.
Tom Scharf,
>Should we tolerate mass murderers? Should we tolerate pedophiles?
The depends entirely on what one thinks "tolerate" means. We aren't required to invite them into our own homes nor to allow them to continue their practices. If you agree with me on these things, and we use the dictionary definition of "tolerate" we do NOT have to tolerate these people, and mostly we don't.
I say mostly we don't because Larry Nassar was allowed free reign by many for a long time. Other pedophiles seem to get away with things for a long time. So it seems some people either don't disapprove of them at all, or they tolerate them.
There are somethings we accept and endure with forbearance. Presidents we don't like generally fall in this category. We endure them until they are voted out or reach the end of their last term. There isn't really much else we can do without violating the law. So we sort of have to tolerate them.
That doesn't mean we can't criticize them.
Trump engages is nasty rhetoric. I don't like it. I'd be cautious about saying his rhetoric caused that guy to send pipebombs. The guy was a nut. Perhaps he was swayed…. or not. Perhaps his rhetoric swayed the guy who killed Jews in Pittsburgh. However, it's worth nothing antiSemites killing Jews predates Trump by a long time. There were people who tried to kill Jews during Obama's era. That they didn't manage to kill as many isn't strongly related to the president's rhetoric.
Tom Scharf (Comment #171742): "You can check into Hell, but you can't check out."
So if I set out some Roach Motels, that makes me the cockroach equivalent of Satan?
Tom Scharf (Comment #171739): "Trump Derangement Syndrome is in full force this week, at least 4 mainstream outlets ran articles blaming Trump for the Pittsburgh shootings, even though he has been an ardent supporter of Israel and he has Jewish family members."
There is also the fact that Trump has consistently criticized extremists (including those on the right) and condemned violence (including from the right). Whereas few Democrats are willing to criticize Antifa, the people mobbing Republican officials, etc.
I guess Obama supported gays too much, therefore he caused the Orlando shooting. That doesn't really seem like an argument I heard the MSM assert a while back. There is no doubt that over the top rhetoric can potentially set off the people on the edge of sanity. One good data point would be to ask people what motivated them and start there, but people seem to skip that step and jump right to "if not for the other side". If rhetoric did or did not cause a tipping point is pure speculation. My guess is most people who are that crazy were likely to become violent one way or the other. I present zero evidence for this. Many crazies do violent things daily and usually to their family, friends, and neighbors, that some choose to do it to strangers is to be expected. How preventable these things are is debatable.
.
I still can't believe Trump hasn't had an assassination attempt yet. I'm a bit worried for the SC justices once the left regains power. There are others ways to correct the imbalance other than packing the court.
Glenn Greenwald comments on the crazy guy Brazil just elected and its part in the ongoing worldwide populism trend. 8 minutes.
https://youtu.be/rq2pvabDN7c
Tom,
I would say that the last two elected Presidents of Brazil, you know, the one currently in prison and the other one impeached and removed from office for corruption, also qualified as populists. They were also crooked, as was the party to which they belonged. IMO, Bolsonaro's election was a rejection of the elites and their obvious corruption, not so much a turn to populism. I count Hugo Chavez and his successor Maduro as populists too. Populism, it seems to me, is a tool that can be used by progressives and conservatives, rather than an ideology.
lucia,
Hell's gate is always open for new arrivals.
Let me qualify what I meant about populism as a tool.
I consider populism to be more of a rhetorical tool rather than an ideology per se. It's always a claim that the elites are abusing their power. But in the case of Brazil, the party in power was also claiming to be protecting the people, as did Chavez and does Maduro. So it's not a turn to populism in Brazil, but a contest between people claiming to be populists, but with different ideologies.
I see that < and > still don't let you invoke italics or do other HTML things.
"Bolsonaro's election was a rejection of the elites and their obvious corruption, not so much a turn to populism."
.
That's basically what Greenwald said. It isn't the acceptance of the ideology that is driving it, it is the arrogance of the elites and their failure to perform some introspection, instead the elites lash out against those who criticize them thus making their situation even more unstable. It seems even the meritocratic elites suffer the same weaknesses as the royal elites before them.
I'm sure this is purely coincidental, and count me among those who take extreme umbrage against those who think that this is politically motivated. Harvard has now included explicit written guidelines to its admissions officers on how and when they may consider race.
.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/29/reading-procedures/
"A copy of the guidelines obtained by The Crimson — in which Harvard outlines application "reading procedures" for the Class of 2023 — explicitly prohibits officers from pondering a candidate's race when assigning scores for personal traits. The admissions office releases a new set of reading procedures to officers each year, though normally the documents remain confidential."
…
"While the new guidelines prohibit the use of race when determining personal scores, the documents also urge officers to consider whether a student’s racial or ethnic background “may contribute to the educational benefits of diversity at Harvard College†when assigning overall scores."
.
That sure clears things up. I just cannot believe, and am totally amazed, beyond comprehension, that this was "leaked" somehow. We need to track down those evildoers. Thankfully this has been fixed now and we can just stop this useless trial.
Tom,
But one of the problems is that they are becoming less meritocratic. Otherwise, Asian students wouldn't be suing Harvard over its undergraduate admission policies. It wouldn't surprise me to eventually see black students who flunked out of Harvard suing because they were admitted.
Tom,
So you can't consider race when scoring an application but you must consider race before scoring an application. The White Queen in Through the Looking Glass would love that, six impossible things before breakfast indeed. In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy text game, Arthur Dent also had to have two mutually exclusive things in one's mind (tea and no tea) before Marvin, the paranoid android, would consider him intelligent enough to let into his cabin and thus start the final sequence of play to win the game.
So… they are "forbidden" from considering race when assessing something quite subjective like giving points to tally the degree to whether someone is "effervescent" but can consider it when making an ultimate decision about actually admitting them based on the other "points".
This will leave them precisely where the were before the suit: They'll just insist that all the asian students are *objectively* less "effervescent" (or kind or whatever) than others and point out that people were directed to ignore race when making these fairly subjective diagnoses of personality. And then they'll permit themselves also ding asians at some later point.
DeWitt,
Corruption runs so deep in Brazil that people would elect the Devil if they thought he would end the corruption. Bolsonaro may or may not be as corrupt as those he replaces; only time will tell. One thing is certain: Brazil is in much worse shape than Illinois when it come to outrageous public employee retirement liabilities… retired bureaucrats in Brazil are the leach that sucks the body politic dry. I hope Bolsonaro can make progress on this and the widespread corruption, but I am not optimistic.
Lucia,
There is zero chance Harvard will change its racial quotas in admissions, whether they win the case or lose, and even if they have to ultimately abandon Federal funding. The “discriminate but don’t discriminate†guidance only confirms their commitment to racial quotas. Havard is clearly a lost cause, but other schools will change their admissions policies if it means they may lose all Federal funds.
SteveF,
You are likely right. If Harvard took no Federal funds, I wouldn't care if they discriminate in admissions.
I imagine Harvard students take federal loans/grants, is this incorrect? And if so, would they still be able to discriminate in admissions?
.
According to the NCAA's title IX faq, "Title IX applies to all educational institutions, both public and private, that receive federal funds. Almost all private colleges and universities must abide by Title IX regulations because they receive federal funding through federal financial aid programs used by their students." Harvard has a Title IX office, though I think they would want to embrace it even if it weren't required.
The goal of many people is simply that schools with racist admission policies be identified as such, regardless of whether they think it is morally correct racism. They can sell their higher morals story if they want, but simultaneously be identified as racists by the law. Harvard is overtly racist by any reasonable definition, and yet see themselves as anti-racist heroes. You literally have to be racist against the majority to self identify as today's meaning of the term anti-racist, which is favoring minority races over the majority.
.
Completely absent now in any discussion by the media and academia is "judge a person by their character", it has devolved into "judge a person by their identity". I suspect that a large silent majority are in the prior camp, not the latter camp. The elites can signal their moral superiority to each other all they want in the wokeness Olympics, but they should not be allowed to legally execute it. When they try, it should be stopped. Thankfully we have laws for this.
Dale S,
"I imagine Harvard students take federal loans/grants, is this incorrect? And if so, would they still be able to discriminate in admissions?"
.
To the first question: yes, many of their students take Federally subsidized loans.
.
If Harvard is found by Federal Courts to be discriminating in violation of the law, then their students would not be allowed to take Federally subsidized loans.
.
But in the specific case of Harvard, this is not a big issue. The average return on Harvard's existing endowment is significantly larger than the entire operating budget of the university, including all staff, teaching, and research expenditures (including Federal research grants). Besides, Harvard has an almost unlimited number of applicants who's families are wealthy… they could just raise tuition for the wealthy applicants and grant more financial assistance to less wealthy applicants. IOW, Harvard has the f-you money to walk away from all Federal funding if they choose to. If they lose the case all the way to the Supreme Court, I am betting that is exactly what they will do. They have already said they will NEVER adopt race-blind admissions.
Private religious schools discriminate to fulfill their mission. If they say we don't want Marxist atheists coming to our school then people just shrug. Title IX exempts religious discrimination, and allows all boy/girl schools. Religious schools also discriminate against LGBT students. However, religious schools don't pretend they aren't doing it while they do it and everyone knows the score.
Tom Scharf,
"Completely absent now in any discussion by the media and academia is "judge a person by their character", it has devolved into "judge a person by their identity". "
.
Yup. Martin Luther King's dream has been turned on its head by 'progressives':
MLK's "..judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin" has become "…judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character"…. to get a mixture of skin colors that enlightened progressives find acceptable. All deplorables are now racists for adopting MLK's words.
.
Orwell would surely chuckle at the unfolding spectacle.
SteveF (Comment #171761): "But in the specific case of Harvard, this is not a big issue. The average return on Harvard's existing endowment is significantly larger than the entire operating budget of the university"
It is a huge issue. Say that the operating budget is $1.0 billion, endowment income is $1.5 billion and the loss of income is $0.5 billion. A half billion is still a half billion. If they wanted to spend endowment money on teaching and research, they'd be doing that now. They aren't doing so, because growing the endowment is a big priority.
Mike M,
"It is a huge issue."
.
It is not so big an issue compared to being forced into race-blind admissions. As I noted, Harvard can increase tuition and fees to raise much more money as well…. lots of desperate-but-not-brilliant kids from very wealthy families are out there. Sure, Harvard would rather have the taxpayer pick up a big chunk of operating costs and continue to grow their already huge endowment, but that doesn't mean they will ever compromise on racially motivated admissions.
>Besides, Harvard has an almost unlimited number of applicants who's families are wealthy… they could just raise tuition for the wealthy applicants and grant more financial assistance to less wealthy applicants.
Perhaps. But if they they may be under pressure to accept an even larger fraction of wealthy students. At some point,the "diversity" argument would become ridiculous because they'd have only the very wealthy and those poor enough or "desirable" enough to be heavily subsidized. Cutting out the hard working middle class wouldn't seem to advance "diversity".
>IOW, Harvard has the f-you money to walk away from all Federal funding if they choose to. If they lose the case all the way to the Supreme Court, I am betting that is exactly what they will do. They have already said they will NEVER adopt race-blind admissions.
Hillsdale college does not allow students to use federal loan or grant money.
https://www.hillsdale.edu/admissions-aid/financial-aid/
Harvard is free to do the same. It would be more honest if they did. Other schools could do the same. If the do, that's fine with me.
lucia,
Note that's Hillsdale college, not university. Having graduate schools, particularly in STEM, gives you an entirely different attitude toward federal funding. I'd say they would lose research faculty members in STEM if they dropped all federal funding.
Not to mention the old saw: Never and always are two words you should always remember never to use.
DeWitt, Lucia,
Of course is is very prudent to avoid ‘always’ and ‘never’ when evaluating a complicated subject. But in this case, I am perfectly comfortable predicting Harvard will NEVER use race-blind admissions. Harvard is the ‘social justice’ center of the USA (and the global center of effite and obnoxious snobbery, obviously). Racial admissions quotas are part and parcel of Harvard’s social justice ‘mission’. ‘Never’ in this case is the lifetime of all those who read this blog at the end of October, 2018.
Lucia,
“Cutting out the hard working middle class wouldn't seem to advance "diversity".â€
.
I really doubt Harvard gives the smallest hoot about the hard working middle class. If they did, their admissions policies would be very different. Harvard is looking for “social justice†(AKA ‘disadvantaged’ people gaining the same outcome, whether deserved or not). Harvard most certainly is not interested in reward for merit, the fundamental issue in the lawsuit. Which is why I think Harvard has the morality of worms. No, sorry, that unfairly insults worms. YMMV
SteveF (Comment #171765): "It is not so big an issue compared to being forced into race-blind admissions."
I doubt that. Money talks.
If was just undergrad grants and loans, maybe. But as DeWitt points out, giving up federal research funding is probably a non-starter.
Hmm. Something weird happening with the site. This is a test message.
Harvard wasn't willing to risk losing federal funds after they lost their challenge to the Solomon Amendment at the Supreme Court 9-0. They used MIT's ROTC to meet their obligation. Should we downgrade the law school be with all these professors filing briefs on the wrong side of a 9-0 decision?
Lawrence Summers was fired after he said that woman are less likely to be interested in engineering. At the time, it was reported that the real reason they were upset was because he suggested testing affirmative action at Harvard with some race blind admissions and comparing the two group outcomes.
As a ridiculous example of what anti-racism now means, here is CNN's Lemon while discussing Trump's rhetoric on the caravan:
"We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them, there is no travel ban on them. There is no ban — you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white-guy ban. So what do we do about that?"
Tom Scharf,
“…realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.â€
.
Wait… what? I’m a big terror threat? And what must they do about me and my ‘threat’? When exactly was I radicalized, before or after birth? CNN’s Lemon is the best possible explanation for why the Constitution has a right to keep and bear arms.
Ironically, the “radicalization†(which I would say is simply more strident opposition and a refusal to be silenced by cries of racism etc) of “the right†is a reactive move to fuckwits like Lemon with distinctly sinister POVs.
Michael Anton(Flight 93 Election) argues that elimination of birthright citizenship for children of illegal(and legal?) aliens and tourists is constitutional.
https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/birthright-citizenship-a-response-to-my-critics/
While Trump continues to be a parody of the politician, anyone who has observed the current political ads and debates would know that that caricature and parody are not really exaggerations but rather the norm. At this point I see little or no difference between Trump's lies and exaggerations and those that your everyday politician uses in attempts to get elected/reelected to office. It is all far from what we were taught in Civics 101 and, of course, much closer to the real world.
The Illinois's 6th congressional district where I reside has a political hack running against the Republican incumbent whom I view from a libertarian perspective as far from the ideal. Based on the signs for the Republican opponent in my neighborhood, which tends to be predominately Republican, if used as a proxy for voter enthusiasm, I see a blue wave on the horizon. I am wondering if that wave comes to fruition whether the Trumpsters will be as positive about the voting public.
The further democracy gets away from a government that is strictly limited in its powers the more some of us can see its great weaknesses. Unfortunately that is not the case with the intellectual class or the voting public. Too often we hear how great democracy is without the caveat that it must be limited. Happy election day to all next Tuesday.
Mike N,
Who the heck is Michael Anton? What is Flight 93? (Real questions.)
I suspect that should this go to the SCOTUS he will find 9 justices who disagree with him. We'll…. see….
Lucia,
Anton whote an essay before the 2016 election, scolding fellow conservatives for accepting Hillary’s election and the continuing loss of personal liberty which would inevitably follow. The essay was brutal: https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/
Lucia,
I suspect the case, were it to go to the SC, would go 5-4 or 6-3, not 9-0.
Mike N,
“At the time, it was reported that the real reason they were upset was because he suggested testing affirmative action at Harvard with some race blind admissions and comparing the two group outcomes.â€
.
Never heard that before. References?
SteveV,
Why do you think 5-4? The precedent for birth right citizenship for all *except* slaves predates the 14th amendment.
Granted, travel was different back the in those days. But the more conservative justices would really need to tap dance to vote against birthright citizenship. Do you think the liberal justices would vote against it? Because I'm not seeing that.
I don't see how one can argue that the Fourteenth Amendment can be interpreted differently than its plain language meaning yet argue that the Second Amendment can't. If you're against birthright citizenship, then you can also kiss gun ownership goodby.
The precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 is pretty clear, IMO. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark ) Quite frankly, I don't see that, absent a constitutional amendment, there's a difference between being on US soil legally or not. One is still subject to the laws, i.e. under the jurisdiction, of the United States.
The born here language is clear, but the "subject to jurisdiction of the United States" is more ambiguous. I could see the rationale that a child of parents illegally present in the United States is not actually subject to our jurisdiction. Wong Kim Ark's parents were legally present in the US, so the precedent doesn't automatically cover that case.
Dale S,
"subject to jurisdiction of the United States" is more ambiguous."
No, it's not. It's not ambiguous to the slightest degree. Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They have diplomatic immunity. They are not subject to arrest and trial for violations of US law. They can only be declared persona non grata and made to leave the country. Their children born in the US, therefore, do not become citizens. If illegal aliens were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they, like diplomats, couldn't be arrested for anything, including being illegally present on US soil.
Dewitt,
> If illegal aliens were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they, like diplomats, couldn't be arrested for anything, including being illegally present on US soil.
Precisely. And they are charged, tried and jailed. Quick googling for illegal alien murder shows a case of one charged for murder in Iowa
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/08/21/mollie-tibbetts-has-been-found-dead-a-month-after-she-vanished-authorities-say/?utm_term=.fabe3f0850f0
Illegal aliens are subject to both criminal and civil laws and both federal and state courts have jurisdiction over these cases. There isn't any argument about this.
Jurisdiction is a legal term and one courts are *very* familiar with. It does not mean "allegiance" it doesn't mean "subject to US taxes". It didn't mean "allegiance" at the time the 14th amendment was written and ratified.
Like it or not, the 14th amendment was written to make it very, very difficult for those who still harbored sentiments to deprive former slaves of citizenship to dream up ways to prevent them from being granted citizenship. The way the text is worded, to deprive former slaves of citizenship, the state and federal government would have had to insulate the former slaves from all state and federal law, leaving them free to murder, rape, pillage, steal, void contracts and do all sorts of things without interference of the state or federal police or justice system.
It would be very, very difficult for anyone who interprets the constitution by original meaning of the text or even original intent to decide that children born of illegal aliens don't get birthright citizenship.
I realize some people are "living constitutionalists". But my impression is the justices in that camp tend to be liberal, and I don't see them voting to deprive people of birthright citizenship either!
I think if someone wants birthright citizenship to go away for longer than it takes SCOTUS to overrule a Trump executive order, that person is going to have to campaign for a constitutional amendment. I don't think they'll get their way.
lucia (Comment #171782): "The precedent for birth right citizenship for all *except* slaves predates the 14th amendment."
I don't think that is correct. Prior to the 14th amendment, people could be excluded from citizenship based on race.
————–
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171785): "It's not ambiguous to the slightest degree".
"subject to jurisdiction of the United States" most certainly is ambiguous. There are two ways to read it. One is that taken by the majority in Wong Kim Ark: Subject to our laws. The other is that taken by the dissenters: Not beholden to a foreign power.
I think that the latter interpretation is more reasonable, at least as regards to people who have not explicitly accepted U.S. authority by getting permanent resident status. If this came before SCOTUS, they might well decide the adopt the argument that prevailed 120 years ago. But they would not have to do that.They might well make a distinction that did not exist 120 years ago, when passports were rare and visas were, I think, unheard of.
.
That said, I personally support birthright citizenship for practical reasons. I hope that Trump is just using his proposal as a bargaining chip to get Democrats to negotiate on sensible immigration reform.
Let's paraphrase Dale S's statement using the Second Amendment:
The keep and bear arms language is clear but "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is more ambiguous.
In fact, unless you have read the relevant Federalist Papers, it's likely far more ambiguous than "subject to the jurisdiction". At the time, people were quite worried that the Federal Government would become tyrannical. The Second Amendment was specifically designed to calm those fears. I suspect that if the state legislatures of the time could see what's happening now, they would not have adopted the Constitution as then drafted, particularly the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment.
As I said above, if you can torture the meaning of jurisdiction into something other than what was meant at the time, you can certainly do the same to well regulated militia. Anyone who supports Trump's proposed executive order might as well turn in their guns now. The next Democratic President will certainly issue an executive order requiring it.
Mike M.,
If the drafter(s) of the Fourteenth Amendment had meant 'not beholden to a foreign power' rather than 'subject to the laws' as the meaning of jurisdiction, they would have said so. Native American reservations were effectively foreign powers at the time of the passage. Native American children born on reservations were not granted citizenship. Native American children born off the reservation were.
It's not just children of foreign diplomats who were excluded by the original language — it also excluded native American tribes, despite the fact that they were born in the United States. Indians generally did not have diplomatic immunity and could be arrested, imprisoned, and even executed. According to wikipedia, the 14th amendment did not extend to granting citizenship to tribal citizens until 1924 (Indian Citizenship Act). According to Wikipedia on Elk vs Wilkins in 1884: "The syllabus of the decision explained that a Native person "who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution."
.
Currently the children of illegal immigrants *are* taxed and recognized as citizens, so any act of congress attempting to address "jurisdiction" over such couldn't be applied retroactively. But that congress couldn't address it *at all* I don't think is known for sure. At a minimum, there are some legal-types today who think they could.
Dale S,
" But that congress couldn't address it *at all* I don't think is known for sure. At a minimum, there are some legal-types today who think they could."
As an example, there's this piece in the Pest:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/31/trump-is-half-right-congress-can-end-birthright-citizenship/?utm_term=.c99cdfcd299b
I agree that Congress controls naturalization, including who can be naturalized, by passing laws regulating it. But the amendment states born OR naturalized. Considering that birthright citizenship is, as they say about Roe v. Wade, settled law, Congress would have to be very careful about wording any law that attempted to redefine jurisdiction to exclude the children of, for example, illegal immigrants from birthright citizenship and still pass Supreme Court muster.
That it could be done legally by executive order is purest fantasy.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171788): "If the drafter(s) of the Fourteenth Amendment had meant 'not beholden to a foreign power' rather than 'subject to the laws' as the meaning of jurisdiction, they would have said so."
Nonsense. There is absolutely no reason they should have used the terminology that might be preferred 150 years in the future. The question is what those words would have meant at the time. Just 15 years later, SCOTUS expressed a majority opinion on that: "The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins#Decision
.
Hmm. Harlan dissented in both Elk v. Wilkins and Wong Kim Ark. Gray was in the majority in both. All the other justices were different. Maybe there is something interesting there.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171788),
The militia clause in the second amendment certainly is ambiguous and its meaning has been hotly debated. Fortunately it has been (IMO properly) interpreted more as a justification than a requirement — militias may be necessary, but the right is given to the *people*, not just well regulated militias. Nothing in the second amendment is granted to militias as such.
In the fourteenth amendment, the jurisdiction clause *is* a requirement. You have to be born or naturalized *and* you have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Ambiguity in what "jurisdiction" means affects actual citizenship. Whether it covers the children of slaves (yes) or children of diplomats (no) was never in doubt. For children of foreign citizens legally here, the majority of the court thought it should cover them, but it was not unanimous. For a native born on a reservation, but who left the reservation and denounced his tribal citizenship, the majority of the court thought it should not cover it (again not unanimous). Through acts of congress that changed completely, without the supreme court having to overturn their earlier decision.
I don't think there's any chance that an executive order by Trump would be upheld by the Supreme Court, and I'd lay odds against a congressional act getting past the judiciary as well. The only fool-proof way to change it would be a constitutional amendment, and politically I see no chance of that happening. All I'm saying is that the lawyers saying that it *might not* require a constitutional amendment *might* be right.
Whether Trump's proposed EO would be a good idea even if it somehow passed constitutional muster is a separate issue. For my own part, I don't begrudge citizenship to children of illegals, as long as the child's citizenship isn't used to prevent the parents from being subject to immigration law themselves.
MikeM,
Before the 14th amendement US constitution didn't decree who was a citizen. Congress and in the colonial period, States, wrote the laws for citizenship. But birthright citizenship excluding children of enslaved mothers was the rule and there were inheritance cases enforcing that rule. Special exceptions existed for American Indians (because the constitution had special exceptions for American Indians, who in some ways were considered other nations inside the territory of the US.)
The exclusion wasn't "by race". It was by (a) slavery and (b) being a member of a *special* "foreign nation" that was particularly called out.
Mike M.,
The key point in Elk v. Wilkins was that Elk was born on a reservation. At the time, reservations were considered quasi-foreign powers and the residents weren't citizens. So when he was born, he was not subject to the full legal and political jurisdiction of the US. That situation does not apply anymore. Show me a case where a Native American tribe member born off a reservation was legally denied citizenship after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Here's a question: Would a child of non-diplomat, non-citizens born in a foreign embassy in the US have birthright citizenship? I would say not, but I don't know if there is any case law that applies.
MikeM
>I think that the latter interpretation is more reasonable, at least as regards to people who have not explicitly accepted U.S. authority by getting permanent resident status.
You may think it more reasonable. But it lost out. So the precedent is "subject to our laws". Of course justices can flip. But in the present circumstances I'd say there is not one chance in hell that would happen.
"Subject to our laws" that is what "jurisdiction" *normally* means. You have to torture the meaning of "jurisdiction" to decide it means something else. You have to convince judges the word doesn't mean what they think it does when they decide "jurisdictional issues".
Perhaps "living constitutionalists" would do that. But the "living constitutionalists" on the court are liberals who aren't likely to want to decide language changed to mean that. It's hard to believe the textualists ever would. The strict contructionists, and textualists the conservatives.
So I just don't see how this case doesn't come out 9-0 on the side of "jurisdiction" meaning "subject to our laws". It's easy to stick with precedent and there won't be any judges wanting to flip on this. Trump's view will almost certainly lose.
DaleS,
If you are using Elk to argue about jurisdiction you need to recognize that he was born on a reservation, and the issue of *who has jurisdiction* on an *indian reservation* is one that evolved. At many points in history, the federal government and states did not have jurisdiction on indian reservations. Reservations are inside the outer boundaries of the US, but they are little jurisdictional islands.
For that reason, the "jurisdiction of" specifically excluded those born on Indian reservations because the reservations were seen as outside the jurisdiction of the United states.
In contrast, the current broo-ha-ha is about people born in places like LA, Chicago, Iowa, New York. There is no doubt that, unless granted diplomatic immunity, people in these locations fall under the jurisdiction of the US!
Lucia,
I suspect the Supreme Court would uphold birthright citizenship, even for the children of illegal aliens, somewhere between 5-4 and 6-3 (or maybe 7-2), not the other way around.
.
But I doubt the legal case is as airtight as you and DeWitt are suggesting. Judge Richard Posner (the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century, according to Wikipedia) has argued in a decision (Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2003)) as follows:
.
"[O]ne rule that Congress should rethink … is awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States (… United States v. Wong Kim Ark …), including the children of illegal immigrants whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U.S. citizenship on their as yet unborn children…. We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children…. A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule … but I doubt it…. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense…. Our [judges'] hands, however, are tied. We cannot amend the statutory provisions on citizenship and asylum."
.
The 14th amendment was passed to protect the citizenship of former slaves following the Civil War, and never intended to confer citizenship to the offspring of people in the United States temporarily or unlawfully. The Wong Kim Ark decision does not really address the question of unlawful or temporary presence in the USA, since Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanently and legally resident in the USA.
.
Last year I was in a line at the local Social Security Administration office, and by chance there was a young woman behind me in line with a 3 week old baby girl, along with an older man who turned out to be the mother's uncle. They were speaking Brazilian Portuguese, so I struck up a conversation. Turned out the uncle resided in the same town as me (legal or illegal, I did not ask). The young woman had come to the USA at 8 months pregnant, and had her baby here. I asked if she had come to the USA to live here, and if her daughter's father was also here. She explained that her husband remained in Sao Paulo, and that she had only come to the USA on a tourist visa to make sure her daughter was a US citizen. She was standing in line to present the birth certificate and get a social security number, so that she could then apply for a US passport for her daughter. Her uncle was with her because she did not speak any English. She said would return to Brazil with her daughter as soon as a passport was issued.
.
I can perfectly well understand the attraction of gaming the system to benefit your child; I don't understand why the USA tolerates it.
SteveF,
I think given current law, it is air tight. Posner's opinions should be given high weight, but he isn't speaking ex cathedra as it were. I noticed also that he didn't come out and say how he thought a change in the law could be worded that would pass muster, only that it might be possible. I don't think it would be a trivial job. I also don't think it would pass Congress any time soon, especially if the Democrats take the House next week.
Then there's the converse of my previous question: Would a child born of non US citizens in a US embassy on foreign soil be a US citizen. I'm less confident about the answer to that, but I lean to yes.
lucia (Comment #171797),
According to wikipedia (and since it's wikipedia, it may well be incorrect), the determining factor in Elk wasn't that the *reservation* wasn't under the jurisdiction of the U.S., it was that Elk himself owed allegience to the tribe from the moment of being born. They write:
-begin quote-
Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth. "The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
-end quote-
Quote marks surround text from the decision, judging by the footnote. It's not clear to me that Elk being born on a reservation, as opposed to being born off-reservation to Winnebago non-citizens, would make any difference. When the 14th amendment was passed there were many, many natives who were not born on reservations and AFAIK none of them acquired citizenship as a result of the amendment.
.
OTOH, Wong Kim Ark was, I presume, a citizen of China from the moment of his birth, and that case was decided differently. That decision did not overrule Elk, as citizens of native nations continued to be excluded after that decision. But when Elk was overturned by congressional action, I don't think it was about whether the US was sovereign on reservations. It was about whether the US cared if an individual native had citizenship in an Indian tribe or not.
DeWitt,
Posner is just one legal scholar, and of course, there are other opposing legal opinions. The question of unlawful residency was never directly addressed by the Court in Wong Kim Ark, nor in any other case as far as I can tell, so however the Court would rule should the question come before it, the issue is not simple at all.
.
I think the key point here is that the wording of the 14th amendment, while perfectly understandable for the situation in 1866 (with southern states wanting to declare freed slaves not citizens of those states), has the unfortunate consequence of leading to outcomes which were never foreseen and never intended. This is exactly opposite the situation for the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which was clearly intended to arm citizens so they could resist a future government gone wrong, and where a "strict construction" of the text is consistent with the original intent of the amendment. I don't give much weight to arguments about "strict construction" based only on text, but I give great weight to "strict construction" based on both text and original intent (and original understanding!).
.
Birthright citizenship based on physical presence (and especially unlawful physical presence) is not common outside the USA, while birthright citizenship based on parental citizenship, independent of physical location, is very common… indeed, nearly universal. Nearly all those "anchor babies" in the USA with unlawful resident parents also have citizenship in their parents' countries. Eliminating birthright citizenship based on unlawful physical presence would not be in any way unusual.
Dale
Sure. He was an Indian born on an Indian reservation. The two conditions combined caused him to not be born under jurisdiction of the US. Had he been born to Indians who'd severed relations with the Indian tribe and left the Indian reservation, he'd have been born under US jurisdiction.
>many, many natives who were not born on reservations and AFAIK none of them acquired citizenship as a result of the amendment.
I agree many were not born on reservations. But I think you are just making up the idea that none aquired citizenship as a result of the amendment. Elk thought he had it by virtue of birth. I doubt he developed this idea out of nowhere. More likely he got the idea because he knew Indians (born off the reservation) who had gotten citizenship by virtue of the amendment. He just thought severing his relationship would be enough; turned out he was wrong about that.
SteveF,
I actually agree that our birthright citizenship are too lenient. I don't think citizenship should be granted to foreigners visiting the US for 1 or 2 months on a vacation visa. That's silly. I also don't think those drafting it really thought about travel becoming so easy in the future that people would come here for 1 or 2 months just to gain citizenship and then go home.
But I think "jurisdiction" is interpreted as subject to the laws of the state and I think that's how judges will see it.
I know you didn't bring up Elk. But it is being brought up. I think the exception for indians was that the reservations were in at least some ways considered not under the jurisdiction. So Elk, being born of Indian parents (subject to the jurisdiction of an Indian Tribe) and born on an Indian reservation was born under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe. Had his mother lived off the reservation then he would have been born under the jurisdiction of the US. But he wasn't. He was born on the reservation to people who belonged to the tribe and, as such, were living under the jurisdiction of the tribe.
Anyway, I don't think the 14th amendment going to be thrown out by SCOTUS. I could turn out to be wrong.
>That it could be done legally by executive order is purest fantasy.
Why is that? There is no law passed by Congress granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants or tourists, just one that uses the same language as the 14th Amendment. If Congress can pass a law overturning birthright citizenship, then an executive order clarifying what is meant by the language in the 14th amendment should work about as well. Both would be going against practice and the presumed meaning in the Constitution, but not explicitly overturning Supreme Court precedent.
The Supreme Court's affirmation of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants is in a footnote of an opinion by Justice Brennan.
>Birthright citizenship based on physical presence (and especially unlawful physical presence) is not common outside the USA,
But not relevant to a Supreme Court proceeding.
(edit not appearing in prior post)
I think Supreme Court would rule 8-1 or 7-2 against a change. Despite my prior argument, I think a law passed by Congress would do better.
MikeN
> I think a law passed by Congress would do better.
I think the Executive Order would certainly go down in flames. SCOTUS could even rule narrowly, merely deeming it violating federal law. Or they could rule based on the US constitution.
If federal law were changed, the ruling would need to be based on the US constitution. But the law isn't going to be changed especially not if Democrats retake the house.
Lucia, in both cases, the argument from the Supreme Court would be the same, as the federal law that is being violated has the same language as the 14th amendment.
Lucia,
“Anyway, I don't think the 14th amendment going to be thrown out by SCOTUS. I could turn out to be wrong.â€
.
The SC is never going to throw out the 14th Ammendment; they can’t do that. What the Court could do is revise/clarify Wong Kim Ark to allow limitations on citizenship for children born of a mother with an unlawful or brief physical presence in the USA. Will they do that to support a Trump executive order? Almost certainly not, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely. A revised Federal law setting the same limits would have a better chance at the SC, but even that is probably less than 50:50. Democrats in the Senate would filibuster any such proposed law, of course, so revised law is not happening. So in the short term, an executive order is the only (remotely) possible path toward restricting birthright citizenship. I suspect Trump would issue such an order as much to bring the issue to the public as to expect the order to stand. There are probably 100 ‘progressive’ judges who would immediately block the executive order…. but there would then be a lot of public discussion.
The 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases decision includes:
"The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States."
but like with Brennan's footnote, this is not a ruling of the Supreme Court.
Phooey on Trump for this. It's the sort of thing Obama did, irritated me no end. I hope the courts smack him on this one.
SteveF (Comment #171808): "What the Court could do is revise/clarify Wong Kim Ark to allow limitations on citizenship for children born of a mother with an unlawful or brief physical presence in the USA. Will they do that to support a Trump executive order? Almost certainly not, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely."
I'd say that is about right.
.
SteveF: "I suspect Trump would issue such an order as much to bring the issue to the public as to expect the order to stand."
Or as a bargaining chip to force the Democrats to negotiate seriously on sensible immigration reform and border security.
.
mark bofill (Comment #171810): "Phooey on Trump for this. It's the sort of thing Obama did, irritated me no end. I hope the courts smack him on this one."
I agree, if Trump is doing this as an end in itself rather than as a ploy to bring the Democrats to the table.
mark bofill,
Not to worry, some judge somewhere would immediately block such an executive order. Actually, the kinds of executive orders Obama issued were arguably worse: they countermanded explicit and clear laws.
MikeN,
"If Congress can pass a law overturning birthright citizenship, then an executive order clarifying what is meant by the language in the 14th amendment should work about as well."
Nope. The Executive branch doesn't write or interpret laws. It's a separation of powers issue. And it wouldn't be a clarification, it would be a change. It's way to late for a clarification.
The Wong Ark Kim case, upon which birthright citizenship is based. I believe there are very substantial legal arguments against birthright citizenship. Until, I skimmed the case and read some commentary, I didn't realize how weak the justification for birthright citizenship given to the children of illegals is.
Here is Justice Harlan's (most people would say the most accomplished justice on that court) view in the beginning of the long dissent he wrote:
"If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 8, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were, and are, aliens, unless they have, or shall on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States, and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect. And children who are aliens by descent, but born on our soil, are exempted from the exercise of the power to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, so often maintained by this court, an exemption apparently disregarded by the acts in respect of the exclusion of persons of Chinese descent.
The English common law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was that
"every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them) or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England."
******
The nationality of his parents had no bearing on his nationality. Though born during a temporary stay of a few days, the child was irretrievably a British subject. Hall on Foreign Jurisdiction, etc., § 1.
The rule was the outcome of the connection in feudalism between the individual and the soil on which he lived, and the allegiance due was that of liegemen to their liege lord. It was not local and temporary, as was the obedience to the laws owed by aliens within the dominions of the Crown, but permanent and indissoluble, and not to be cancelled by any change of time or place or circumstances.
And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" and "natural-born citizen" used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained during the period referred to, and that those words bore no such construction; that the act of April 9, 1866, expressed the contrary rule; that the Fourteenth Amendment prescribed the same rule as the act, and that, if that amendment bears the construction now put upon it, it imposed the English common law rule on this country for the first time, and made it "absolute and unbending" just as Great Britain was being relieved from its inconveniences.
Obviously, where the Constitution deals with common law rights and uses common law phraseology, its language should be read in the light of the common law; but when the question arises as to what constitutes citizenship of the nation, involving as it does international relations, and political, as contradistinguished from civil, status, international principles must be considered, and, unless the municipal law of England appears to have been affirmatively accepted, it cannot be allowed to control in the matter of construction.
Nationality is essentially a political idea, and belongs to the sphere of public law. Hence, Mr. Justice Story, in Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 242, 28 U. S. 248, said that the incapacities of femes
*****
"do not reach their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations."
Twiss, in his work on the Law of actions, says that
"natural allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience to the government of a country wherein a man may happen to have been born, which he cannot forfeit, or cancel, or vary by any change of time or place or circumstance, is the creature of civil law, and finds no countenance in the law of nations, as it is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that law."
Vol. 1, p. 231.
Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Book I, c.19, § 212.
"The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . . The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction."
…..
In an academic sense, a very interesting case that blends concepts of feudalism, English common law and nationalism into one case.
MikeN,
The other problem with using an executive order is that it doesn't have the permanence of a law or court decision. What can be done by the stroke of a pen can be undone by the stroke of another pen.
JD Ohio,
Interesting, but at this point probably irrelevant. Wong Ark Kim is even less likely to be reversed than Roe v. Wade.
lucia (Comment #171802),
I am certainly not "making up" the idea that large number of Indians would have been citizens by right after the 14th amendment if being born off-reservation was sufficient. For example, it wasn't until 1851 that treaty lands were established for Lakota, Crow, Cheyenne and some other western tribes, and they didn't always stay on their reservations (especially as they continually shrunk). Virtually every plains-culture Indian when the 14th was ratified was not born on a reservation. The Navajos weren't forced onto Bosque Redondo until 1863-4, and not all of them came. The Comanche were too fractured to be considered a nation, didn't sign a treaty until 1867 and the last free band wasn't forced onto the reservation until 1875 — and a band jumped off the reservation in 1876. *Most* Indian wars in the later 19th century involved bands that had left their reservation, and those sometimes included women and children. The victims of the Sand Creek massacre, for example, were off reservation.
.
I've looked with google, and I haven't been able to find *any* evidence that born-off-reservation Indians belonging to a recognized tribe were automatically enfranchised by birth after the 16th amendment in *any* state. If you've come across such evidence, please share it. Especially if you have evidence of a birthright claimant inspiring Elm — I'd hate to think that you were just "making it up". The majority opinion in Elm vs Wilkins drones on about cases of Indians becoming *naturalized* citizens by law or treaty, but rejects Elm's claim based on birthright. Some extracts from the decison:
—
The question then is, whether an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, is, merely by reason of his birth within the United States, and of his afterwards voluntarily separating himself from his tribe and taking up his residence among white citizens, a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. Under the constitution of the United States, as originally established, 'Indians not taxed' were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives and direct taxes were apportioned among the several states; and congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, whether within or without the boundaries of one of the states of the Union. The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states; but they were alien nations, distinct political communities, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal, as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the president and senate, or through acts of congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States.
.
The alien and dependent condition of the members of the Indian tribes could not be put off at their own will without the action or assent of the United States.
.
Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
.
It is also worthy of remark that the language used, about the same time, by the very congress which framed the fourteenth amendment, in the first section of the civil rights act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is 'all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.' 14 St. 27; Rev. St. § 1992. Such Indians, then, not being citizens by birth, can only become citizens in the second way mentioned in the fourteenth amendment, by being 'naturalized in the United States,' by or under some treaty or statute.
—
What word doesn't appear in the majority decision anywhere? Reservation. There is nothing in the decision that implies that Elm would be a citizen by birthright if he had only been born away from officially-defined and ever-shrinking territory controlled by his tribe. The crucial factor is not where he was born, but who he was when he was born — by owing allegience to a tribe when he was born, the court did not consider him to be completely under the jurisdiction of the United States.
.
Now I don't claim that if Trump issued an executive order the Supremes would follow the reasoning in Elm instead of Kim; I don't expect that at all. But that being born on the *reservation* was critical to Elm I don't see in the reasoning at all — the incomplete jurisdiction was questioned based on allegience, not geography. And having decided that Elm was not at birth a citizen despite being born in the United States, the court concluded that he could not make himself a citizen without the state's consent.
.
The word "reservation" does appear twice in Harlan's dissent, but only in respect to where an Indian is *now*, not where they were born. Here's an extract from his dissent:
—
Our brethren, it seems to us, construe the fourteenth amendment as if it read: 'All persons born subject to the jurisdiction of, or naturalized in, the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside;' whereas the amendment, as it is, implies in respect of persons born in this country that they may claim the rights of national citizenship from and after the moment they become subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.
—
Harlan also wrote the dissenting opinion in Kim. He writes there:
—
The Civil Rights Act became a law April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27, c. 31), and provided:
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians [p720] not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.
And this was reenacted June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes, section 1992. .
The words "not subject to any foreign power" do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.
The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents' merely being domiciled in the country, and it is single and not double, allegiance.
—
Harlan argues in his dissent that the same logic that would make the child of foreign parents a natural citizen for merely being born here should also prevent the children of American citizens born abroad from being a natural citizen.
DeWitt P: "Interesting, but at this point probably irrelevant. Wong Ark Kim is even less likely to be reversed than Roe v. Wade."
The point is that it doesn’t have to be reversed. Its decision was premised on the rights of a child who was the offspring of 2 legal residents. It legally isn't directly applicable to the child of 2 illegal aliens.
JD
JD,
“The point is that it doesn’t have to be reversed.â€
.
You took the words right out of my…. er…. fingertips. Nobody expects Wong Kim Ark to be reversed.
.
DeWitt,
I think Roe is actually a decent parallel: I do not expect Roe to be reversed, but I would not be at all surprized if the SC revised the limitations on state athority, as set out in Roe, to allow the state most any legislated limitation on abortion after the first tri-mester. This would be met with screaming rage on the left, of course. But it would not be a reversal of Roe.
DaleS
>I am certainly not "making up" the idea that large number of Indians would have been citizens by right after the 14th amendment if
That's not what I said you made up.
This is what I wrote:
>many, many natives who were not born on reservations and AFAIK none of them acquired citizenship as a result of the amendment.
I agree many were not born on reservations. But I think you are just making up the idea that none aquired citizenship as a result of the amendment.
To repeat: the idea I say you made up is that NONE acquired citizenship. None would be zero. I don't think you know that.
JD Ohio,
>The point is that it doesn’t have to be reversed. Its decision was premised on the rights of a child who was the offspring of 2 legal residents. It legally isn't directly applicable to the child of 2 illegal aliens.
Yes. This is true.
I happen to think they are likely to find the same thing for illegals. But Wong Ark Kim involved residents legally here. Just as Elk involved an Indian born on the reservation.
Exactly who was granted citizenship matter when deciding what the precedent means.
Small nitpick… the case was: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, not ‘Wong Ark Kim’.
Steve F. Thanks for the correction.
lucia (Comment #171819) ,
Thank you for the clarification. That was poorly written on my part, I relied on the AFAIK to make clear that I wasn't *aware* of any Indians acquiring birthright citizenship as a result of the 16th amendment passing. I'm still not aware of any specific examples, *but* after reading both the majority opinion and dissenting opinion for Elm, they both seem to agree that it was intended to confer citizenship on Indians who were not part of a recognized tribe. Harlan writes:
—
A careful examination of all that was said by senators and representatives, pending the consideration by congress of the fourteenth amendment, justifies us in saying that every one who participated in the debates, whether for or against the amendment, believed that, in the form in which it was approved by congress, it granted, and was intended to grant, national citizenship to every person of the Indian race in this country who was unconnected with any tribe, and who resided, in good faith, outside of Indian reservations and within one of the states or territories of the Union. This fact is, we think, entitled to great weight in determining the meaning and scope of the amendment.
—
Indians who were connected with a tribe were not intended to be covered:
—
When the fourteenth amendment was pending in the senate of the United States, Mr. Doolittle moved to insert after the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' the words 'excluding Indians not taxed.' His avowed object in so amending the measure was to exclude, beyond all question, from the proposed grant of national citizenship, tribal Indians who-since they were, in a sense, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States-might be regarded as embraced in the grant. The proposition was opposed by Mr. Trumbull and other friends of the proposed constitutional amendment, upon the ground that the words 'Indians not taxed' might be misconstrued, and also because those words were unnecessary, in that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' embraced only those who were subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, which could not be properly said of Indians in tribal relations. But it was distinctly announced by the friends of the amendment that they intended to include in the grant of national citizenship Indians who were within the jurisdiction of the states, and subject to their laws, because such Indians would be completely under the jurisdiction of the United States.
—
Tribal relations are not determined by whether an Indian was born off or on a reservation. At the time the 16th amendment was passed, virtually all adult males in plains cultures were not born on a reservation. But how many of the non-tribal Indians were deprived of the vote prior to the 14th amendment and acquired it afterwards because of the amendment (and not through a naturalization law) I haven't been able to find out. Were there any? Certainly seems like there should have been. Where there any in Omaha, Nebraska to inspire Elk? If so, they aren't mentioned anywhere. According to the majority opinion, this is what happened according to Elk:
—
That on or about the fifth day of April, 1880, and prior to said election, this plaintiff presented himself to said Charles Wilkins, as such registrar, at his office, for the purpose of having his name registered as a qualified voter, as provided by law, and complied with all the provisions of the statutes in that regard, and claimed that, under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the constitution of the United States, he was a citizen of the United States, and was entitled to exercise the elective franchise, regardless of his race and color; and that said Wilkins, designedly, corruptly, willfully, and maliciously, did then and there refuse to register this plaintiff, for the sole reason that the plaintiff was an Indian, and therefore not a citizen of the United States, and not, therefore, entitled to vote, and on account of his race and color, and with the willful, malicious, corrupt, and unlawful design to deprive this plaintiff of his right to vote at said election, and of his rights, and all other Indians of their rights, under said fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the constition of the United States, on account of his and their race and color.
—
Nothing like 19th century prose. Why use two words when fifteen will do?
From today's WSJ:
"First, in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress granted citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.†The 14th Amendment, ratified only two years later, used different language: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.†The authors were well aware how to deny citizenship to people with foreign allegiances. Instead, they focused on a person’s relationship with American law.
Second, the framers of the 14th Amendment debated the question presented by President Trump’s proposal. During the ratification debates, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the birthright-citizenship proposal: “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?†he asked. “Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?†Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of Chinese and Gypsy aliens “shall be citizens†and he was “entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.â€
https://www.wsj.com/articles/birthright-citizenship-is-a-constitutional-mandate-1541025952
If the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had wanted to exclude from citizenship children of resident aliens, they could have retained the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act. They didn't and were well aware of the consequences. Again, whether non-citizens are present legally or illegally is a distinction without a difference in the matter of 'subject to the jurisdiction.'
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171813): "The Executive branch doesn't write or interpret laws."
The Executive does not write laws, but it certainly interprets them. I don't know of a rule that says an interpretation can not change as long as it is not ex post facto.
————-
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171815): "The other problem with using an executive order is that it doesn't have the permanence of a law or court decision."
True. But it still makes a useful threat.
DaleS,
I know what Elk reads. I also know Elk was born on a reservation. There was no dispute that Elk had been part of the tribe prior to leaving. That's in the case. Both sides agree. Things that are not disputed tend not to be highlighted in cases. You keep trying to rely on the notion that the criteria for Elk having been under the jurisdiction for the tribes is not discussed in any way shape or form to mean what you want it to mean: that where he was born does not matter.
But in fact: he was born on a reservation. That is an element that puts the jurisdiction in which he was born beyond dispute and in consequence, there would be absolutely no reason to discuss it either in Elk's claim nor in the governments claim. So, whether or not he was under jurisdiction of the tribes is merely taken as a fact and not discussed at any length.
Don Lemon is sticking to his story that right-wing white males are the *real* terrorist threat, and points at a GAO report to justify his claim. This appears to be the referenced report:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf
Notably, the report *only* attempts to cover violent extremist attacks by "far right" and "radical Islamist", drawing from each pool from September 12th, 2001 and December 31st, 2016. The start date is obviously to exclude September 11th, and it's all within the United States to exclude attacks on Americans overseas by radical Islamists. For comparison to far *left* violent extremism the report is completely worthless, because they aren't included at all (unless they were excluded because there were no such deaths at all during this period — seems unlikely, given how broad the criteria seems to be.)
.
Appendix II itemizes all the attacks, consisting of 62 far-right incidents causing 106 deaths, and 23 islamist incidents causing 119 deaths. Now I would think that 119>106 would make Islamists a greater threat by this criteria, but to Lemon apparently the *number* of incidents matter more than the number killed.
.
The question then becomes what incidents count for "terror". The Islamist incidents are mostly well known, though I hadn't heard about Reshad Riddle killing his father. Since he was eventually declared legally insane, I'm not sure it should count as a terror incident even though it happened in public.
.
The "far-right" are less known, though given the low body count per incident it's not particularly surprising. Only four incidents killed at least three people and I believe they all were well-publicized. Some of the incidents from the brief description seem iffy. Three of the deaths were done by white supremacist *inmates* to other inmates, that could well be a hate crime, but terrorism? I would guess that three deaths is a pretty small fraction of the number of murders committed by prisoners during this timespan. One of the incidents was a murder of a child molester, another a murder of a drug dealer, and an additional three incidents involved murder of a sex-offender. I'm thinking extremism might not be the only issue involved here. Two deaths occurred during a home invasion; if there's another crime already being committed by the perpetrator, should it still count?
.
There's few details, but line items like "White supremacist murdered his stepfather to gain “street credâ€, and "White supremacist murders Hispanic man in convenience store after argument" make me wonder how they draw the distinction between a far-right person killing *because* he was far-right and a killing for any reason where they can identify the perpetrator as far right.
.
So how are the terms defined, anyway? For Islamist attacks, "attackers with violent radical Islamist beliefs were generally those who professed some form of belief in or allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Qa’ida, or other (radical) Islamist associated terrorist entities." Merely being islamic wasn't enough, you also have to specifically embrace violence in the name of Islam.
.
Far right has a longer laundry list of qualifiers:
Fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in
orientation);
Anti-global;
Suspicious of centralized federal authority;
Reverent of individual liberty (especially right to own guns; be free of taxes);
Belief in conspiracy theories that involve a grave threat to national
sovereignty and/or personal liberty;
Belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life†is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent;
Belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in or supporting the need for paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism.
.
"Far right" perpetrators only need "one or more" of those items to qualify, meaning that a whole lot of people are far right without having any idea that they're far right. The report goes on to note that "many persons having violent extreme far-right views" express support for some form of white supremacy, but that in itself is not a qualifier. However, the actual list of crime is dominated by white supremacists, skinheads and neo-Nazis. Of the 62 incidents, 16 don't fall in one of those buckets — so approximately one incident per year from non-racist "far right" violence.
.
So how did the GAO compile the list? They didn't really. The actual compilation is done by the U.S. Extreme Crime Database (ECDB), so it's outsourced — GAO did vet the results somewhat, dropping 12 results from the ECDB list where they felt the evidence was "unclear" for motivation. They note that ECDB scores motivation on a 0 to 4 scale, but don't reveal the scores in their list.
.
So who is the ECDB? It's a University of Maryland affiliated project that was specifically created to track "crimes committed by the domestic far-right". It has "since" been expanded to examine far left, religous extremism, and single-issue extremism. Data is drawn from public accounts, so an incident *has* to hit the media with its extremist connection in order to be counted. Here's a description of what it covers from the page on TEVUS:
—
The ECDB is a relational database that includes information on all publicly known violent and financial crimes committed in the United States by extremists associated with al-Qa’ida and its associated movement (AQAM) – which for the purpose of this dataset also include crimes committed by extremists associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the violent Far Right (FR), and the Animal and Earth Liberation Fronts (ELF and ALF). The ECDB includes information on the incidents themselves, as well as their perpetrators, related organizations, and victims. It currently covers the period between 1990 and 2016.
—
OK. So for Islamists we have AQAM/ISIL. For the far left we have only ELF and ALF. And for the far right we only need *one* of the motivations I listed earlier, some of which cover half of Americans. This is somewhat less than useful for determining whether "far right" or "far left" violence is more of a problem in America.
.
In fairness to Don Lemon, I'd guess white men are extremely well represented in left-wing or Islamist terror as well. But deaths from all domestic terror, loosely defined, seems to be lagging well behind the death toll from toasters (300/year).
DeWitt
>The 14th Amendment, ratified only two years later, used different language: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.†The authors were well aware how to deny citizenship to people with foreign allegiances. Instead, they focused on a person’s relationship with American law.
Not only that, the were well aware of the problem with the "subject to a foreign power" language. Any foreign power could *claim* someone was a subject based on their own laws. For example: there was a time when the British conscripted Americans by refusing to recognize someone can shed their British citizenship.
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/british-navy-impressment/
No one wanted to say the children of people who were specifically leaving England with the intention of shedding their British citizenship should not have been Americans by birth. The same thing went for other Europeans.
So, while they might have wanted a rule about "foreign powers" to apply to nonEuropeans (like the Chinese) they didn't want it to apply to Europeans.
And after negotiation, they picked language that was generic (as they nearly always do) and also ended up giving citizenship to Chinese. (The racism of the day meant the Chinese needed to take the government to court. But the language gave them citizenship. ) As the plaintifs in question were here legally and born on a reservation and not covered by diplomatic immunity, once that case was ruled, it made clear that at least *legal* permanent residents who don't fit exceptions related to jurisdiction have birthright citizenship.
There could be a question about legal or impermanent residents, as those features are not specifically covered. But even though the Emperor of China thought those people were his subjects, and claimed so, they were still under our jurisdiction. And the Emperor of China could pound sand– just as we decreed the British pound sand when they refused to recognize American's had shed their British citizenship.
Of course I'm not the first to observe this. Still:
What I find so dumbfounding about Don Lemon's position and any who might find it reasonable is that Don appears to be oblivious to the almost comical contradictory ideas he is simultaneously putting forward.
.
"“I keep trying to point out to people not to demonize any one group or any one ethnicity, but we keep thinking that the biggest terror threat is something else,†Lemon said, adding, “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.â€
.
He pointed out that there is no travel ban on white men like there is with the Muslim ban and that there is no “white guy ban†in general. “What do we do about that?â€"
.
The lack of self awareness is astonishing. 'not to demonize any one group or any one ethnicity' and 'the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.' in the same breath.
.
The *reason* I say the lack of self awareness is astonishing is because – the man is probably not a complete idiot. For him to put forward such a statement, it must be cemented very strongly in his mind that 'white men' are not a group or ethnicity that deserve the same treatment as any other group or ethnicity. Moreover, I believe this indicates that he believes *his audience* will accept this as a given as well. It's not a point worth discussing, it's a given assumption. To the extent where he apparently doesn't realize how he'll be mocked for this.
.
And imagine! He goes on to call for action, that we 'do something about them', and mentions a muslim travel ban. But he doesn't say 'travel ban', he says 'white guy ban in general'.
.
This is racism – ever bit as pure as the racism that African Americans suffered from in past eras in this country. In my view, it is every bit as reprehensible. For an outlet like CNN to permit one of their people to espouse this in his official capacity is every bit as dark a day as any in our history. In a way it's worse, because it's the Left that people look to to protect them from this sort of thing, and it's the Left that's leading them towards the exact same atrocities of the past; the exact same game with the players changed.
Now – I hope Don Lemon no more speaks for the Left than Rush Limbaugh (or someone like that) speaks for the Right. (I qualify my statement because I don't actually listen to Rush Limbaugh and I don't know what the heck he says anyway. So in that sense I wouldn't know) I'm willing to extend that much charity and assume that more or less everybody knows the guy is a wacko. STILL – it'd help if reasonable people on both sides would call it out.
.
I get why Lefties don't want to. It's hard for me to call Trump out sometimes. But – it is what it is, and it's not going to improve until reasonable people start exercising some integrity and standing up for unity and common sense. At least that's my take.
I'll add this. One of the seemingly standard excuses for this sort of rhetoric is something along the lines of: 'Oh, I didn't mean that. I was trying to get my audience to think.'. Or 'Oh, that's the sort of rhetoric the other side uses against me.'
Sorry. Not acceptable. Say what you mean, mean what you say. If you don't want to be held responsible for espousing an idea, don't espouse it. If you're doing satire, well. You'd best hope your satire is clear enough to most people that they don't misunderstand you. In this age where it no longer shocks us to hear the news that an antisemitic gunman murders numerous strangers in a synagogue, I'd think one would be wise to take some pains NOT to be misunderstood.
There. Rant completed. Resuming normal processing.
JD Ohio,
IMO, Harlan's dissent in US v. Wong Kim Ark was all about substituting his opinion of what Congress should have done when drafting the Fourteenth Amendment rather than ruling on what Congress actually intended and did. Harlan lost. US v. Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided. So, for that matter, was Elk.
lucia (Comment #171826),
All parties agreed that Elk was born in the United States and they all mentioned it because it was relevant. All parties agreed that Elk was born a tribal member, and they all mentioned it because it was relevant. No parties mentioned he was born on a reservation, and I can't see that it's relevant to the arguments each side made. Being born to parents who are not members of a tribe on a reservation doesn't make you a tribal member, and being born to parents who are members of a tribe off a reservation *does* make you a tribal member.
.
In point of fact, I can't actually verify that Elk *was* born on a reservation. The article wikipedia uses as a source doesn't say that, but it does identify him as a Winnebago. Assuming he came from their reservation near Omaha, which seems pretty safe, and if he was born 1847-1859 (latest date possible for 1880 registration) it's likely he was born on a reservation in Minnesota, though not certain as part of the Winnebago never left Wisconsin in the first place, and there was movement between the two branches by choice (leaving the reservation to go back to Wisconsin) and by force (government rounding up Winnebagos to send them to the then-current reservation.)
.
Note that *after* the ratification of the 16th amendment, Wisconsin Winnebagos who may have *never* been on a reservation and who did not obey the leaders of the officially recognized tribe, were still being rounded up by the United States government and shipped off to Nebraska. If being born off reservation made the 16th amendment apply to Indians, those should have been citizens.
mark bofill,
The Muslim travel ban argument is a classic straw man. The travel ban was intended for residents of a limited number of countries, not for all Muslims from all countries. It would have applied to Christians or Buddhists, for that matter, from those countries, not just Muslims. IIRC, the residents of most of those countries would be considered white. So you could just as easily, and wrongly, call it a white man travel ban.
DeWitt, yep. Sure is.
I considered adding that as well. I thought about talking about Obama's 2011 policy, but I think people get lost in the weeds trying to figure out if there are details that make Obama's 'Muslim travel ban' different. Of course there are numerous resources out there that are glad to add to the smoke and confusion and make it easier to conclude that Trump's policy is unprecedented right wing racism.
.
Even if it was, it doesn't justify Lemon's racism. Nothing justifies that, as far as I'm concerned.
DaleS
>In point of fact, I can't actually verify that Elk *was* born on a reservation. The article wikipedia uses as a source doesn't say that, b
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins
Says
"John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation and later resided with whites on the non-reservation US territory in Omaha, Nebraska, "
Everyone agrees Elk was born on a reservation. Winnebagos are recognized as a *sovereing nation*, have their own government and have jurisdiction on their reservations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho-Chunk
>All parties agreed that Elk was born in the United States and they all mentioned it because it was relevant.
No one disagreed that, despite being a pocket not under the jurisdiction of the US, tribal lands are "in" the US. They aren't in Canada, Mexico, Russia or any where else. So yes, all parties agree he was born in the US. But in a jurisdictional pocket– the reservation that falls under the jurisdiction of the Winnebagos.
All parties also agree he was a tribal subject which they also discussed.
So there was no discussion of *what made him a tribal subject* nor "what is the US" because no one disagreed that he was (a) tribal lands are "in" the US, (b) that the winnebabos are a sovereing nation (inside the US) with jurisdiction on reservations and (c) that his circumstances of birth made him be born a tribal subject.
> I can't see that it's relevant to the argument
What's "the" argument?
The point is there was NO argument that he was a tribal subject.
You seem to be wanting to assume there WAS an argument he was a tribal subject and that lack of discussion of what made him a tribal subject means that the things that made him a subject don't matter. All the lack of discussion means is there was NO ARGUMENT. Everyone conceded he was a tribal subject. This makes sense since (a) his parents were tribal subjects, were not US citizens, (b) his parents were living on a reservation and so living under the jurisdiction of the tribe, (c) he was born on tribal lands not subject to US jurisdiction.
But we see 13 years later, nearly the same issue comes up with Wong whose (a) parents were most definitely Chinese subjects and not US citizens but (b) were living in US jurisdiction and (c) he was born on lands subject to US jurisdiction was granted US citizenship.
The distinction in the case "jurisdiction" in the location where the two were born.
>Note that *after* the ratification of the 16th amendment, Wisconsin Winnebagos who may have *never* been on a reservation and who did not obey the leaders of the officially recognized tribe, were still being rounded up by the United States government and shipped off to Nebraska.
Yeah. Well, long after the ratification of the 14th amendment, Japanese were rounded up and made to live in camps. So being rounded up doesn't tell us much.
DeWitt P: Harlan dissent. The WSJ is a mediocre newspaper, and its legal coverage is poor. For instance, about 9 months ago a non-lawyer writer, said that the law required the Attorney General to follow the law. I looked up the authorizing statute, and as I expected this wasn't true. The article written in the journal that was linked was very superficial and simplistic. There are definitely 2 sides to the issue, which is not at all apparent from the article.
JD
I'm going to draw attention to a 1883 ruling to highlight the jurisdictional issues on Indian reservations as viewed at the time of Elk v. Wilkins (1984).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Crow_Dog
>Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that followed the death of one member of a Native American tribe at the hands of another on reservation land.[fn 1] Crow Dog was a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux.
{…}
>The tribal council dealt with the incident according to Sioux tradition, and Crow Dog paid restitution to the dead man's family. However, the U.S. authorities then prosecuted Crow Dog for murder in a federal court. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang.
>The defendant then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the federal court had no jurisdiction to try cases where the offense had already been tried by the tribal council.[1] The court found unanimously for the plaintiff and Crow Dog was therefore released. This case was the first time in history that an Indian was held on trial for the murder of another Indian.
So: basically, the court agreed the Federal Courts did NOT have jurisdiction for the murder of an Indian by an Indian on Tribal lands.
Things change later due to an act by Congress which happened in 1985 *after* Elk v Wilkins was decided. But *at that time* Elk was decided and at the time Elk was born, the Supreme court viewed the Feds as not having jurisdiction for murder on a reservation.
JD Ohio,
I read the article DeWitt cited. I always assume the opinion pieces in the opinion section of the WSJ are opinion pieces. The WSJ is definitely not a legal journal.
I think they ran an opinion piece taking the exact other side on the birthright citizenship issue yesterday or the day before.
JD, can you clarify when an attorney general doesn't have to follow the law?
MikeN "JD, can you clarify when an attorney general doesn't have to follow the law?"
I was saying that there was no statute requiring him/her to follow the law. When the office of the AG was statutorily created almost certainly the cultural/custom assumption was that the AG would follow the law such that it was considered unnecessary. The WSJ columnist not understanding much of what he was talking about simply assumed that the statute was written that way. I assumed that it was not enacted into statutory law, which turned out to be correct when I checked it..
…..
I believe I have commented here before that a country cannot have a functioning legal system unless there is a substantial amount of shared values underlying the system. This situation is one example of that.
…..
You could also state that gross expansions of the principle of prosecutorial discretion, such as DACA are examples of situations where the AG doesn't have to follow the law.
JD
Here is an article from the Federalist blog that addresses the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
It seems to be more rigorous that the WSJ opinion piece. But since I am no Constitutional scholar, I can't vouch for the the veracity of the piece.
lucia (Comment #171835),
Having wikipedia say something is not proof that something is true, especially when the article Wikipedia linked does *not* actually make the claim. However, with a little digging I believe I have good evidence that wikipedia is right. Using the 1880 census online I located John Elk in Omaha, NE. He was born in Iowa in 1845 and his parents were both born in Wisconsin. That's consistent with Winnebago parents, and the Nebraska branch of the tribe (the officially recognized part) was located on the officially-defined Neutral Ground in Iowa (called so because Indians from multiple tribes were allowed to hunt and fish in that zone freely).
.
John Elk's wife was also an Indian with the unfortunate name (according to the census) of Louse. Like John she was born in 1845, and like John her parents were born in Wisconsin. Unlike John, she was born in Wisconsin — in other words, she was *not* born on a Winnebago reservation. If it was essential to be born on a reservation to avoid birthright citizenship (and as a reminder, *most* adults of many tribes were *not* born on a reservation in 1880), she would have been a citizen via the 16th amendment. Unfortunately, the census does not contain citizenship information.
.
I'm not sure why you emphasize the practical jurisdiction that Natives sometimes enjoyed on their reservations, when *both* the majority opinion and the dissent are concerned with the immediate allegiance owed to the tribe.
.
Crow Dog himself, as a Brule Sioux born in 1833 at Horse Stealing Creek in Montana, was *not* born on a reservation. Crow Dog's case is referenced in the majority opinion along with other cases, after the paragraph beginning with "The question then is, whether an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, is, merely by reason of his birth within the United States, and of his afterwards voluntarily separating himself from his tribe and taking up his residence among white citizens, a citizen of the United States" and saying "The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States".
.
I think it's absolutely certain that the court would have consider Crow Dog as someone who "owed immediate allegiance" to his tribe from his birth and was not at any time part of the people of the United States. If Crow Dog had committed the same crime off reservation he would have been hung, but he would still be a member of the Sioux and not a natural-born US citizen.
.
I think it's not plausible that it mattered to the majority that Elk was born on a reservation when they don't see fit to even *mention* the fact. It mattered to them that he was born a tribal member, and that *was* mentioned repeatedly and emphasized. I believe the point of a supreme court ruling isn't just for the individual who brought it, it's to decide to the law for all future similar cases, and I don't see any shadow of a hint in the majority decision that members of a recognized tribe born off-reservation would not be covered by the Elk decision. But IANAL.
DaleS,
Wikipedia can certainly be mistaken. But I was responding to your statement that Wikipedia didn't say he was born on a reservation. I quoted Wikipedia to show that Wikipedia does say he was born on a reservation.
>I believe I have good evidence that wikipedia is righ
Well… yes. I'd found informtion elsewhere too. But since your source for suggesting he might not be born on a reservation was Wikipedia, I showed you that Wikipedia did, indeed, say he was born on the reservation.
>I'm not sure why you emphasize the practical jurisdiction that Natives sometimes enjoyed on their reservations, when *both* the majority opinion and the dissent are concerned with the immediate allegiance owed to the tribe.
Uhmmm… I focus on jurisdiction because the wording in the 14th amendment is jurisdiction.
Opp.. Jim is home. Gotta go! 😉
Ok.. I can write some more
>Crow Dog himself, as a Brule Sioux born in 1833 at Horse Stealing Creek in Montana, was *not* born on a reservation.
I didn't say he was. I said he was an Indian. I'm not sure what your point is. Perhaps you are trying to suggest he was a citizen. People born with duel citizenship can pick one and decline the other. For example: I have. I picked american and dumped El Salvadoran. It can be done by merely not claiming the citizenship. If he didn't claim it, and instead lived under Indian rule, he was still a member of an Indian tribe and not an american.
But as I said: I don't know what point you are trying to make. Because I'm not arguing about whether Crow Dog was a citizen, eligible for citizenship or anything. I'm making a point about *jurisdiction* on an Indian Reservation.
>If Crow Dog had committed the same crime off reservation he would have been hung, but he would still be a member of the Sioux and not a natural-born US citizen.
Precisely. That's the point I was making.
If Crow Dog had committed the *off* reservation, the crime would have been committed *within the jurisdiction of the US*. However, the court agreed with Crow Dog the crime was committed *outside the jurisdiction of the US*. Because he committed out OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the US, the courts had no jurisdiction and could not impose the penalty.
Karl Kruse
That author is arguing wong kim ark was wrongly decided. Sometimes precedents are overturned. But that's what would have to happen to change things.
I have a question for those who claim that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" must mean living within the jurisdiction, on the grounds that if they meant something else, they would have used different wording. Later in the same paragraph, the amendment says "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Why the different wording if they meant the same thing?
I am interested here in the discussion of the birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment from a point of view of how the liberal justices on the court could argue against the birthright if being against it was a favored liberal position. I am thinking they well could just as they could against the 2nd amendment and favoring major restrictions on gun ownership which is a favored liberal position. This is the consistency that DeWitt was arguing from the other side for the birthright of the 14th amendment and gun ownership of the 2nd amendment. SteveF makes the point about intent of those framing the amendments were different.
I am always interested in discussing how inconsistently Supreme Court justices can rule and thus how arbitrary the implementation of the constitution has become. Picking over the minute details of individual cases to justify a consistently liberal or conservative position comes across as arbitrary in my view.
MikeM
You are wording your question strangely. Your question seems to imply someone is saying that the ONLY thing that confers jurisdiction is where you live. I haven't said the only way one can be subject to a jurisdiction is to live there. I don't see anyone saying that.
When I lived in France, I was both subject to the jurisdiction of France with regard to local laws for things like theft, murder, driving and so on. I remained subject to the jurisdiction on other things by virtue of being American. So: residence is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Citizenship is also sufficient. Neither is necessary.
>Why the different wording if they meant the same thing?
They didn't mean anything different. By jurisdiction, they meant jurisdiction and used the word precisely the same way in both clauses.
Bear in mind, if "no adjective jurisdiction" meant "full jurisdiction" (as some claim) then the US could have denied me due process while I resided in France and was both under American and French jurisdiction. I don't see anyone claiming they deny me rights based on my being out of the country and so subject to the laws of France while there. In fact, they couldn't deny it because partial American jurisdiction is enough to guarantee me due process under our laws.
Mind you: if those who want it to be "full jurisdiction" in the birth clause and refuse to permit it to be partial…ok. But then to be consistent, they should presumably also want it to be "full jurisdiction" for American citizens living overseas. In which case, they would presumably think it's legal to suspend due process for Americans living overseas. If want it to be "full" in the birth clause but "partial" in the other clause, *they* are the ones using the word differently in the two ways.
Karl Kruse: Thanks for your link, which appears to have a reasonable discussion.
I would add that the majority decision was about 55 pages. The short WSJ article could not have possibly covered the important principles from that opinion.
The Kruse link led me to this link from a 2006 article when the discussion was less politically charged than it is now. http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/
……
Here is some important commentary:
…..
"It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote: “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.â€
Whatever credibility the court may had at the beginning was soon lost when Gray wrote:
The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof†in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment … as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…â€
Here the court is assuming what Congress may have intended while also arguing the written debates that could easily disclose this intent is inadmissible as evidence.
********
Reviewing the intended purpose behind the words of the clause by both Sen. Howard and Sen. Trumbull, who were responsible for the drafting of the citizenship clause, clearly revealed the intended effect of the clause; leavening little doubt to why justice Gray desired to avoid the legislative history of this language. Howard presents a major hurdle for the majority when he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law,†never once making any reference to England’s common law doctrine. Perhaps this is why Gray wasted much of his commentary along common law themes."
*********
Not having fully read the Supreme Court decision and not having read much other commentary, in my mind the correctness of the decision and exactly what it meant still has 2 sides.
JD
JD, that brings up a debate as to whether the intent of the framers should matter, compared to what the words actually in the amendment meant at the time. Maybe they just worded it wrong.
Interesting: Trumbull is claimed to have been involved in writing the 14th amendment in the article linked above. Wikipedia is often wrong, but happens to list him as co-authoring the 13th but does NOT credit him with involvement with the 14th. That may not mean much. But there could very well be more on different peoples interpretation of the meaning and whatever Trumbull did my not mean much.
We do know "jurisdiction" replaced other alternatives like "taxed" or "allegiance" that were considered. We know "full" was not added to make it "full jurisdiction".
Once again, wikipedia, which of course can be wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Having said that, it specifically mentions someone OTHER than Trumbell of authoring the citizenship clause.
>During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[46]
Trumbull's argument for Native american's not getting citizenship has to do with…. jurisdiction
>but Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the federal government did not have full jurisdiction over Native American tribes, which govern themselves and make treaties with the United States.[51][52] In Elk v. Wilkins (1884),[53]
Recall: the very year before Elk was decided, the courts decided the FEDS did NOT have jurisdiction over indians living on indian lands under tribal authority. So this appears to have been a common view.
(They could, as it happens have jurisdiction of American citizens on tribal lands. But this understanding would put babies born to Indian parents outside the jurisdiction.)
lucia (Comment #171848): "Your question seems to imply someone is saying that the ONLY thing that confers jurisdiction is where you live."
I did not intend to imply that in Comment #171846, I don't see how I implied that, and I don't see why it would matter.
.
lucia: "I don't see anyone claiming they deny me rights based on my being out of the country".
Obama claimed the right to kill you ex-judicially. Congress has always claimed the right to deny citizenship to children born overseas to citizens. The 14th Amendment did not change that and has, so far as I can tell, no impact on the rights of citizens overseas.
.
Going on about U.S. citizens overseas has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. It does not answer my question (Comment #171846): Why the distinction between "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "any person within its jurisdiction"?
lucia (Comment #171843)(Comment #171844),
I did *not* write that Wikipedia did not say that he was born on a reservation, what I said was "The article wikipedia *uses as a source* doesn't say that" (emphasis added). The sentence that identifies John Elk as being born on a reservation ends with [2], and reference 2 is Stephen D. Bodalya's 1986 article in Nebraska history "Can an Indian Vote? Elk v Wilkins, a setback for Indian Citizens." Since the only bit of contemporary evidence about John Elk I had read at that time (the majority opinion, which also quotes the complaint, and the dissent) doesn't say that Elk was born on a reservation *or* that he was a Winnebago, I found the article (wikipedia link was broken) to see if Bodalya said how we know either fact. His article identified Elk as Winnebago but didn't give any source, and did *not* write that Elk was born on a reservation at all. The working link is here:
.
https://history.nebraska.gov/sites/history.nebraska.gov/files/doc/publications/NH1986IndianVote.pdf
.
It's an interesting article, but it's larger in scope than Elk's case, and while the word reservation appears in it five times, none of those references are about Elk. It does not, in fact, claim anywhere that Elk was born on a reservation, so I reached a dead end on that point. Finding the census document provides actual evidence *consistent* with both Winnebago ancestry and birth on a reservation, though technically it doesn't directly claim either. I regard things written in Wikipedia as likely to be true (the less controversial the subject, the more likely to be true), but it's not direct evidence for anything other than what the person who added the information to Wikipedia to did. So just reading Wikipedia's article doesn't mean I *know* Elk was born on a reservation. I still don't *know* that, but I believe it as the most likely explanation of the facts in the 1880 Census.
.
In considering the decision of Elk v Wilkins, I don't believe that my understanding of what the plain text of the 14th amendment says is useful. I think the way you're interpreting "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" makes logical sense, in that an Indian on a reservation is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the tribe in a way that an Indian off reservation is not. However, I'm not looking for what *I* think it should mean, or what I think the supreme court today would think it means, or even what the largely-different court that decided Wong Kim Ark think it means. I'm looking for what it meant to the justices who decided Elk vs Wilkins, and the only piece for that is their two opinions. Reading *their* text, instead of substituting my own ideas about the 14th amendment, I don't believe either the majority or the dissent cared one whit about whether Indian tribes had any practical legal jurisdiction over the location where the Indian lived when born. (Certainly the practical legal authority the Winnebago exercised over their own land in the pre-existing Neutral Ground was *extremely* limited. They just lived there, and the US put a fort on the reserve to "protect" them and keep them from leaving.) For both opinions, the mere fact that Elk had been a tribal *member* at his birth was sufficient to trigger the jurisdiction clause, and that doesn't require birth on a reservation or the tribe to even have a reservation at all. The difference between Harlan and the majority wasn't on that point, it was whether *subsequent* severing of tribal ties where sufficient to claim birthright citizenship. Harlan believed the intent of the 14th was to enfranchise all Indians who were not tribal members, the majority believed that the intent of the 14th was to enfranchise only Indians who were not tribal members at birth. There's nothing in either opinion to suggest that Louse Elk would be covered by the 14th amendment if her Winnebago parents managed to stay off reservation, they are still Winnebagos and therefore she is born a Winnebago.
.
Reading the text of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark, they reference Elk but reconcile their opinion with Ark by essentially saying Indians are special. This is part of their discussion of Elk:
—
that the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes and were not part of the people of the United States; that the alien and dependent condition of the members of one of those tribes could not be put off at their own will without the action or assent of the United States, and that they were never deemed citizens except when naturalized, collectively or individually, under explicit provisions of a treaty, or of an act of Congress.
—
When discussing the jurisdiction clause further below, the Indians are called out as a special exception
—
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State.
—
The dissent also references Elk and quotes from it, but uses it in a different manner. There the Indian is not considered a peculiar relation that is an exception to how the jurisdiction clause works for everybody else, but disqualified because of his immediate allegiance to not-the-United-States, and clearly the same reasoning would apply to the children of foreign nationals born here even without diplomatic immunity.
.
IANAL, so I'd appreciate it if JDOhio could express an opinion on whether I am interpreting the opinions in Elm correctly. Again, I am not claiming that either opinion in Elm is necessarily correct, I am just trying to understand what both opinions are actually saying. I don't think I can reasonably express any opinion on how relevant I think the reasoning of Elm is to the children of illegal aliens until I am confident what the reasoning of Elm *actually is*.
lucia,
As I understand it, Howard drafted the 14th Amendment but Trumbull, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was surely involved. Also, part of the purpose of the Amendment was to incorporate into the Constitution provisions of the citizenship act enacted earlier by the same congress. Trumbull seems to have been the principle drafter of that act.
——
Trumbull: "“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.“"
.
Howard: “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.â€
–
Source of those quotes: http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/
Thanks to JD Ohio (Comment #171849) for the link.
Mike M.,
Maybe I'm dim, but I don't see how your Howard quote denies citizenship to a child born in the US of foreign parents. It's the child that is subject to the [full] jurisdiction, not the parents.
MikeM
There is no particular reason why a member of the *judiciary* or all things would be any more involved in drafting an amendment than any other senator. There was a "joint committee" that was very specifically active in drafting various proposed amendments. Trumbull was not on that joint commitee.
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )
Writes a whole bunch about the drafting. The "joint committe" is credited several proposals, their 3rd proposal appears to be the one that was passed.
>In April 1866, the Joint Committee forwarded a third proposal to Congress, a carefully negotiated compromise that combined elements of the first and second proposals as well as addressing the issues of Confederate debt and voting by ex-Confederates.[15] The House of Representatives passed House Resolution 127, 39th Congress several weeks later and sent to the Senate for action. The resolution was debated and several amendments to it were proposed. Amendments to Sections 2, 3, and 4 were adopted on June 8, 1866, and the modified resolution passed by a 33 to 11 vote (5 absent, not voting). The House agreed to the Senate amendments on June 13 by a 138–36 vote (10 not voting). A concurrent resolution requesting the President to transmit the proposal to the executives of the several states was passed by both houses of Congress on June 18.[16][17]
I'm not seeing anything that suggests Trumbull was principally involved, nor that he was involved anymore than anyone else. If you have something that suggests he was, let me know the source. But the judiciary committee while important is NOT formed to draft amendements and so that is hardly evidence he was involved.
I'm not seeing him even mentioned as particularly involved in drafting. Others are. Until someone brings forward evidence he was involved (other than the claim in the Federalist article), it seems to me we don't have any particular reason to believe he was the author. Especially since others are credited with being the author. Others were on the committed principly involved in writing it and so on.
On what Trumbull said: Since this was debated, various people certainly said various different things.
Trumbull and others certainly said things on the floor. So did scads of other people. Some said things that agreed with Trumbull. Some said the exact opposite. We can find quotes indicating different Senators had different views on the meaning of those words. That the federalist article quoted some and not others doesn't tell us much other than the federalist article is an opinion piece advancing the opinion of someone who is willing to limit which evidence they present, choosing only the stuff that supports their side.
I have no objection to opinion pieces, nor even tendentious ones that only present their side. But I also can see the signs that that one is such a thing.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171856): "I don't see how your Howard quote denies citizenship to a child born in the US of foreign parents. It's the child that is subject to the [full] jurisdiction, not the parents."
Interesting point. But then why aren't the children of diplomats citizens?
IMO, if the child remains in the U.S., then he is a citizen under the 14th Amendment because he then owes no loyalty to a foreign power. But if raised elsewhere, he is not a citizen under the Amendment.
Note: I am not fully convinced of what I just said.
lucia (Comment #171857): "There is no particular reason why a member of the *judiciary* or all things would be any more involved in drafting an amendment than any other senator. There was a "joint committee" that was very specifically active in drafting various proposed amendments. Trumbull was not on that joint commitee."
I stand corrected.
.
lucia: "Trumbull and others certainly said things on the floor. So did scads of other people. Some said things that agreed with Trumbull. Some said the exact opposite. We can find quotes indicating different Senators had different views on the meaning of those words."
Yes, and the context of the Trumbull and Howard quotes matters. I have not seen a careful discussion of the entirety. For the most part, I have been careful not to say what the wording means (but I just recently violated that, albeit with a qualifier). I have only been challenging the claim that there is only one possible meaning. I view that claim as having been clearly disproven.
DaleS,
Fair enough. I did interpret you as saying Wikipedia didn't say it and that's not what you said.
>I don't believe either the majority or the dissent cared one whit about whether Indian tribes had any practical legal jurisdiction over the location where the Indian lived when born.
If so, that would suggest they didn't care what "jurisdiction" meant and so didn't think what the amendment said mattered. That would be odd. Particularly as they HAD just heard a case about jurisdiction on affairs involving Indians alone taking place on a reservation the year before.
Also: in my opinion, if they didn't care what "jurisdiction" meant, then their method of deciding a case involving an application of a clause that limits birth right citizenship to those in the "jurisdiction" of the US was flawed. Certainly words included shouldn't be read to mean nothing at all. It also shouldn't be read to mean something it is not.
It's worth noting that Elk didn't seem to claim he had been an American citizen at the outset. Even he only seemed to claim he "became" one when he servered relations. Many things we now might wish the court in Elk might have elaborated on they did not. But, in fact, they are *silent* on their *basis* for thinking Elk was subject to the tribe before severing his relation with them. They, and everyone involved in the case merely agree on that point, and so don't highlight precisely which things are necessary or sufficient to make Elk a sujbect to the tribe.
Elk does at least appear to have been born on a reservation. If Wong is consistent with Elk, his birth place matters. (Moreover, we can find quotes from Senators involved in the debate who say that it would matter. The Federalist doesn't quote them, but others — like Wikipedia do. I don't have time to go fish them up– but there are people who interpreted jurisdiction to mean what we *ordinarily* consider jurisdiction during the debates about the amendment. I do, by the way, agree it was a compromise compared to other choices.)
MikeM
It's true there in never only one possible meaning.
There is, however, an ordinary meaning for that word. It's not "allegiance". The fact that *even Trumbull* has to claim "no adjective jurisdiction" must mean "full jurisdiction" suggests that.. well… *lots* of people thought "no adjective jurisdiction* would mean *no adjective jurisdiction*. It's plausible that listeners disagreed with him (and you can find quotes that indicate some did.) It's possible some peoples thought on hearing was "Trumbull is full of it!" (Probably some did. That's what happens in these disagreements!)
Also: given that there was debate about this, and no one said "Hey, since we are debating, let's clarify and add the adjective 'full' ". might suggest that others didn't feel "full" needed to be there. That could *either* mean they wanted to grant citizenship even if "limited" jurisdiction or because they agreed it was implied. We don't know.
Amendments and laws are compromises. Even the authors sometimes are compromising , so sometimes what they wanted to pass isn't the same thing as was passed. Even if they prefer the wording to be "full jurisdiction", may decided to take on the risk that "no adjetctive jurisdiction" will encompass "limited" merely because they want the full amendment passed and prefer the possible risk to not getting anything at all.
When this got to court ruling for Wong, the court seemed to view "no adjective jurisdiction" to mean "no adjective jurisdiction* and so both 'limited jurisdiction' and "full jurisdiction" got people birthright citizenship.
DaleS,
It's interesting nearly the entire court changed between Elk and Wong. Wow!
DeWitt that feels like circular reasoning/begging the question. Child is under full jurisdiction therefore a citizen. A citizen therefore full jurisdiction.
MikeM, while children of diplomats do not have the right to citizenship, I don't think this is enforced. One of the military detention cases, the alleged US citizen should not have been was a child of a diplomat.
I'm pretty sure the case is Hamdi(not Hamdan) v Rumsfeld, but can't find the background on his parents.
One sources names Hamdi's father as a temporary visa holder, not a diplomat.
JD_Ohio,
Nice job of poisoning the well by bringing up an irrelevant article in the WSJ and using that to fail to address the arguments raised in the article I linked.
That there is still controversy in the legal community over the meaning of jurisdiction in the Fourteenth Amendment is practically a given, lawyers being lawyers. Still, it appears that those who argue against Wong Kim Ark are in the (small) minority. Bills have been proposed in Congress for many years to change the meaning of jurisdiction to exclude some or all children born in the US of non-diplomat citizens of foreign countries. Harry Reid even wrote one, for which he later apologized. None have passed. The most recent, H.R.140 (1/03/2017), is still in committee. I'm not sure if any of them have even come to the floor for a vote. It's not at all clear that they would pass the Supreme Court even if they had passed Congress and been signed or not vetoed by the President. I would say highly unlikely, in fact. My impression is that a large majority of legal scholars who have addressed the issue think that a Constitutional Amendment would be required.
Now if you want to see a really wrong-headed article more or less on the subject, there's this from the Pest:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/07/09/the-14th-amendment-solved-one-citizenship-crisis-but-it-created-a-new-one/?utm_term=.87a52aeb6999
How the Fourteenth Amendment created a barrier to citizenship for immigrants, legal or illegal is not really explained in the article. It's just asserted. The first legal bar to some immigrants becoming citizens was the Naturalization Act of 1790. That restricted naturalization to free White persons of good character. The concept of illegal immigrants wasn't established in Federal law until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
MikeM
>Interesting point. But then why aren't the children of diplomats citizens?
>IMO, if the child remains in the U.S., then he is a citizen under the 14th Amendment because he then owes no loyalty to a foreign power. But if raised elsewhere, he is not a citizen under the Amendment.
>Note: I am not fully convinced of what I just said.
It's good you aren't fully convinced because it's wrong. Diplomats are not under the jurisdiction of the US because they are specifically given diplomatic immunity. If they violate laws, all we can do is kick them out of the country, we can't charge them with crimes and kick them out. Their children are also given diplomatic immunity and so are not born under the jurisdiction of the US.
So that child is not born under the jurisdiction of the US and not conferred birthright citizenship by virtue of being born *in* the US. The test isn't 'loyalty'. It's jurisdiction at the time of birth.
If the kid grows up here and becomes loyal to the US, he can naturalize just as other people can naturalize.
This is wort of the way Indian tribes were at the time of ELK. The previous year, SCOTUS has ruled the feds couldn't charge and convinct an indian for killing another indian on an indian reservation because the Feds didn't have jurisdiction.
DeWitt,
That article is certainly very confused. The 14th amendment doesn't define who is a "legal" vs. "illegal" alien. It doesn't define who can or can't naturalize. Those decisions are left to Congress just as they were before the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment created a class of people who could not be deprived of citizenship. That article reads as if 14th created a class who are forbidden citizenship under the constitution. That's not the case.
DeWitt P: "Nice job of poisoning the well by bringing up an irrelevant article in the WSJ and using that to fail to address the arguments raised in the article I linked."
The majority opinion in the Kim Ark case was 45 pages long. The WSJ article was obviously woefully simplistic in dealing with the case. I haven't read the whole opinion or the whole dissent. So, I am really 50-50 at this time. For the reasons above and others, I give no credence to the WSJ on legal interpretative matters. Also, the 2006 Federalist article quotes the Kim Ark majority as not giving any credence to the legislative history, but the WSJ article relies on it.
…..
I will add that I am still stunned to find out that there is no Supreme Court case directly dealing with the children of 2 illegal aliens.
Like it or not, birthright citizenship is here to stay for quite a while. Restricting ‘vacation citizenship’ and (heaven forbid!) citizenship for the children of illegal aliens will not happen until/unless there is a broad consensus….. and that is very (very!) far away. Progressives want lots of future votes for progressives, while everyone else doesn’t. Simple as that.
JD Ohio,
I assume there are no cases because the kids have routinely been accepted as having birthright citizenship. None need to sue to get it, so the kids of the aliens don't go to court.
The only ones who might go to court are rich people who might want to avoid tax liability and so want to shed US citizenship. But I would suppose they won't have a problem if they immediately leave the US and never do anything to claim US citizenship. For example: don't get a SSN, don't apply for a passport and so on. In that case, the IRS won't find them ding them for back taxes. So once again: no case arises.
If Trump writes the EO and an child of two illegal aliens gets refused a passport, gets deported or denied rights of a US citizen, then we'll probably see multiple cases.
SteveF,
There has to be a broad consensus that "vacation citizenship" and such is wrong *and* people have to see it as important enough to change.
Even though the "vacation citizenship" you describe is bad, the main grousing is actually over people who come here illegally, generally get jobs, stay, have children at some point and continue to stay and stay and stay. It's not really a vacation.
Both sets of kids get citizenship by the same mechanisms. But the phenomenon is not quite the same.
Enough people don't mind that kids of illegal aliens have birthright citizenship that I don't think we are going to see an amendment.
I think the only thing on which there might be anything close to a consensus is denying citizenship to children born here of parents with no legal ties to the U.S. and then raised elsewhere.
I don't see that being a big enough problem to force action. And whatever problem it is can be greatly reduced by making common sense reforms to the immigration system.
MikeM
I suspect many people would think it's perfectly just to deny citizenship to that class of kids. By the same token, it's not a huge class; certainly it's smaller than children of illegal aliens who remain here. Also, in the end, since they don't live here, they don't create much of a burden on public services. So they are invisible.
Oddly, they can potentially find their citizenship irksome if they don't want to live here but discover they owe taxes. I'm not sure what kids like that end up doing with their citizenship (or tax liabilities) if they don't want to live here.
Lucia,
The problem is that many of the same people who are OK with the children of illegal aliens gaining citizenship are ALSO OK with essentially unlimited entry of illegal aliens. If a country will not (or cannot) control who enters and becomes resident, then that country is in danger of becoming some other country… or not existing at all in the future.
SteveF,
True. Fortunately, we don't need to amend the constitution to prevent unlimited entry. But I'm pretty sure we do to get rid of birthright citizenship. So those people can effectively prevent modifying the 14th amendment.
I might wish it had been worded somewhat differently. But it isn't.
Lucia,
But to control illegal immigration, a reasonable level of consensus (60 votes in the Senate!) is needed, and that too is not happening. I find it very discouraging.
Lucia,
“I'm not sure what kids like that end up doing with their citizenship (or tax liabilities) if they don't want to live here.â€
.
IIRC, there is no Federal tax liability below $80,000 yearly earnings. I’m not sure about FICA and Medicare taxes, but you can always off-set US liability with foreign taxes paid in most countries.
SteveF (Comment #171879): "IIRC, there is no Federal tax liability below $80,000 yearly earnings. I’m not sure about FICA and Medicare taxes, but you can always off-set US liability with foreign taxes paid in most countries."
Only foreign earned income can be excluded. There is no FICA or Medicare tax if you don't live here. Tax on unearned income can usually be fully offset by foreign taxes, as long as there is not too much unearned income from U.S. sources. But you are required to file, even if you owe no tax. Ignoring all of that would not cause a problem unless they decide to move to the U.S.
lucia (Comment #171875): "Also, in the end, since they don't live here, they don't create much of a burden on public services. So they are invisible"
The point of birth tourism is that the child can move here as a young adult and then start sponsoring family members. Limit the latter, and it is much less of a problem.
No question, it makes much more sense to fix our stupid system than to mess with birthright citizenship. I have little doubt that Trump will drop the latter in exchange for the Democrats compromising on the former.
> By the same token, it's not a huge class;
Children of illegal immigrants in over 5 million. The annual number of births has dropped over the last decade from 390,000 to 250,000 in 2017, according to Pew Research.
The birth tourism number is likely small compared to this, but it's large enough to have an industry built around it, https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-agents-raid-alleged-maternity-tourism-anchor-baby-businesses-catering-to-chinese-1425404456 including Donald Trump. https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-trump-properties-to-give-birth-to-us-citizens
Center for Immigration Studies estimated 40,000 in 2012, and 200,000 for all temporary immigrants. Center for Health Care Statistics estimated 7462 in 2008 for foreign residents.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20Kavanaugh%20Report.pdf
Senate Judiciary has issued a report on Kavanaugh. Included is this detail:
(Sept. 26): stated that when he was a 19 year-old college student, he
visited D.C. over spring break and kissed a girl he believes was Dr. Ford. He said that the
kiss happened in the bedroom of a house which was about a 15-to20 minute walk from the
Van Ness Metro, that Dr. Ford was wearing a swimsuit under her clothing, and that the kissing ended when a friend jumped on them as a joke.
said that the woman initiated the kissing and that he did not force himself on her
Midterms are almost upon us! Conventional polling wisdom has it Dems win the House, Repubs hold the Senate. Nate Silver claims a systematic polling error either way would turn either situation (Senate or House) into what amounts to a toss-up.
I can live with the conventional wisdom. I'm bracing myself though; if the Dems win both House and Senate, it's likely to be a wild and bumpy ride ahead!
Lucia: "JD Ohio,
I assume there are no cases because the kids have routinely been accepted as having birthright citizenship."
…..
The question I have is why hasn't anyone objected to the children of illegal aliens over all of these years. Maybe I am missing something, but one would think that in over 100 years since the decision that someone would have raised the issue.
JD
It's ridiculous for Nate Silver to be giving Democrats an 85% chance of winning the House, requiring 23 seats, but just a 15% chance of picking up 2 Senate seats for control.
JD, people have objected, including Harry Reid. Bills have been proposed.
The Hamdi case saw people objecting to children of legal immigrants(not a permanent resident) as well.
MikeN,
As I understand it, the Republican advantage in the Senate arises from the fact that of the 35 seats up for re-election, 26 are already currently held by Democrats. For 26 seats then, there is risk but no opportunity for gain; if they win their numbers remain the same. The Republicans only have 9 seats at risk.
.
That's the short simple explanation that occurs to me before I've brewed any coffee anyway. 🙂
[Edit: Repubs have 8 seats at risk or 9? Something like that]
JD Ohio (Comment #171885): "The question I have is why hasn't anyone objected to the children of illegal aliens over all of these years. Maybe I am missing something, but one would think that in over 100 years since the decision that someone would have raised the issue."
Prior to 1924, when the U.S. began to require visas, there was no difference between legal and illegal. That was at the beginning of a 40 year period of tight immigration controls when immigration in general was not much of an issue. During that period, those here illegally were generally migrant farm workers moving back and forth across the border and not establishing residence here.
In the 1960's, legal immigration was greatly expanded. It seems that at the same time, there was a big uptick in illegal immigration, I don't know why. By the 1980's the illegal population had grown to the point of being a problem and has been a big issue since. One result has been people calling for restrictions on birthright citizenship (like Harry Reid in the early 90's, I think) but those are always met with screams of "unconstitutional!" from the establishment elites; so they go nowhere. What is different now is a President willing to takes on the elites.
Note that the period of restricted immigration was a golden age for the American middle class. The more recent period of expanded immigration, not so much.
lucia (Comment #171868): "It's good you aren't fully convinced because it's wrong."
Only if there is just one way to read the text of the 14th Amendment. But that is not the only way to read it.
.
lucia: "Diplomats are not under the jurisdiction of the US because they are specifically given diplomatic immunity. … The test isn't 'loyalty'. It's jurisdiction at the time of birth."
Yes, I know that is so under your interpretation. But why should the legal jurisdiction applying to a newborn be the test? That makes no sense to me. It also seems inconsistent, since the same logic is not applied to children of citizens born outside the U.S.
On the other hand, if we adopt the Trumbull interpretation of "not owing allegiance to anybody else", it all makes perfect sense. The children of diplomats don't qualify. Those born abroad to citizens might qualify. Those born and raised here qualify, even if their parents were not citizens. In those days, immigrants stayed; they probably never even went home to visit. Transient visitors were rare and pregnant women as transient visitors would have been unheard of. So the rare cases of born here and raised elsewhere would hardly have been thought of, except for the children of diplomats and indians.
MikeM,
“I have little doubt that Trump will drop the latter in exchange for the Democrats compromising on the former.â€
.
The left never yields and never compromises. Many Democrats in Congress want more entry of poor undocumented people, not less. Has to do with rejecting the legitimacy of the self-governing nation state.
MikeM
>But why should the legal jurisdiction applying to a newborn be the test?
Because the immediate family of the diplomat is covered under the immunity by agreement between the countries and the Vienna Convention. Visiting diplomats don't want to be in danger of having their kids seized and taken hostage. That would be so middle ages!
I don't know if your concern is whether or not the diplomats really have immunity or whether immunity makes them not under the jurisdiction. They do have diplomatic immunity and the courts and governments agree that means our courts don't have jurisdiction over them.
>On the other hand, if we adopt the Trumbull interpretation of "not owing allegiance to anybody else", it all makes perfect sense. T
Except "jurisdiction" taking the ordinary meaning of "jurisdiction" which means the we can charge them, try them and jail them makes much, much more sense in interpreting diplomatic immunity. After all, those foreigners granted diplomatic immunity end up outside our legal jurisdictions. The rest we can send to jail for murder. Yet, the rest are subject to the laws of their own country.
MikeM,
>Those born abroad to citizens might qualify.
Those born abroad aren't born in the US. The clause doesn't grant them birthright citizenship because the bit *before* the "and" also counts.
Those born abroad can be granted US citizenship by statute and are. I was.
> In those days, immigrants stayed; they probably never even went home to visit.
Some, especially poor ones, never went home. My Cuban greatgrandmother went to high school in Philadelphia and went home to cuba during summers. She didn't get pregnant in high school. Ultimately she married an American (who had moved to Cuba.) So she didn't have kids by a Cuban father during any stay. But I suspect the possiblity of a Cuban, Mexican or Canadian arriving pregnant on US soil would hardly be unheard of. My grandmother and her family (including cousins) moved back and forth to Cuba all the time during the late 1800s and early 1900s.
MikeN,
I was unable to find that text. Can you give me a hint where it is in the very long report?
MikeM
>In the 1960's, legal immigration was greatly expanded. It seems that at the same time, there was a big uptick in illegal immigration, I don't know why.
Accoriding to this site ( https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-illegal-immigration ) ,the reason is the mid 60s corresponds to the date when immigration from individual countries was capped at 7% of the total:
>he 1924 quota system remained largely in place until the 1960s, when a new law established a new system. Each year, there is a cap on the total number of visas that the U.S. can issue. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. cannot issue more than seven percent of the total allowable visas to one nation.
>Before this change in 1965, there had been no numeric caps on immigration within the Americas. So when the U.S. decided that it would only take a certain percentage of people from each nation per year, it was the first time the U.S. had put an official cap on Mexican immigration.
The cap didn't really affect countries that don't contribute many migrant workers to the US labor force. But affected whether migrant workers mostly from our neighbor Mexico were legal or not. Prior to the cap all the mexican migrant workers were legal. Now they were illegal. The number of illegal aliens then soared. This doesn't necessarily mean more aliens were arriving, it means they were now put in the 'illegal' bin.
MikeN,
“It's ridiculous for Nate Silver to be giving Democrats an 85% chance of winning the House, requiring 23 seats, but just a 15% chance of picking up 2 Senate seats for control.â€
.
Not sure I follow. Silver is basing his probabilities on polls in the various districts, plus some “magic sauce†about general conditions, to estimate probabilities for different outcomes. (I think he mostly uses Monte Carlo methods). The weakness is that the pre-election polls may not be representative of the actual voters, so the projections may be wrong (GIGO). Silver (having been humiliated by Trump’s election after having Hillary at ~85%) now explictly says the projections are valid, so long as there is not a “systematic polling error†(AKA GIGO). No matter what happens, Silver has insulated himself this time. My guess: most pre-election polling is far from representative. I have myself turned down more than 10 requests for a polling interview in the last 3 months, and I know other registered voters who do the same.
lucia (Comment #171893): "My grandmother and her family (including cousins) moved back and forth to Cuba all the time during the late 1800s and early 1900s."
.
But that was not the 1860s. In the 1860s, railroads and steamships were common, but travel on them was still crazy expensive. Out of reach of all but the upper class or desperate. Emigration was a one way trip. In the late 1800's, technology improved rapidly. Travel costs fell and incomes rose. Better off people started to travel for pleasure. Even so, most immigrants from Europe (who were decidedly not middle class) never went home.
MikeM
I have to ask this directly… You wrote
>It also seems inconsistent, since the same logic is not applied to children of citizens born outside the U.S.
I don't know what "logic" you think is applied differently to children born outside the US vs. those born inside the US.
Are you aware that kids born to US citizens outside the US do NOT get citizenship by birth under the 14th amendment? This applies to diplomats too.
>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.
The text is utterly silent about granting citizenship to kids born to US Citizens outside of American soil. But the 14th amendment does not bar Congress to extend the class who get citizenship by writing statutes to give US citizenship to kids born to American citizens abroad, and the US has written these statutes.
That means if you are not born here, your paths to citizenship are (a) naturalization or (b) by statute.
I was born in El Salvador to American parents. That's how I got citizenship at birth by statute. Congress could change that statute if they wished to do so. (It has been changed from time to time.) WRT to birthright citizenship, all the 14th amendment does is limit the statute Congress writes such that they can't yank citizenship from those born in the US and subject to US jurisdiction at birth. Extend the pool, but not shrink it. That's the way it's been interpreted.
That Congress grants citizenship to people like me *by statute* doesn't mean "different logic" about what jurisdiction means is applied Americans outside the US.
Steve, Mike,
"Silver (having been humiliated by Trump’s election after having Hillary at ~85%)"
Yes. Although as I recall Silver was less wrong than some and caught some heat for giving Trump as good a chance as he did.
SteveF
>now explictly says the projections are valid, so long as there is not a “systematic polling error†(AKA GIGO). No matter what happens, Silver has insulated himself this time.
What he's saying is entirely true. The people who do odds using polls have become aware that systematic polling errors have been occurring in many elections in the US and Europe. Right now, they don't have a good way to estimate them.
The possibility of polling biases have always existed. Different categories of people might answer phones. It was always possible for people to lie. ( When I do indulge political pollsters, I lie. *I always have*. It's a policy of mine since… I don't know. Maybe Mike Royko suggested it? Anyway, O lie to polsters. I give some true answers, some lies. Always.)
But now-a-days, there are people who lie for other reasons. Lots of people are in the habit of concealing their political preferences others shouting it out.
Heck, last night Jim and I went out dancing. A guy asked me to dance. This guy knew a fair number of moves which would be fine on a nearly empty dance floor. However, he had ZERO sense of floor craft and consequently, dancing with him was like playing bumper cars. He and some guy collided, then the guy I'm dancing with rolls his eyes and *says to me* "that guy must have voted for Trump."
Uhmmm sorry but not voting for Trump doesn't not automatically confer great dance skillz…. and vice versa! I doubt his lack of skill had much to do with his politics. (Although it may have had something to do with his general personality which seemed to suggest he thought he walked on water.)
But really…. I was not going to get into any sort of argument with this guy either about Trump, GOP, Dems and certainly not about how that correlates to dancing skillzzzz! He wasn't a pollster… but I know people can have a similar feeling when a stranger calls them, and they aren't necessarily going to be truthful about their political views just because the stranger calling claims to be doing something "scientific" or for the purpose of "reporting".
BTW: The guy continued to roll his eyes at everyone who bumped into him on the dance floor. Despite the fact that a follow has less control about crashing into someone than a lead, I crashed into fewer people than he did. (Sometimes, this required me to NOT entirely follow his lead if it would obviously fling me into the path of someone else. Guess what? He started rolling his eyes at me too. Very bad manners to roll eyes at your dance partner. Even if they are horrible! So… oy!! )
I watched a bit– he asked lots of women to dance. No one ever danced with him twice. (Probably not due to his politics. But personality and bad floor craft. Ick!)
mark bofill,
Yes, Nate Silver was criticized before the election for his “unrealistic†(AKA non-zero) estimates of Trump’s chances. But hidden in all the post-election pulling of hair was the fact that Silver gave Trump a modest chance to win in a VERY close election. Even Silver had Trump’s chances of winning with well over 300 electoral college votes at close to zero. The pre-election polls were consistently wrong: Trump out-performed in every battle-ground state. Which is why I give little credibility to pre-election polls today. They are measuring the views of people who are willing to talk to them, which is likely not a representative sample.
:> That's pretty funny. Thanks lucia.
.
Steve,
Yeah. I'm coming to that realization, that pre-election polls are a *lot* less useful predictors than I've previously believed.
Lucia,
“Right now, they don't have a good way to estimate them.â€
.
Says the woman who wilfully misleads pollsters! 😉
.
I do have one gentle suggestion for them: stop trying to predict elections. Or at a minimum, reduce the level of effort a hundred-fold. If they are going to waste time (their own and voters’), then at least minimize the waste.
lucia (Comment #171860),
It's not that the Supremes weren't concerned about what "jurisdiction" meant in the Elk decision, the majority opinion mentions it 22 times and addresses it directly. It's just that they weren't concerned at all (as far as I can tell) with the *practical* jurisdiction issues found in Stone Dog. The decision in Stone Dog discusses reservation boundaries, the text of the 1868 treaty with the Sioux, and digs down into the details. It apparently mattered that it was a Sioux killing another Sioux, it apparently mattered that the incident happened on a reservation, and it apparently mattered that the treaty with the Sioux specifically covered extradition to/from the Sioux. Decision may be read here:
.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kan-Gi-Shun-Ca/Opinion_of_the_Court
.
None of those details are present at all in the majority opinion for Elk:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins/Opinion_of_the_Court
.
Looking at the respective treaties, it's clear that the Sioux enjoyed much more practical jurisdiction than the Winnebago. In the 1868 Sioux treaty the government promises that except for their own officers and employees, no one will be permitted to "pass over, settle, or reside" in their territory. In the 1828 Winnebago treaty they are forbidden to interfere at all with non-Indians on the territory mining "or any other purpose whatever"; their recourse is to ask the President of the United States to remove them, and the U.S. promises to pay them for damages. All the later Winnebago treaties are sad variants of "we'll take some of your land and give you some money" or "we'll take all of your land and give you different land and some money." And not just the treaties put them in inferior status to the Brule Sioux, in 1863 congress passed an act concerning the Winnebago. Quoting from Matthew Krezenski's thesis on reprecussions of the Dawes Act:
—
Although the 1865 Treaty with the Winnebago made no mention concerning allotments on their new reservation in Nebraska Territory, the 1863 act clearly intended that the Winnebagos be allotted once they were settled on their new reservation. It also subjected these Indians to the laws of the United States and also to the criminal laws of the state or territory in which they resided. In addition, the Winnebagos remained subject to the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Furthermore, it specifically prohibited them from making valid contracts with anyone except other Indians without the permission of the president.
—
If Krezenski is correct, the tribe to which Elk belonged had no *practical* jurisdiction at all at the time the 14th amendment was ratified. If Stone Dog had been a Winnebago, he would've been hung.
.
Still in the Elk decision the Winnebago treaties did not come up, nor did the fact (not definitively established, but very likely) that he was a Winnebago. In fact, the majority opinion takes note that he does not say what tribe he actually is, which if the details of the treaties mattered for establishing jurisdiction, would actually be relevant. They write:
—
The petition, while it does not show of what Indian tribe the plaintiff was a member, yet, by the allegations that he 'is an Indian, and was born within the United States,' and that 'he had severed his tribal relations to the Indian tribes,' clearly implies that he was born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States.
—
All parties (Elk, majority, dissent) agree that he was born in the United States and thus satisfied that portion of the fourteenth amendment — since he was very likely born on a reservation, this means that unlike the grounds of an embassy, there is no artificial "foreign soil" from being born on a reservation to cloud that issue. All parties (Elk, majority, dissent) agree that at the time of his birth he was a member of a tribe. All parties (Elk, majority, dissent) agree that at the time of his attempted registration he was no longer the member of a tribe. The distinction between the majority and the dissent is that the majority held that the jurisdiction clause had to hold *at birth* for someone born in the United States, and if it did not naturalization was necessary, while Harlan held that the intention of the 14th as shown by debate and by the 1866 act was to enfranchise US-born natives as along as they weren't *currently* members of a recognized tribe.
.
For both parties, the critical qualifier on jurisdiction was *membership* in a tribe. The majority spelled that out:
—
The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
…
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
—
As you can see, *immediate allegiance* to a non-US entity is sufficient for the majority to disqualify Elk under the 14th. So why didn't that logic hold for the subsequent Kim Ark. It did for the dissent, which considered Kim Ark to hold immediate allegiance to the country that his parents were citizens of. The majority also quoted Elk:
—
That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words [subject to the jurisdiction thereof] was "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance".
—
So having conceded that, how did the majority justify the decision? By calling Indians a special case, "The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country." The fact that China considered Kim Ark a citizen doesn't mean that Kim Ark owes them direct and immediate allegiance. The decision mentions allegiance no less than 65 times, and repeatedly emphasis that residents, excepting special cases [like Indians, invaders, and ambassadors] owe immediate political allegiance to the country they were born in, even if they happen to own natural allegiance elsewhere by their parents being citizens.
.
So how could Kim Ark's majority decision be reconcilable with excluding children of illegals without actually overturning it? IANAL, but I'd think it'd be very difficult to impossible, it seems clear to me the majority wanted as broad a non-Indian swathe of citizenship at possible. The only possibilities I can see after skimming it in all its wordy glory are these:
—
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/Opinion_of_the_Court
—
1) Oddly enough, the majority seems *at least* as concerned about "common law" than they do about the 14th amendment. The opinion drones from opinions about British citizenship from English jurists I've never heard of to show that birthright citizenship is the natural behavior for civilized countries, and justify treating Indians differently because they are in a state "unknown to the common law". They quote approvingly an opinion of the attorney general in 1871:
—
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality.
—
I must say that's remarkably fuzzy on the all-important jurisdiction clause. "Probably?" Still, since the opinion puts great store in the common law, should other nations abandoning birthright citizenship make their assessment change? I doubt it, I think this extract may be relevant:
—
It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.
But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, "citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France," and "mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;"
and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by "a favor, a sort of fiction," and Calvo, "by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality."
—
IANAL, but that seems clear to me — the allegiance to a foreign power is the fiction, the citizenship to the current location is natural. And what matters (to that court) is what the general rule was in 1789, not what the case was when the court was decided. I get the decided opinion that the majority would side with Kim Ark *even if* there was no 14th amendment at all.
.
The only other possibility is that the illegality would matter to the domicil, perhaps stretching the agreed-to invader exception to parents who are here without permission. Does the decision provide *any* grist for that mill? I could find only one paragraph from the decision that I thought could provide an out:
—
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.
—
If said Chinese persons were *not* permitted by the United States to reside here, are they entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States? Maybe not. But maybe they are. And even if they aren't, it's certainly not obvious from this paragraph that their *child* wouldn't owe allegiance. I think the opinion of the majority would still be that the child would be a natural born citizen, even if the parents are owed nothing.
.
And honestly, I'm OK with that. I understand that there are policy problems in incenting people to illegally come and have their babies here, or even incenting them to come legally as a tourist and have their babies here. But as long as you don't allow a newborn citizen child to grant his non-citizen parents the right to stay in America, all it would do is make someone able to come back in 18 years when they're an adult and capable of supporting themselves. I don't think that's a big enough political problem to justify abandoning birthright citizenship.
.
On the more narrow issue (for Elk) of what is required to be born a member of a native tribe, that may vary by tribe in the current day. I was unable to find the rules for the Winnebago of Nebraska, it looks like Ho-Chunk nation (formerly Winnebago of Wisconsin) requires at least a grandparent, but birthplace is not even on the enrollment form. But rules today may not correspond to the rules, if any, for tribal membership in 1845 or 1880. I will go out on a limb and say that at the time of Elk any child born to a Winnebago father would be considered a Winnebago by the government, but I'm not sure at all how edge cases would be decided. Reading about Winnebagos online I've come across cases of Winnebagos naturalized by various acts, but no instances of birthright citizenship being achieved until the 1924 act.
Dance moves, citizenship, polling errors, and Winnebego treaties. ‘Eclectic’ is not up to the task as an adjective.
"Note that the period of restricted immigration was a golden age for the American middle class."
So the Great Depression was a golden age for the middle class? Who knew.
lucia (Comment #171898): "I don't know what "logic" you think is applied differently to children born outside the US vs. those born inside the US."
The logic of saying that the only things that matters is the place of birth.
.
lucia: "Are you aware that kids born to US citizens outside the US do NOT get citizenship by birth under the 14th amendment?"
Please don't insult me.
.
lucia: "That Congress grants citizenship to people like me *by statute* doesn't mean "different logic" about what jurisdiction means is applied Americans outside the US."
The logic used in the statue, which goes back at least to the 1st Congress is completely different from the logic you say applies to the 14th Amendment. I think that is illogical. Of course, laws often are illogical. But if the 14th Amendment is interpreted as per Trumbull, then the logic is the same as has always been the case in statutory citizenship law.
SteveF (Comment #171903): "I do have one gentle suggestion for them: stop trying to predict elections."
I wish. But it won't go away, for the same reason that astrology and fortune telling won't go away.
MikeM,
>The logic of saying that the only things that matters is the place of birth.
Who do you think says the only thing that matters is the place of birth? No one here has said that. The 14th amendment doesn't say it's the "only" thing that matters. Giving a guarantee to a particular things doesn't imply it's the "only" thing that matters.
Heck, the 1st-10th amendments cover certain specific rights. That doesn't mean other rights "don't matter". It only means those are the specific restrictions people wanted to guarantee at the time they wrote those particular amendments.
>Please don't insult me.
I'm not trying to insult you. But I can't begin to guess how you think the logic of the 14th amendment is different from statuary law if you don't explain what you mean by that. I can't guess if it's because you don't know how citizenship is conferred on people, or whether you do, but you are infering some logic I don't see and so on. So I need to ask to narrow down the range of what you might be thinking.
Although I guess I insulted you, I guess I've managed to get you to do that. So thanks for elaborating.
>The logic used in the statue, which goes back at least to the 1st Congress is completely different from the logic you say applies to the 14th Amendment.
I think your claim is inaccurate. WRT to the "logic" of the amendment:
The Amendment enacts something to fix a specific harm or potential harm people were worried about at the tie. That harm was that States (in particular) or Congress would chose to NOT include certain people who it was believed should certainly have citizenship. The particular concern was freed slaves. So the "logic" was to write a statute that at a minimum guaranteed that group of people citizenship. Meanwhile, those passing the amendment wanted to continue to let Congress be free to make *other* decisions, which Congress continues to do.
I don't see how there is any conflict in "logic" to provide guarantee to a certain class who Congress or the States might very well treat badly and who had, in fact, been treated badly while leaving Congress otherwise free to pass statues.
The fact that Congress in the past and in the future were almost certain to continue to grant citizenship to people born of American's overseas meant there was no need for people to bind future Congress on that action. So: it wasn't done. That doesn't imply any sort of "logic" that Congress should NOT grant citizenship to children of Americans born overseas. It only indicates people believed there was no reason to tie their hands with constitutional language.
Beyond that, even if there was some sort of confilct in "logic", that would tell us little about what the amendment means. Nothing bars those writing amendments to not follow the "logic" congress previously used to write statutes. Often, the motivating reason for an amendment is precisely to override previous "logic". For example: if you are going to worry about "logic", the amendment that gave women the vote might be said to be based on the "logic" woman should have the right to vote, while previously many thought "logic" dictated they should not be allowed to vote. Heck, the "logic" of the 13th amendment overrides the "logic" underlying previous constitutional features that permitted people to be enslaved. In fact, the 13th amendment was written precisely to reject that "logic".
Obviously, the 14th amendment was *intended* to change something about our laws regarding citizenship. If Congress and the states who ratified it didn't intend to change something, the amendment wouldn't have been proposed and ratified. That it *changed* something can hardly be an argument against believing Congress meant to change things. So there is really nothing in favor of an argument of saying we should interpret the amendment to NOT change a features of the law! If anything "logic" tells us the 14th amendement was to do something to CHANGE the former situation. So if *anything* the fact that it changed something tips the balance to favoring the reading that means something *changed*. It doesn't tip the favor into reading that the amendment was intended to change nothing at all!
MikeM,
Predicting elections is a big business. Just like predicting the stock market!
Lucia: "JD Ohio,
I assume there are no cases because the kids have routinely been accepted as having birthright citizenship. None need to sue to get it, so the kids of the aliens don't go to court."
…..
There are undoubtedly entities that would have standing to challenge the status of the children of illegal aliens, such as states, municipalities, state universities or school districts. There is a gaping legal hole in the Wong K Ark case. Still amazing to me that no one appears to have raised the issue. (Possible there is a federal appellate opinion that I haven't seen.)
JD
JD Ohio,
If the have standing to dispute citizenship in some way, it surprises me *no one* has done it as well. There is very nearly always *someone* who wants to dispute something if it places even the tiniest burden on them.
Lucia, is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen?
SteveF, it's in the early part in the timeline. I couldn't find a matching exhibit to figure out what year this was. The Metro stations closer to Columbia Country Club or Squee's house opened in 1984.
MikeN,
Assuming that's not a rhetorical question, I'm going to answer with this question: why do you ask?
The reason I'm asking is we've been discussing the 14th amendment, and the question seems like a complete subject change from the meaning of the 14th amendment. I'm happy to fish for red herrings, and so will be happy to answer the quesiton. But before I do, I want to know if you think the answer has anything to do with the 14th amendment, and if you do, what you think it has to do with the 14th amendment. Then we can discuss our notions about what the question has to do with the 14th amendment before delving into our respective answer to the question.
And we can also provide the answer to whether I think I am an natural born citizens, why I think it and why I think the answer has nothing to do with the 14th amendment.
If it is a rhetorical question, tell me your answer and your theory of why that's the answer.
Mark Bofill, the situation is similar to 2006, with Democrats having about 5 fewer House seats, and four more Senate seats.
A wave election of any sort should put Democrats in solid position to win Tennessee or Arizona or Nevada as well as holding their own seats. The 14% vs 85% split makes no sense. Silver has an alternate model which puts House chances at 78%.
In 2016, Silver had Trump at about 35% to win the election, until a New Hampshire poll came in with Hillary up 14, that took away a major route to victory, with Romney+FL+OH=253, and just 17 more votes needed.
MikeN,
Ok.
Mike N,
“SteveF, it's in the early part in the timeline.â€
I read everything in the Senate report (I think) up to the attached exhibits. I saw nothing about Kavanaugh saying he was kissing Dr Ford at a house near a metro station in Washington DC. But please prove me wrong: I beg you to give the page number in the Senate document with this statement by Kavanaugh.
DeWitt,
“So the Great Depression was a golden age for the middle class? Who knew.â€
.
I think it was more the post WWII through 1965 period that was considered good for the middle class, not the great depression.
SteveF, It was a redacted witness who claimed they kissed Ford, near the DC metro station.
Here is an article in the NR that discusses both sides and concludes that birthright citizenship was authorized by the 14 th Amendment. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-arguments-constitutional-requirement/
…..
It provides a nice summary of some of the background to the Wong Kim Ark decision. It is more than a bit weird in that it has virtually nothing discussing Kim Ark itself.
JD
Lucia, above you wrote that people born outside the US to US citizens are not citizens at birth under the 14th amendment. Seems like this would make Ted Cruz ineligible to be president.
SteveF, Kavanaugh didn't say it. Another witness.
Mike N,
Thanks, I had understood it was Kavanaugh from your original comment. If the redacted witness’s friend who jumped on the bed could back up that statement, then it would be a very important statement. Otherwise, not so much.
WRT Cruz, he was born to US citizens, so a citizen by statue. Whether that satisfies the Constitutional requirement of “natural born†or not is not clear. Some would say it means a citizen at birth. Others would say it means born within the USA. I doubt Cruz has the personality to successfully run for president, so it is a question we probably won’t have to answer.
JD Ohio,
Thanks for the link. From that article, it sounds like Trump might have a shot at gaining support in the court for prohibiting vacation citizenship… but maybe not even that.
MIkeN,
>ou wrote that people born outside the US to US citizens are not citizens at birth under the 14th amendment
By that I mean,they don't gain their citizenship through the 14th amendment, but rather by statute. The 14th amendment is silent on what happens to them, so no, the don't gain citizenship *that way*.
>Seems like this would make Ted Cruz ineligible to be president.
Why do you think that? Real question.
MikeN (Comment #171921): "Seems like this would make Ted Cruz ineligible to be president."
So who gets to decide if Cruz is eligible? I think that is perfectly clear: The Electoral College decides. There is no role for the courts in the matter, just like with eligibility for the House and Senate.
My understanding is that legal scholars believe citizens-born-abroad would qualify as natural born citizens by statute, but the courts haven't actually ruled on this issue. It would have affected George Romney in 1968 and Ted Cruz in 2016, but no one with standing sued over it and no state tried to keep Cruz off a ballot (I don't remember if Romney lasted long enough to be on a primary ballot).
Mike M. (Comment #171926),
Are you of the opinion that the Electoral College could make a 20-year old non-citizen President if they wanted? I think that's unlikely; there's no point in the constitution specifying requirements to be president if the Electoral College can override that at their whim.
On Trumbull: Owing to the prominence of Trumbull quotes on the citizenship clause, someone was motivated to write an article in the Yale Law review:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1497630
It appears Trumbull's interpretation of the clause does NOT match that claimed in the federalist article above. In fact, he wrote a full letter to Andrew Johnson explaining his thought.
From the abstract:
>—————–
his Comment argues that the contemporary debate on the meaning of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has overlooked a significant piece of historical evidence. Scholars such as Peter Schuck, Rogers Smith, and John Eastman have argued that the “subject to the jurisdiction†requirement of the Clause should, as a historical matter be read broadly, to, for example, exclude children born here of illegal immigrant parents from constitutional birthright citizenship. In doing so they lean significantly on the statements of Sen. Lyman Trumbull, who drafted the precursor citizenship language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and was an influential player in the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yet Trumbull actually held quite different views. In a previously-unconsidered 1866 letter he wrote to President Andrew Johnson summarizing the Civil Rights Act, Trumbull said that birthright citizenship for children born in the United States turned on whether the parents of those were living permanently, “domiciled,†here. In emphasizing domicile, which at that time turned merely on whether an individual was living permanently in a particular place, Trumbull rejected the consensualist position that a child’s citizenship depended on the political status of that child’s parents within the state, and the presence of a mutual consensual relationship between the parents and the sovereign. This Comment thus suggests that it is no longer tenable for consensualist scholars to rely on Sen. Trumbull’s statements as evidence for their views on the contours of birthright citizenship.
>—————–
I"m downloading the whole paper. I haven't read it yet.
(Note also, Trumbull is credited with writing the "Civil Rights Act of 1866* NOT the 14th amendment. So, this also suggests the person writing at the Federalist got that wrong.)
Dale S (Comment #171928): "Are you of the opinion that the Electoral College could make a 20-year old non-citizen President if they wanted?"
Yep.
.
Dale S: "there's no point in the constitution specifying requirements to be president if the Electoral College can override that at their whim."
.
I don't see that. The Constitution specifies requirements for Senators and clearly gives the Senate the right to decide if an elected Senator is eligible. So the Senate can override the requirements "at their whim". Same for the House and requirements for Representatives. I see no reason why the same logic would apply for President.
The Senate has refused to seat elected Senators on the grounds of not meeting the requirements (Albert Gallatin comes to mind). They have seated Senators who have not met the requirements (but I don't know if they ever did that knowingly). They have made an elected Senator (from West Virginia, circa 1940) wait several months to be seated, until the requirements were met. I am pretty sure that no court has ever been involved, because there is no role for the courts.
Somebody has to decide eligibility "at their whim". The only question is who decides. If we could contact the ghost of James Madison and ask him, no way would he answer "the courts". That would not be consistent with separation of powers.
JD_Ohio,
"Still amazing to me that no one appears to have raised the issue. (Possible there is a federal appellate opinion that I haven't seen.)"
Plyler v. Doe
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202
"Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
I am undecided on the meaning of the 14th Amendment and have been arguing on that subject for the sake of understanding.
I just noticed something. The text says:
"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."
We have been assuming that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applies to the time of birth. But then shouldn't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" also apply to the time of naturalization? What sense does that make? None that I can see. Maybe it is sloppy wording, but I think we must consider the possibility that it is careful wording.
I submit that the meaning is that you are a citizen if one of the following applies:
(1) You were born in the United States and are now subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(2) You were naturalized and are now subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(3) You qualify for citizenship by statute. Of course, that is not in the Amendment as such, just not prohibited.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171931):
Plyler v. Doe is not relevant. The decision turned on the Equal Protection Clause, which says "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Citizenship or legality does not matter. That clause even applies to those with diplomatic immunity.
Mike M,
A 20 year old non-citizen would face legal challenges in each state. Their name would never go on the ballot in the individual states. You can, of course, suggest that the college could simply ignore the results of an election and install a 20 year old foreigner as POTUS…. it is the same basic argument Hillary’s supporters used in 2016. I don’t think that is credible either. Anyway, the courts would be involved long before any voting ever took place. States no more have the right to ignore the presidential elegibility requirements in the Constitution than they have the right to ignore the second ammendment…. like it or not, Federal courts decide what is or is not constitutional, and have since Marbury v Madison.
SteveF (Comment #171934): "A 20 year old non-citizen would face legal challenges in each state. Their name would never go on the ballot in the individual states."
On what basis? Real question. It may be that individual states have laws that prohibit listing ineligible individuals on the ballot. Then such a person could be challenged on that basis. But lacking such laws, I see no basis for a challenge.
An ineligible person was on the ballot for Senate from West Virginia circa 1940. His age was an election issue. He won. The Senate refused to seat him until he turned 30. No court case.
.
SteveF: " the courts would be involved long before any voting ever took place"
That is not the historical precedent. Which is not to say that today's courts would not stick their noses in. Especially if the candidate were a Republican.
The U.S government recognizes the right to disavow citizenship. There is even a fee for the paperwork.
The 14th Amendment is claimed to provide an absolute right to citizenship based solely on location and jurisdiction at the time of birth.
So is a person born in the U.S. who disavows his citizenship entitled to later reclaim his birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment? If not, why not? Real questions.
Mike M,
“On what basis?â€
.
If a State were to place the name of JT Laputski, 20, citizen of Poland on the ballot for President, seems to me every voter in the state, not to mention other candidates, would have standing in Federal Court to block it. I hope you are joking, but I fear you are not. Really, it is a crazy suggestion.
Mike M. (Comment #171930),
The decision on whether the electoral college has the final say on who is president, without regard to constitutional requirements, would be made by the judiciary branch. I'm betting that they would decide that the judiciary branch has the ultimate say when it comes to a constitutional question.
.
After all, unlike the 22nd amendment which places limitation on being *elected* president, the citizenship requirement is eligibility to *be* president.
Mike M.,
"That clause even applies to those with diplomatic immunity."
Cite please. I can find no court decisions that require free public education of the children of parents with diplomatic immunity.
Mike M. (Comment #171935),
Since the ineligible senator was not seated until he turned 30, it's hard to see who would sue for what purpose? No one could sue him for illegally being a senator, because he wasn't one yet; and there wasn't any point in him suing to be seated, since he wasn't eligible.
.
So the Electoral College could choose someone ineligible to be president, and as long as that person didn't actually *become* president the eligibility requirements aren't violated. But what *would* happen in this case is unclear to me. In the case of a president-elect who is almost of age, I'd guess the actually swearing in would be delayed until they are actually of age; in the case where the president-elect is never going to be eligible in his term I'd guess the election would be thrown to congress. But I would certainly expect that turn of events to end up in front the Supreme Court, and for their ruling to be accepted as binding by all parties.
DaleS,
“I'm betting that they would decide that the judiciary branch has the ultimate say when it comes to a constitutional question.â€
.
Yes, and they would start by citing Marbury v Madison. Not likely they would vote to overturn that ruling.
Mike M.,
"So is a person born in the U.S. who disavows his citizenship entitled to later reclaim his birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment? If not, why not? Real questions."
No, because he disavowed the citizenship that was his under the 14th Amendment. He can't later claim something he has already disavowed.
You can also lose your citizenship without formally disavowing it. It's explained in your passport, for example. It doesn't happen much, though.
RE: Yale Article
……
Seems like a fair article. However, if the author is correct, Kim Ark was wrongly decided. Anchor babies would not receive citizenship. The general rule glossed over by the Yale comment is that wording is changed for a reason. If "domicile" was well understood, then why change the wording?
……
Also, going back to my law school days domicile is a very slippery concept that many legislatures try to avoid when drafting laws.
JD
SteveF (Comment #171937): "seems to me every voter in the state, not to mention other candidates, would have standing in Federal Court to block it."
The voters would surely not have standing. There were dozens of birther lawsuits thrown out for that reason. Not sure about the other candidates having standing.
————–
Dale S (Comment #171940): "So the Electoral College could choose someone ineligible to be president, and as long as that person didn't actually *become* president the eligibility requirements aren't violated."
Right, so any court case would seem to be moot until after the election.
.
Dale S: "In the case of a president-elect who is almost of age, I'd guess the actually swearing in would be delayed until they are actually of age".
That is what was done in the case of the West Virginia Senator. But who decided that? The Senate, because they are giving the authority to make that decision.
Who decides in the case of the President? The corresponding authority would be the Electoral College. That makes perfect sense if the Electoral College worked as originally envisioned. It no longer works that way, but the courts have no business rewriting the Constitution to change that. But I think there may be a constitutional remedy.
.
Dale S: "in the case where the president-elect is never going to be eligible in his term I'd guess the election would be thrown to congress."
There is no constitutional bases for that. But there is, I think, a remedy in the 25th Amendment: "Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."
Then when the President becomes eligible, he could take office.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171942): "You can also lose your citizenship without formally disavowing it. It's explained in your passport, for example."
Thanks. I either never noticed that or forgot about it.
So there are things one can do to lose one's birthright citizenship as granted by the 14th Amendment. Those things are presumably defined by an act of Congress. That means that Congress could change which things qualify. I don't see how that could be used to blanket deny citizenship to the children of illegals, but I would think it could be used to deny citizenship to those born here but with no other connection to the U.S.
Mike M,
I did not suggest voters have standing in a suit against the Federal Government over Obama’s elegibility (they don’t). Individuals do have standing in Federal court against their own state when that state acts in violation of the Constitution. As far as I can tell, none of the suits initially filed against individual states were dismissed in Federal Courts for lack of standing, they were mostly just not heard for lack of merit….. because Obama clearly was a US citizen. Those cases have nothing to do with an instance of a state placing a known 20 year old foreign national on the presidential ballot.
.
The constitutional abomination known as Kelo v New London was not decided on standing.
Mike M.,
I would think that denying the birthright citizenship of the children of illegal aliens would violate the equal protection clause exactly like denying them public education, which is why I linked Plyler v. Doe.
MikeM
>But then shouldn't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" also apply to the time of naturalization?
Yes.
>What sense does that make?
I makes an abso-freaking-lutely lot of sense.
The 14th amendment says a naturalization process that occurs under US jurisdiction definitely makes one a citizen with all the rights of any citizen.
This was important during a period where California was allowing Chinese to naturalize but some other states were not and some of those other states wished to not recognize naturalization performed in another state. The clause ensured naturalized people retain their citizenship when they move to other states.
So that part most definitely mattered, made sense and had an important effect. The only reason a 21st century American might not recognize its importance is that the 14th amendment worked in this regard. We no longer have any state refusing to recognize the citizenship of someone when the naturalization process was carried out in another state.
>Maybe it is sloppy wording, but I think we must consider the possibility that it is careful wording.
Uhmmm… it's very precise wording to deal with a problem that was widespread in the US. It was created with the intention of fixing that problem and it did fix it.
MIkeM
>The Senate refused to seat him until he turned 30. No court case.
Lack of court case doesn't mean courts didn't have jurisdiction. It often merely means the potential plaintiff didn't elect to sue. If he was turning 30 soon, just waiting would be less costly and less trouble than going to court.
lucia (Comment #171948): "The 14th amendment says a naturalization process that occurs under US jurisdiction definitely makes one a citizen with all the rights of any citizen."
But that is what naturalization means.
.
lucia: "This was important during a period where California was allowing Chinese to naturalize…"
I don't believe that. Article I specifically gives Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and the first Congress did so. States have never had any control over naturalization, at least not since 1790.
I have read that states did have control over immigration in the 19th century. But once immigrants were naturalized they were American citizens in every state.
MikeM
Read this first sentence including all clauses:
>"All persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside"
The naturalization act is here:
http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg566.pdf
You are correct that Congress decided who could become a US citizen. The Naturalization act made a naturalized citizen a US citizen. However– and this is important– Congress did not decide what made someone a STATE citizen. So the Naturalization act did NOT describe how a person could become a citizen of a STATE make them a citizen in the STATE in which they resided.
Under the Naturalization act, if citizen of both the US and State A moved to State B, State B could refuse to accept that person as a citizen of State B. State B couldn't strip them of US citizenship, but they could refuse them STATE citizenship.
The 14th amendment changed that. Now, if you naturalize and get US citizenship, you also get state citizenship in the state in which you reside. When you move, you get state citizenship in the new state.
This is a change.
lucia (Comment #171951): "However– and this is important– Congress did not decide what made someone a STATE citizen. … but they could refuse them STATE citizenship."
I'm sorry, but I don't see where you are getting that from.
MikeM
Where do I get that state and us citizenship weren't linked? There's this obscure case, probably forgotten by the time of the writing of the 14th. It was called "Dred Scott".
Also, some of the arguments in Congress against the 14th amendment was that the law would remove the power to decide who is a citizen from the states.
MikeM: Arguments against the 14th amendment at the time are provided in the link JD Ohio posted
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-arguments-constitutional-requirement/
Here's a synpsis of one:
======
More compelling is a subsequent discussion of Chinese immigrants in California (who were allowed to come but not allowed to naturalize) and Gypsies in Pennsylvania, a discussion set off by a racist diatribe by Senator Edgar Cowan, who asserted that states must be allowed to stop themselves from being overrun by dirty racial minorities and believed the 14th Amendment would strip them of this authority by granting citizenship to the children in those populations.
Senator John Conness agreed that the amendment would make the kids of Chinese immigrants citizens, but argued this was no problem, and simply waved aside concerns about Gypsies:
====
So: those against believed their state could refuse to grant state citizenship to chinese and gypsies and they thought the 14th would prevent them from doing that. A supporter agreed the 14th would do precisely that. But the supporters considered that a feature not a bug.
So, that's where I get the above idea from.
lucia (Comment #171953): "Where do I get that state and us citizenship weren't linked? There's this obscure case, probably forgotten by the time of the writing of the 14th. It was called "Dred Scott"."
But Dred Scott ruled that former slaves and their descendants could not be citizens and that federal law overruled state law.
lucia: "Now, if you naturalize and get US citizenship, you also get state citizenship in the state in which you reside. When you move, you get state citizenship in the new state."
Could the state of Illinois rule deny you citizenship on the grounds that you were not born in the U.S. and not naturalized? Real question.
Mike M. (Comment #171956): "Could the state of Illinois rule deny you citizenship on the grounds that you were not born in the U.S. and not naturalized? Real question."
Oops. Of course they can't. But not because of the sentence we have been discussing. It is because of the next sentence: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States …"
MikeM,
From Dred Scott: The states can make them a citizen of the state. But that doesn't make them a citizen of the US.
>8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.
This discussion has wandered off (at least with respect to the questions I asked re the 14th Amendment) So I will briefly restate those questions.
.
I submit that the most reasonable reading of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" is that you are a citizen if either you were born in the United States and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or you were naturalized and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I know that is not the only reading or even the usual one. But is there some reason in can not be read that way?
.
Congress has specified conditions under which the right to citizenship under the 14th Amendment becomes null and void. Why can't those conditions be expanded to exclude those who are born here and leave?
.
Neither of the above could be used to deny citizenship to the children of illegals who remain here. But they could apply to the children of transient visitors (birth tourists).
MikeM
>Could the state of Illinois rule deny you citizenship on the grounds that you were not born in the U.S. and not naturalized? Real question.
It can't deny me Illinois citizenship after the 14th amendment was passed. It could have denied me Illinois citizenship before it was passed. (See paragraph 8 from Dred Scott above.)
In both cases, they couldn't revoke my US citizenship.