Natural Born Citizen Redux [UPDATED]

I believe that Lindsey Graham has declared Kamala Harris to be qualified to serve as Vice President, saying that there is no issue as to whether she is a U.S. citizen.

Thanks, Doug. Correction made. Only 52 to go.

Great point Steve. Thank you!

Steve, you're making believe that there ever was a question about McCain. He was born in the Canal Zone (US territory) to the naval officer who would become commander in chief of Pacific forces during the Vietnam War, which is why McCain Jr. became one of the best known POWs. The Democrats proposed this resolution, not because anyone thought otherwise, but to throw it back at the Birthers. We don't need any more resolutions like this from either party.

In the contentious year of 1968, it was briefly covered that GOP candidate and Michigan governor George Romney was born in Mexico where his parents were Mormon missionaries. This was a one day news story and I don't think it would have become otherwise had Romney won the Republican nomination. The fact that this sort of story is even treated as a subject worth discussing (didn't some fringe Democratic news sites raise this same question about Ted Cruz in 2016?) tells us a lot about how debased political conversation has become. You should know better than to participate in this game.

You make a good point, Paul, but I don't think you are quite right. The Senate resolution was proposed in early April, before Obama clinched the nomination and before the birther nonsense had become widespread. It was cosponsored by Hillary Clinton, then still a candidate, who had no birtherism to contend with.

I agree that there was never a meaningful question about McCain's eligibility, other than in the law school exam sense: Can Congress enlarge the constitutional category of natural born citizenship(in this case, per section 301 of the INA, which includes a condition other than birth to two citizens)? Or does statutory citizenship, even at birth, necessary result in "natutralized" citizenship? Fun to debate in class; out of place in a presidential election.

Anyhow, the Senate resolution made it clear that the Democratic candidate — Obama or Clinton — would not even raise a whispering campaign, which is better than the current situation.

The fringe news site you mention may have been the New York Times, and onw person raising the issue of Ted Cruz's qualifications was Donald Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/06/donald-trump-keeps-dwelling-on-ted-cruz-citizenship-issue/.

It is a darn shame that both houses of Congress have not passed legislation declaring that all of those who are U.S. citizens at birth are eligible to the presidency, but they haven't. I think Chadha means that the McCain Senate resolution is not "law," as gracious as it was. We are left with Congress originally having made foreign-born children of U.S. citizens "natural born citizens" in the 1790 Naturalization Act, but James Madison taking the lead to amend that to "citizens" in the 1795 and subsequent naturalization laws https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2016/02/the-missing-discussion-of-race-and-xenophobia-in-the-ted-cruz-citizenship-controversy.html. Worse than that, the 1795 law said in a single sentence that both minors whose parents naturalized, and children of U.S. citizens born abroad, were "citizens" so unless we think that Congress meant to make the foreign-born who became citizens when they were 17 eligible to the Presidency, there is an argument that the ineligibility of foreign-born citizens was deliberate. Assuming, as I believe correct, that Congress has the power to make natural-born citizens, there is an argument that on an intentionalist reading of the law they have declined to exersize it.

As for McCain, as I wrote, the trick is that McCain was born in 1936, and the Canal Zone Citizenship Act passed in 1937. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/07/there-was-a-very-real-birther-debate-about-john-mccain/ And if you read through 8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., the statutory citizenship provisions, some make people "citizens" and others "citizens at birth." The Canal Zone Citizenship Act just makes "citizens."

Hypo: "Pres. Trump, what do you think about the press reports that you have been beating your wife?"

Trump says "I haven't seen those reports."

(This isn't far off: the other day, HuffPost's S.V. Dáte asked, at a WH Press Conference: “Mr. President, after three and a half years, do you regret, at all, all the lying you’ve done to the American people?”)

Back to the hypo: the following day, the left wing media reports: "Trump raised the issue of beating his wife, and then refused to say he doesn't. Not one Republican has condemned the President for beating his wife."

Later, on MSNBC, "Today, the worst President in American history told the world just how much he hates women and children. His twisted sense of his own interests not only compels him to beat his wife mercilessly, but to lie about the fact it has been reported by reliable sources."

Spot on, anon.

And positing pseudo-onuses is rather petty, Steve-O.

Of course, when room for genuine disagreement is verboten and the other side is simply adjudged – or painted as being – "ignorant" on any point (unless they toe YOUR line), then of course you would believe that expressions of "collegial support" must be due. This, as a basic showing of dignity and professionalism (like in the left media, right? Or in the academy generally, right?) – because THERE SIMPLY CANNOT BE a rational basis for subscribing to an alternative view here. Thus, so one is called upon to express one's disapproval vocally in order to SHOW, not only that one disagrees, but also to signal that it is simply UNACCEPTABLE to disagree here. YOU draw the line of where and when it is acceptable to disagree, and in THIS sort of case it is verboten. A BASIC sense of dignity DEMANDS it, in fact.

I wonder how many Americans, irrespective of their team commitments, no longer see proponents of this sort of thinking as being fellow citizens with whom they have strong disagreements but nonetheless a shared sense of purpose, destiny, and institutions, but now rather as something quite else…

A non

The convention last night demonstrated your thesis quite strikingly.

We are in favor of the unity of the American people.
Trump and his supporters are evil.
We must unify to defeat them.

We are positive.
Positively in favor of defeating the evil ones.
We must remain positive to defeat them.

We are against casting doubt on the integrity of our elections.
The evil ones will disrupt the fairness of the election process, refuse to accept the results, and they and their foreign allies will rig the process to favor Trump.
We are against casting doubt on the integrity of our elections.

Thanks anon, but by my last sentence I meant viewing these totalitarian Democrats as falling squarely within the concept of a "domestic enemy," per the Constitution. They are hell-bent on eviscerating the constitutional order, raping freedom of speech, etc. What possible grounds are left for social solidarity otherwise?

(Do the DNC elites themselves realize that this is how they are coming to be perceived and not care precisely because they so hate Middle America? Or do they simply think that, apropos the original posting here, demography being destiny, it shan't matter in less than a generation's time? What will happen in the interim, though?).

I furthermore wonder how many pondered what Obama had said about Trump et al doing anything to bring the country down in order to advance their agenda and recognized the remark to be a form of projection. Unfortunately, the prospects for that are grim. Most people seem immune to the fact that someone's merely stating "when they go low, we go high" doesn't in fact mean that that's true at all.

(What would happen in the country if information were released, by credible sources, that some or much of the protesting in Oregon and elsewhere was in fact organized by groups who took their marching orders from people in the DNC…).

Who, moreover, is going to do the (credible) social scientific work of tracing the origins of the ideas in the media of: "Trump won't accept the election results"; Trump will cancel the election; etc.?

A non

I think we agree, but I would differ in one respect. When you say, "They are hell-bent on eviscerating the constitutional order, raping freedom of speech, etc. What possible grounds are left for social solidarity otherwise?" I fear you are, too, undermining any possibility of unity by observing the nefarious activities of political opponents and drawing the conclusion that all members of that party are just as venal.

OTOH, I'm sure that you do make this distinction because you refer often to the "DNC elites." WHile I might choose a different label, I agree 100% about the efforts of the opinion shapers in the left hierarchy to undermine some basic tenets that hold Americans together.

THis playbook isn't unique. It is used by all leftists attempting to "transform" a society. Destroy history (e.g., tear down the statues of Washington and Jefferson), destroy faith in law enforcement, destroy faith in election systems, destroy faith in physical security itself. Think of how much time is spent on outlets like MSNBC attempting to achieve these ends, under the guise of advocating "reform" and expressing Trump hate.

The "tell" however, is so obvious.

These "revolutionaries" aren't confident. The "DNC elite" is dealing with a public that is very much aware of somewhat obvious flaws in their arguments.

Thus, look at the amount of time at the convention that is being spent on certain subjects. One can discern exactly what these DNC elites are worried about.

From what I've heard in the messages the "DNC elites" have their speakers endlessly repeating, they are worried.

If Trump is so evil, is this worry solely because the DNC elites are concerned that a winning plurality of Americans in the next election will be, like T in their view, old white male cis gender misogynistic racist stupid vulgar evil autocrats?

Back to where we started. IF this is the way that the DNC elites view about 50% of the voters in this country, then you are right: how can we reconcile?

And, when these DNC elites convey, in no uncertain terms, hatred of about half the people in this country, do these DNC elites expect those "despicables" to support any of their proposals, even those aims that are laudable?

Who had it right so far at the DNC convention?

Jill Biden. If only the "DNC elite" would listen to — and hear — what she said.

Perhaps I see a harder distinction between the Dems and their elites than you seem to do. As I see it, the leadership is afraid it has created a monster it cannot control (or, rather, that a monster was born outside of their control, at any rate).

Putting that distinction to the side for the moment, you also simply seem to have more faith than I do, as evidenced by your endorsement of Jill Biden's remarks. For you seem to believe that there is hope for either the restoration of the status quo ante, or for reaching a new PACIFIC equilibrium, by scaling back the current trends. I don't. At all. Now, you may be fearful of that prospect – indeed, of its possibly horrific attendant ramifications. Suffice it to say that I am not. If the average Dem wants France 1793, then those domestic enemies simply fail to appreciate the mechanics of who bears what, and in what ratios… At least for now.

Again, though, neither the Dems nor their elites need to believe in reconciliation if they simply think that all such deplorables will either disappear over the coming generation, or will just be rendered politically insignificant, demographically speaking. And why shouldn't they think thus? (It's not as though there's genuine opposition. Why did so many Trump supporters vote for NeverTrumper GOP congressmen in 2018? Why will they do so again in 2020?). Again, to my mind, the real questions the DNC need only ask itself in this regard are (1) how long will that process really take and (2) what kind of "disruptions" might manifest in the interim? (E.g., the last sentence of the previous paragraph).

Relatedly, the DNC's elites' main fear isn't garnering the middle-of-the-road white guy vote. They believe they've convinced much of America that Trump's done literally everything wrong, and in the worst way possible every single time too. (That they can't quantify their competency claims is immaterial; they don't need to that in order to win the requisite number of voters over by instilling A SENSE that that's the case).

Instead, methinks the DNC elite's primary fear of a generation of younger Democrats who see that their party is complete garbage – just like the GOP. I have Bernie Bro friends who at least SAY/STATE publicly that they won't vote for Biden. The fear, then, would be that, even in if the elites throw a few token bones to hoi polloi (trying to create a public health care system, etc.), the main strategy of identity politics in the form of placing 'moderate' visible minorities in positions of power simply won't mollify the demands of their evolving base. And rightfully so, as the system is widely perceived to be corrupt and plutocratic. (Of course, they'll deny it when Trump says that it is. Then, Dems vociferously disagree, because he's a tyrant and a demagogue and just lying in order to manipulate his base and to undermine democracy…).

A non

Wow. I think that's a thoughtful analysis. I agree with much of it, though, you correctly note that I do believe in a "place called Hope." (If not in the person who made that phrase a campaign slogan.)

That's why I applaud your reference to the left's claim that T is a demagogue. Perhaps he, in many ways, is.

But, my my, how could anyone watch that convention and come away thinking the DNC elites were not engaged in demagoguery.

Definition: "A demagogue (from Greek a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from people, populace, the commons + leading, leader) or rabble-rouser) is a leader who gains popularity in a democracy by exploiting emotions, prejudice, and ignorance to arouse some against others, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Demagogues overturn established norms of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so."

The DNC elites:

1. Constantly exploited emotions (this was to the point of becoming sort of disgustingly obvious);

2. Appealed to prejudice (i.e., making some demographic groups appear to be the center of attention to the exclusion of others) (A non, as you point out, this is a DNC strategy, not even denied);

3. Tried, through hyperbole and some outright lies to appeal to ignorance to pit their supporters against Trump voters; and

4. Tried to whip up the passions of their audience (e.g, all COVID deaths were caused by Trump).

What really was galling was the attempt to repeatedly state: "REquest a ballot and IMMEDIATELY return it." THis message was somewhat modified by the last night, but the point was clear: The DNC was attempting to persuade voters to vote as early as possible, clearly fearing that things might get a bit better, or show some improvement, by election day.

Thus, efforts to CHANGE THE RULES, at the LAST MINUTE, to put in place mass mailing of live ballots to every registered voter in areas where this has not been the custom and practice and instruct voters to "immediately return" these ballots upon receipt. (Again, this message changed a bit by the last night "return as soon as allowed" as the original formulation sounded very close to me to voter misinformation.)