We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Unfortunate Adjacencies in BBC News

Yesterday, the BBC 10 o’clock news covered wicked Mr Trump’s treatment of immigrant children (which, it was implied, was very unprecedented, nor ever praised by the left). The beeb’s Washington correspondent told us that

“In a series of tweets that will further strain the transatlantic alliance”

Mr Trump asserted Germany’s immigrants were causing that country problems such as more crime,

“but that is false. Germany’s crime rate is lower than it has ever been.”

(The emphasis on the word false was in the original.)

Soon after came their coverage of Merkel’s woes. The beeb’s Europe correspondent told us that, instead of a cooperative pan-European policy (which, she seemed to be implying, was what had been needed), individual European countries had raised barriers (references to populism and stuff), so now Merkel was meeting with the Italian PM one day, the French president the next, in

“a race against time”

to salvage things in a Europe

“more disunited than ever.”

I can’t understand why Merkel doesn’t just point out to her German voters that crime in Germany is lower than ever now they’ve imported such vast numbers of people from areas where crime rates are notoriously low – uh, well, notorious, anyway. 🙂 If any wicked right-wing populist dared to question her own crime statistics, Merkel could point to the happy experiences of Austria or Sweden, and if that doesn’t do the trick, she can always quote the majestic authority of the BBC: suggesting an immigrant-related rise in crime is false.

I also can’t understand why the BBC’s correspondents don’t coordinate their narratives better. That emphatic false from the Washington correspondent at the end of his story really wanted to be further from the somewhat downbeat report from the Europe correspondent – like, in a whole different news broadcast.

[I wrote down the BBC correspondents’ words from memory immediately after the programme aired yesterday.]

39 comments to Unfortunate Adjacencies in BBC News

  • Mr Ecks

    Both the BBC and C4 need to be shutdown for good in 24 hours flat. Pay redun money to ordinary folk–teas ladies/techs etc. The boss class, managers, “creatives” and luvvies all go sans compo and pension.

  • Paul Marks

    The “alternatives” to the BBC (such as Channel Four and Sky News) are just as leftist – the bias is so extreme it almost comical. And the “broadcasting authorities” have made it very clear that they define the words “objective” and “unbiased” to mean leftist – the regulators and the broadcasters all sharing the same leftist university way of looking at the world.

    No dissent is allowed in Britain – see the fact of Fox News, attacked by the “broadcasting authorities” and then taken off air (without any compensation to customers) by the SJW senior staff at Sky itself, with nods from the top people at News International – who are not SJWs but do not wish to offend them because of FINANCIAL concerns.

    In a decent world there were be real diversity of television news companies – with them openly expressing their own political world view (no nonsense about being “unbiased” or “objective” – the buzz words of a more than a century of “School of Journalism” lies), but we do not live in a decent world – and it is going to get a lot worse before when (and IF) it gets better.

  • I’ll be popping the champagne when Angela Merkel finally gets given the Spanish Archer.

    Hopefully then the German politico’s will then get back to the agenda of supporting their manufacturing and engineering businesses rather than providing welfare support to economic migrants and other ne’er-do-wells from the Middle East and North Africa.

    Trump may be a crude and blustering perma-tanned monstrosity, but he upsets all the right people for the right reasons. I can’t bring myself to admire or even like him particularly, but you’ve got to have a grudging respect for his cojones.

  • pete

    The BBC eagerly accepts facts and statistics at face vale if they fit its politics.

    Those which don’t are either ignored or subjected to its expert ‘analysis’ in order to discredit them.

  • George Atkisson

    Modern journalism takes it’s cues from the Red Queen of Wonderland. It is well practiced in believing six impossible things before breakfast. Cognitive dissonance is pushed aside as conflicting Narratives are announced which are all true and supported by all the correct people.

  • RRS

    Niall Ferguson put forth a well-reasoned observation yesterday on the force of migrations (and resultant demographics) that will be the dissolving force of the EU rather than “Brexits.”

    It does seem that until the distinction between national citizenship and migrant status within any nation is recognized and enforced (thus limiting unrestricted flows of migrants who achieve residence in a particular nation)the disruptions and popular (thus populist) reactions will increase to the point of dissolution of the “union” that provides open entries and the resultant demographic shifts (at an ever accelerating rate).

  • llamas

    Lies, damned lies and statistics.

    It may well be true that ‘Germany’s crime rate is lower than it has ever been’, although note that even the Germans do not make that expansive claim – they merely claim that it is lower than it has been since 1992. But that is the overall rate for all crimes, from murder to shoplifting.

    But if we look at violent crime – murder, manslaughter, rape, assault – the rates of these crimes in Germany are rising sharply.

    http://www.dw.com/en/more-murder-and-violence-in-germany/a-38567642

    and this may well be – probably is – what President Trump is referring to.

    Left-leaning media are always quick to brand any claim made by President Trump as ‘false!’ based on sometimes-very-tenuous comparisons.

    And I am also very, very leery of government statistics on violent crime, as for example the claim by HMG that violent crime is down in the UK. I read these reports and what I hear is ‘Crime is down, and immigrants are not committing crimes even less than indigenes are not committing crimes!’ Yet the daily parade of reports of the most appalling violent crimes in England very often seems to have a surprisingly-common denominator when it comes to the perpetrators.

    Back to Germany – There’s a whiff of political desperation here – having let 1.something million young, disaffected, unemployable young men into the country, the German government is now desperate to head off the suggestion that these immigrants may have brought their culture with them and this may have led to an increase in crime. I see the same things in Sweden, where increases in violent crime and such aberrations as the use of hand-grenades and heavy automatic weapons are treated as though they simply appeared one day – poof! The idea that these sorts of crimes might be associated with a particular cultural or ethnic group or groups is so outlandish that it simply cannot be spoken at all.

    Good luck with that.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Compare the Trump policy of separating the 20-something couple from their teen-aged children at the border to the North Korean policy of immediately incarcerating not just the guilty party but including his or her entire extended family. The left finds the Nork policy to be more humane.

  • Chip

    Violent crime in Germany rose 6.7% in 2016.

    Last month, it was announced that violent crime fell 2.4% in 2017.

    These stats also don’t include terror investigations. They have gone from 68 in 2013 to over 1200 last year.

    Trump is a politician who shoots from the hip. The BBC is a lavishly funded organization whose prime directive is the reporting of factual information.

    And yet they’re consistently less reliable than a real estate hustler-turned politician.

  • Flubber

    “And yet they’re consistently less reliable than a real estate hustler-turned politician.”

    They’re also consistently less moral.

    At the end of the day, fucking over your citizens for the benefit of strangers is shockingly evil, especially when you do it for Soros’s shekels.

  • Bill McCall

    The unfortunate thing about this, both BBC coverage and the comment by Niall Kilmartin, is that one very important word has been overlooked – that word, regarding the whole discussion of these immigrants, is “illegal”. These people and their offspring are illegally resident in the USA! None of them should be there, nor have any RIGHT to be there, other than the bien pensant belief that because they are there they ought to be allowed to stay. It is not the fault of the United States President, nor the CURRENT US Government that they are there, The parents arrived illegally and brought the children with them. Ipso Facto the children are illegal. If they were born there, the illegal entrance of the parents makes their legal status questionable. Only someone with ears and eyes closed, brain on neutral would argue against this.

  • Bill McCall

    Someone famous got it right when they said “Statistics, Statistics and Damned Lies” or something like that. Politicians cannot be seen to lie, so they obfuscate – such a nice, harmless word.

  • lucklucky

    Almost no one goes to journalism to report the news, they go to be priests, to proselytize their religion which is politics. That is what BBC does.

  • Mr Ecks

    Bill LLewellin–Tripe.

    Don’t want to be –temporarily–separated from your kids? Don’t bring them along on your attempt to invade somebody else’s country.

    What kind of asset the illegal alien crew are to America is shown by their very first action of two fingers up to American laws.

    Should jailbirds be able to plead they should not go away because it separates them from their kids? Bollocks.

    Assuming they actually are the illegal aliens kids and not some he picked up under threat–his or whoever he “bought” the kids from–to use as an appeal to sentiment.

    The left have no regard for kids–as Molyneux says Mexico is one of the worse places to be a kid in terms of violence and shitty childrearing practices–but they know ordinary people DO have compassion no matter how misplaced. And the scummy left tries to weaponise that compassion against the very Westerners who feel it.

    Plus it started by order of W–whose hypocrite wife whinges about what her puke spouse did as if it was Trump’s idea–and has been going on for years .

    But Trump must be to blame right?

  • If they were born there, the illegal entrance of the parents makes their legal status questionable. Only someone with ears and eyes closed, brain on neutral would argue against this.

    Except it doesn’t. I am sure one of the frequent commenters here with a US legal background will correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression being born in the USA means they are entitled to US citizenship by right under US law. And if that is the case, whatever the status of the parents, that would not make the child’s status questionable, and therefore if the child is legally a US national, this is not as open & shut as you seem to think.

    Indeed I know a woman who only spent the first few months of her life in the USA (her parents were not US citizens (one was British, the other French) but were in the country legally & had green cards), & she had never been back to the USA since & had never had a US passport. Much to her surprise, thirty five years later, she suddenly came to the attention of the US taxman when she took a job with a US company in France. She had to jump through all manner of legal hoops to repudiate the unwanted US citizenship the IRS was using to demand she start filing tax returns, simply based upon the fact her birth certificate said ‘New York’. Assuming I have the details correct, that seems to imply US legal notions of who the state can brand as ‘one of ours’ based merely on being born in the USA is absolutely binary (unless law has changed).

  • Paul Marks

    Flubber – as I have pointed out many times, Mr Soros is not a Zionist, in fact he hates Zionists and Israel. His grandparents being Jewish means no more than his grandparents being Baptist – he personally rejects Judaism and Jews and so did his mother and father.

    So your reference to “Shekels” makes no sense – although it would be nice if real sliver (physical silver) Shekels were brought back, to replace the fiat money Israel uses now. “But what about card payments?” – a physical commodity money does NOT prevent these, the card payment would simply be a change of the ownership of the physical commodity held in a bank, or Safe Deposit Centre, or whatever.

    All that being said……. I still think that the radical “Anti Nazis” are far more of a threat to Jews in Europe and North America (and Australia and …..) as they have incredibly twisted “reasoning” as can be seen in the German case.

    Most politicians and so on in Austria do not deny the Holocaust (people who claim they do are LYING) – but they are not obsessed with as the German political class is. So obsessed with “making up for” the Holocaust that they are allowing in people who want to kill Jews. Think about that – and it is not confined to Germany. The people who are most dedicated to bringing in people (the forces of Islam) who want to kill Jews are those people who scream the loudest that they are ANTI Nazi.

    As the German Baader Meinhof Gang (the “Red Army Faction”) used to say “we are not against all Jews – just MONEY Jews”, the left today say “we are not anti-Semitic we are anti Zionist”. Before the recent whitewash film “Entebbe” it was known (and shown in films made closer to the actual events of 1976) that the radical socialists allied with the forces of Islam for the purpose of killing the “capitalist” Jews, who were “exploiting” and “oppressing” the “Proletarian Palestinians”,

    This is not just about Israel – the “ethnic Proletariat” is a world wide thing – and explains (for example) why the left is so desperate to bring vast numbers of Latin Americans to the United States. There were no great border defences on the southern border of the United States before the 1960s – why did not the population of Latin America not move to the United States in the past? They did not because there were no welfare provisions – for example “Food Stamps” did not exist before 1961 and the vagrancy laws (destroyed by the arbitrary whim of the Supreme Court in the 1960s – which has nothing but hatred and contempt for the Constitution-as-written) meant that people on the streets were moved on or arrested by local law enforcement. The reason the left want to import the population of Latin American into the United States (not a few individuals from Latin American who sincerely want to adopt the United States as their nation – SUCH LATIN AMERICANS HAVE ALAWYS EXISTED AND THEY HAVE ALWAYS COME TO THE UNITED STATES – BUT THERE ARE NOT MANY OF THEM) but, rather, tens of millions of people who most certainly do not want to assimilate and, indeed, hate “Imperialist” America – is to destroy the United States (as a limited government private property based polity) it is that brutally simple.

    “No, no, no – these millions of people and their tens of millions of children love America and want to be Americans” – then the left (the media and so on) would be AGAINST their coming to the United States – and I trust the judgement of the left on this matter. If the left like them – then they are supporters of “Social Justice” who will (for example) look at the very large ranches of Texas and declare how “unjust” it is for one person to own a lot of land and the village community (the community that did not exist a few years ago) to own so little land.

    Rich people who think that mass immigration just means cheap servants have a big shock coming (as some on the left know well) – for example those Hollywood richlings who have made so many films about noble Mexican Revolutionaries will find that they (the Hollywood richlings) seem (to the people they are inviting in) very much like the rich landowners and so on who dominated Mexico before the Revolution of 1910. The Hollywood richlings (and the academics to) identify with the Social Justice Revolutionaries – but to any objective observer the Hollywood richlings (and the San Francisco leftist Big Business types to) look much more like the Mexican rich that the Revolutionaries robed, raped and killed.

    It is only a matter of time (and not much time) before the Third World “Social Justice” supporting population that is coming to dominate, for example, California (by natural increase, births, as much as by immigration now) turn to the rich “liberals” who love them so much (Google and so on) and say “your stuff belongs to us now”.

    Of course this is NOT a matter of biological race – for example an Hispanic (more an ethnic term than a term of biological race) can (by conscious choice) change their entire culture and belief system.

    Take the example of the father of Ted Cruz – Pastor Cruz (as he became) decided that he was not going to drink booze any more, and that he was going to reject “Social Justice” (the principle that the stuff of the rich belongs BY RIGHT – as a matter of JUSTICE – to the poor), and he was even going to change his religion from Catholic to Protestant – and become a Protestant Pastor.

    But this is NOT true of the majority of immigrants from Latin America or their children (including the ones born in the United States – the Proletarian masses for whom the left have such hopes, the hope they will rob-rape-and-kill) – I repeat, if it was true then the left (the media, the education system and so on) would be AGAINST their entry.

    “Red Neck” (why is the term “Red Neck” not denounced as “racist” – after all it is a clear slur directed at pale SKIN COLOUR) culture does not care if someone is much richer than them, if someone lives in a palace and they live in a shack – that is the real reason that the left (the education system, the media and so on) HATES “Red Necks” and slanders and libels them constantly. But the Latin American masses (for cultural reasons NOT reasons of biological race) care very much indeed if other people are much richer than them (that violates their central belief in “Social Justice”) – which is why the left hopes (yes – hopes) they will not just continue to vote Democrat, but can be led to rob-rape-and-kill the rich directly, although many of the left have a blind spot – namely that they themselves are rich.

    Many of the leftist rich really do not know (clever as they are they, somehow, miss the obvious) that the populations they are pushing would rob-and-kill them (the rich leftists) and their families. They have a shock coming – and it will not be that long in coming.

  • Penseivat

    PdeH,
    Too late to do anything about it now, but may help people currently in that position, the lady’s problems with the US IRS wouldn’t have happened if her parents had registered the birth at the British and French embassies or consulates, as thousands of British troops serving overseas have done. This would have given her joint French/British nationality and the opportunity of telling the IRS to get stuffed.

  • Paul Marks

    Yes Perry – by a modern (only a few decades old) interpretation of the 14th Amendment (which would not have been supported by the people who wrote it) just being born inside the United States, even if your parents are there illegally, makes a person a United States citizen.

    By this means the left (including the judicial establishment) hope to create a population of voting citizens who have no allegiance to the United States of America – indeed actively hate the principles of the polity that is (or was) the United States of America. People whose parents did not come to the United States to assimilate into it – but rather wanted to assimilate it (America) into them, having nothing but hatred for its laws and its culture. In California the left have at least partly succeeded in this task – if someone like Ronald Reagan ran for Governor of California today he would have no chance at all. And choosing a brown skinned version of Ronald Reagan would not help – as this is NOT a matter of biological race, it is a matter of culture (of ideas – beliefs).

    As Supreme Court Justice Pierce Butler wrote (for once – wrote for the majority decision) back in the 1920s – if an immigrant has no real loyalty to the limited government private property based principles of the Constitution of the United States, indeed openly expresses their hatred for America (“the wars of 1836 and 1848 were Anglo aggression and genocide” – actually these areas were very thinly populated, Hispanics were NOT made to leave, and land ownership was a mess because of the anti clear private property in land laws of MEXICO not the United States) then they have sworn false allegiance and must be deported – for they are an internal enemy, and an oath breaker.

    Sadly Supreme Court Justice Butler (a conservative Catholic of a type that has so declined now) did not think of a time when vast numbers of immigrants would arrive illegally – not swearing allegiance falsely, but not even bothering to swear allegiance at all.

    A town that opens the gates to its enemies is not practicing noble libertarian “free migration” – it is actually committing suicide. The town will be ashes and dried blood.

    The Germanic tribes that were invited (yes invited) into 5th century Britannia ended up driving the post holes of their huts into the ruins of the buildings they had burned.

    “no, no, no – they are not here to plunder and destroy”.

    In which case they (and their rich “liberal” supporters) would have SUPPORTED Proposition 187 in California – which restricted the amount of government benefits and “public services” illegal (yes – illegal) immigrants could take. Instead they denounced 187 as “racist” and opposed it with fanatical (indeed rabid) zeal.

    The California State Supreme Court struck down 187 – showing is own utter hatred and contempt for the Constitution of the State of California as written, and its desire to serve the cause of Social Justice (of plundering) by any means necessary.

    Vortigern all over again (domestic plundering and despotism – and inviting in aliens to support his rule) – and the rich “liberals” will meet the same fate as he did.

  • mila s

    There may be valid criticisms to be made of George Soros but the desire to attach Soros’s name to virtually everything that the populist right hate is tied to the fact that the liberal Jewish billionaire/philanthropist has been turned into a bogeyman (along with so called ‘cultural marxism’ and the ‘frankfurt school’) for anti-Semites the world over.

  • Flubber

    ” So obsessed with “making up for” the Holocaust that they are allowing in people who want to kill Jews.”

    Soros is tortured by his Nazi past. So his retribution is to seek the elimination of all white people. Its why uncontrolled third world migration is being pushed on every Western Nation. Its why diversity has morphed into naked anti-white racism. The altruism of white people has been weaponized into a WMD against them.

  • mila s

    Soros is tortured by his Nazi past

    endlessly repeating myths does not make them true.

  • Flubber

    Citing Snopes does not refute shit. Snopes is a leftist propaganda outfit.

    See here: https://knowledgefight.com/lie-files/2017/3/18/george-soros-helped-the-nazis-round-up-jews-in-the-holocaust

    All the rationalising in the world doesn’t help people address guilt.

  • Dogleg4

    Flubber,
    I regret Soros’ politicking as much as the next man, but that link does not support your claim. Not in any way.

  • Flubber

    To quote from the article:

    “Soros’s father then bribed an official in Budapest to take in George, with the backstory being that he was this official’s Christian god-son. The official in question was in charge of cleaning up after Jews were sent off to camps; he would come in and take all their valuables, and as part of maintaining his cover, young George Soros assisted in this.”

  • I was under the impression being born in the USA means they are entitled to US citizenship by right under US law. (Perry de Havilland (London), June 20, 2018 at 9:11 am)

    Perry, as Paul has noted above, you are sadly correct that a politically-correct ruling in modern times overturned the previous understanding of the relevant amendment, which was that being born of a mother legally in the US gave one a right to US citizenship. The amendment was ratified after the civil war to block any legal contrivances that might otherwise have denied citizenship to former slaves.

    The politically-correct reinterpretation created a conflict-of-law situation (the mother is an illegal alien but her child is a citizen) which (in my understanding of law – I am not a lawyer) should have caused an unbiased court to maintain the former (and, IIUC, longstanding) reading of the amendment. I do not know how blatantly-wilful misreadings of the constitution can be reversed. The Federalist Papers notes the problem and IIRC offers no solution except the Jacksonian one – “John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it” – that the courts are the weakest branch of the constitutional tripod, so would face problems if they wilfully misconstrued constitutional law. My impression is of a ratchet – a PC majority on the supreme court reads the law absurdly and no later court ever re-reads it sanely – but there may be counter-examples in second amendment matters.

  • Dogleg4

    Flubber
    He was 14 years old, and pretending to be not-Jewish during the worst and longest pogrom in European history. You are some really hard man to judge him reprehensible on that account.
    His recent behaviour is sufficient grounds enough to belabour him.

  • bobby b

    ” . . . being born of a mother legally in the US gave one a right to US citizenship.”

    That’s why they’re called “anchor babies”.

    Although I prefer the term “grappling hook babies”. They are thrown over the wall and, if they catch, everyone can grab their rope and follow them in.

    The current controversy arises because the progs are trying to change the rules such that getting a kid into the US – not even having been born here – qualifies them for grappling hook status.

  • Bill McCall

    Well Perry -Re legality if born there, the Founding Fathers had no concept of what is occurring today. The law may say they are legitimate if born there, but of illegal parents I think we could see a process of many years in the courts before that is determined as Law in these cases.

  • bobby b

    Per the doctrine of jus soli – the right of the soil – anyone born on US soil is a US citizen. Period. Doesn’t matter if mom is here legally or illegally – as long as the birth occurs on our soil, it’s automatic.

    In addition to jus soli, we have our 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads in part:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

  • Flubber

    “He was 14 years old, and pretending to be not-Jewish during the worst and longest pogrom in European history. You are some really hard man to judge him reprehensible on that account.
    His recent behaviour is sufficient grounds enough to belabour him.”

    There are some hard of thinking people on this thread.

    I’m not judging him..

    Hes judging himself and what he was forced to do. That’s why he hates white people. Whether its revenge or a fear of a new rise in white ethno-nationalism he advocates for policies that would see every white western nation utterly destroyed.

    He’s also not alone, nor the first. Refer to the Kalergist’s from the 1930’s. Not really any different.

  • pollo

    Flubber, I’m late to this but just want to point out that even the link you supply as ‘evidence’ that George Soros worked for the Nazis says:

    “I can, however, say that definitively, based on the evidence available, claiming that George Soros rounded up Jews in the Holocaust is a horrendous, irresponsible lie. Even to say that he “willingly” worked with them would be an insult to history and truth.”

  • Well Perry -Re legality if born there, the Founding Fathers had no concept of what is occurring today

    Perhaps, but the Founding Fathers of your country also had no idea that muzzle-loading muskets would eventually become AR-15s, yet might I suggest the Second Amendment should nevertheless still apply to AR-15, regardless of the fact the Founding Fathers did not explicitly factor such a development into their legal phraseology. Constitutions are generally seen as laying out overarching principles, and are you sure you really want the government of the day to have the leeway decide that someone born in your country isn’t an American after all due to the sins of their parents?

    Well Perry -Re legality if born there, the Founding Fathers had no concept of what is occurring today. The law may say they are legitimate if born there, but of illegal parents I think we could see a process of many years in the courts before that is determined as Law in these cases.

    Ok, I get that you are not in favour of the fact the US Constitution grants US citizenship by right to anyone born within the sovereign territory of the USA, but then surely the only way to change that is to change the constitution. But clearly “I think we could see a process of many years in the courts before that is determined as Law in these cases” is not correct: the children are US citizens & there seems to be no serious legal argument on that score, so it is only what that then means for the parents that is at issue.

    Moreover, given the USA’s willingness to extend their laws and tax-gathering reach beyond their borders in ways other nations do not, it seems to me that they can’t have it both ways.

  • This would have given her joint French/British nationality and the opportunity of telling the IRS to get stuffed.

    I am not 100% sure of the all the finer details, but I do know she eventually did indeed tell the IRS to get stuffed, but I am ignorant of the actual legal issues. In the end, she said her ostensible repudiation of US nationality might make it difficult to get even a tourist visa, and so in the event she decided travelling to the USA was probably not worth the hassle. There may be more to the overall story but I think that was more or less how it ended up. I know that as she wanted the ability to open bank accounts in various countries (a great many of which refuse to open accounts for Americans), so she needed it to be unambiguous that she was *not* a US taxpayer in any way, shape or form & to have that in writing.

  • bobby b (June 20, 2018 at 11:59 pm) I confess to having known a lot less about ‘jus soli’ than about the 14th amendment. Indeed, I had thought ‘anchor babies’ (treating babies born to illegal residents as citizens) derived from a (re-)interpretation of the 14th amendment. (The “and the State wherein they reside.” speaks to this amendment’s purpose when ratified: blocking any legal shenanigans to prevent ex-slaves being citizens of ex-confederate states.)

    Researching (briefly and cautiously – in so contentious a subject I expect the web is full of tendentious presentations), I read that “The constitutional rule of jus soli has been construed generously and almost always has endowed all persons born in the United States with United States citizenship.” What counts as the United States has also been extended until a presidential proclamation not that long ago extended the definition of “born in the United States” to include anyone born in any ship 12 nautical miles offshore.

    I note that the few exceptions are foreign diplomats and state visitors who have immunity, since being subject to the laws of the United States is essential. (“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, as the 14th amendment puts it; I see the jus soli rulings grant that same exception).

    As illegal aliens deny the jurisdiction of US law by the very act of entering it, and if returned to their country of origin will be again (i.e. will remain) subjects of that country and so not be subject to US law, it has always seemed to me that the conflict-of-law effects both demand and allow excluding children of illegals from the 14th (and, at first glance, from jus soli). However I am not a lawyer – or, it would seem, that well up in this particular area.

  • L’Ombre de l’Olivier has written a sensible article on how the PC (un)justify claims like the “false” I quote in my post.

    It will get far more attention from the instalanche it has been given that from this reference, but is relevant enough to my post to be worth noting here.

  • Boston Shyster

    As illegal aliens deny the jurisdiction of US law by the very act of entering it, and if returned to their country of origin will be again (i.e. will remain) subjects of that country and so not be subject to US law, it has always seemed to me that the conflict-of-law effects both demand and allow excluding children of illegals from the 14th

    You’d be laughed out of court if you tried that approach. The question of status here is obviously not the illegal alien parents but the legally blameless child, and there’s a mountain of legal precedent that would have to be overturned to change that. Like the guy wrote earlier in the thread, either change the 14th Amendment or sit down. You can argue the status of the parents, but only within the context that the child is indisputably a US citizen, that’s just how it works and that’s not new.

  • Flubber

    “Flubber, I’m late to this but just want to point out that even the link you supply as ‘evidence’ that George Soros worked for the Nazis says:”

    Again, the hard of thinking. I make no claim as to what George Soros did, only cite what he himself admits..

    Its what comes downstream of that. His agenda to destroy every western nation utterly and irrefutably. I can make guesses as to his motivations but it’s his agenda that matters. He will ensure that your kids and grandkids have no country, no culture and no future.

    I’m not the only one that thinks so:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/the-strange-death-of-europe-immigration-identity-islam-by-douglas-murray-review-a3868516.html

    We can argue all day about the why, but lets not take our eyes of the fact it is happening.

  • The question of status here is obviously not the illegal alien parents but the legally blameless child (Boston Shyster (June 21, 2018 at 12:48 pm)

    At first glance, that argument would seem to apply equally to the children of foreign diplomats and state visitors: such children are as innocent of involvement in their parents formal assertions of immunity as the children of illegals are of involvement in their parents’ practical assertions of it.

  • Boston Shyster

    At first glance the thing that catches the eyes is the vast heap of precedents. This is long settled law. Also, diplomats have immunity, most law quite literally does not apply to them and that is extended to their children in such matters, such as jus soli. Illegal aliens do not have immunity, so your earlier remark stating:

    As illegal aliens deny the jurisdiction of US law by the very act of entering it

    Really misses the mark, that’s so not how law works. If we stipulate a party has violated US law, willingness of said party to accept or reject US jurisdiction is irrelevant. If US law says a child born on US territory is constitutionally entitled to US citizenship (unless the law does not apply to them due to the US being party to a relevant treaty, as is the case with diplomats & their children) then the the child is entitled to US citizenship. End of. US law does not exempt illegal aliens (or their children) from US law.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>