US Politics: Happy Anniversary.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

I'm not going to click on that, what does it say?

Click on it. You know you wanna. 

[Maithanet]

Just now, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Click on it. You know you wanna. 

I'm not nearly curious enough to give truthsocial any traffic. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

32 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The Birchers were eventually put in check by the establishment. There has been one opportunity after another for the GOP establishment to do that, but they've dodged every possible off ramp they've been given. Yet it can happen.

And if it were to happen, I don't think the results would be nearly as catastrophic as these cowards fear it would be. The extremists threaten and bully because they want to avoid consequences.  Yet we've seen that once real consequences are observed, the radical behavior starts to wane. The only thing that stops the GOP establishment is their own weakness.

Maybe the Never Trump types can eventually pull together a vision that can bring together a conservative coalition that can keep the crazy base in check. Emphasis on maybe and eventually, of course..

I could be wrong, but I think the Birchers were largely pushed to the fringe by the public souring on McCarthyism and Goldwater getting blown out of the water in '64. The problem is these guys are infinitely more crazy and its been a successful strategy for them.

"Never Trump" isn't nearly lucrative enough.

[Fragile Bird]

It says that Haley is not eligible to run for president even though she was born in the USA, because her parents weren’t US citizens at the time of her birth.

The US Constitution says the person has to be a “natural born citizen”. I looked it up to see what that means, and it means someone who didn’t have to go through a process to become a citizen ie naturalized.

I have never heard that people born in the US to non-American parents have to be naturalized to be considered Americans.

The site quotes somebody’s alternate interpretation as the correct one.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm not nearly curious enough to give truthsocial any traffic. 

Click it. Click it. Click it. 

Just a teeny tiny little click? No. Fine.

Trump posting an article from gateway pundit suggesting Nikki Haley isn't eligible because of her citizenship status. 

Edited January 11 by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

It says that Haley is not eligible to run for president even though she was born in the USA, because her parents weren’t US citizens at the time of her birth.

The US Constitution says the person has to be a “natural born citizen”. I looked it up to see what that means, and it means someone who didn’t have to go through a process to become a citizen ie naturalized.

I have never heard that people born in the US to non-American parents have to be naturalized to be considered Americans.

The site quotes somebody’s alternate interpretation as the correct one.

If you mean by that site gateway pundit.

It's a right wing hoax site. The guy running it is called dumbest person on the internet for a reason (altho I'd think people citing him are way dumber).

 

[LongRider]

11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

It says that Haley is not eligible to run for president even though she was born in the USA, because her parents weren’t US citizens at the time of her birth.

Oh noes!  Haley is an anchor baby?  Gawd these people make me sick.  

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

It says that Haley is not eligible to run for president even though she was born in the USA, because her parents weren’t US citizens at the time of her birth.

The US Constitution says the person has to be a “natural born citizen”. I looked it up to see what that means, and it means someone who didn’t have to go through a process to become a citizen ie naturalized.

I have never heard that people born in the US to non-American parents have to be naturalized to be considered Americans.

The site quotes somebody’s alternate interpretation as the correct one.

There was a congressional white paper published on this back in 2008. It's an interesting read.

At the time, there were three challenges in US history based on "Nartural Born Citizen" grounds:

Goldwater: Born in the Arizona Territory before Arizona achieved statehood.

McCain: born in the Panama canal zone to Military parents stationed there.

Obama: because he isn't Irish. 

The problem is that neither the Constitution or the federalist papers define what "natural born citizen" actually means. So they look at legal precedent.

In short: "What was the citizenship status of the child at the moment of its birth?" 

Goldwater and McCain are natural born citizens because their parents are American. It doesn't matter where they were born.

Obama's citizenship comes from his mother. Born in Kenya? Doesn't fucking matter.'

Ironically, this status-inherited-from-the-mom stuff came from a british precedent that bound the mixed-race children of african slave women (likely raped by their masters) to slavery. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Oh noes!  Haley is an anchor baby?  Gawd these people make me sick.  

Grab your popcorn. It's about to get wet. 

[Fragile Bird]

23 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

In short: "What was the citizenship status of the child at the moment of its birth?" 

Ironically, this status-inherited-from-the-mom stuff came from a british precedent that bound the mixed-race children of african slave women (likely raped by their masters) to slavery. 

I wouldn‘t dwell on that British ruling as the precedent. I think that countries around the world have looked to the mother for hundreds of years, centuries probably. The baby comes out of the mother, that can’t be faked. Who the father is can be faked.

After I re-read Josephine Tey’s “A Daughter of Time” for the first time since I was a teen (a wonderful book, named by the British mystery writers association as the best mystery of the century in 1999) I read a great deal about Richard III and the search for genetic confirmation of the bones, found in a Canadian, btw. They looked at a number of noble families in the UK and discovered in a couple of them “a genetic anomaly” ie the wife had an affair and that line carried on, not the expected line inherited from the Lancasters.

Btw, whoever keeps calling Trump Richard III, you’re wrong. The murder of the princes has a firm grip in British lore, but lots of people realized pretty quickly it was Tudor bullshit, the likely murderer having been Henry VII, who didn’t need any rivals around to contest his throne.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I wouldn‘t dwell on that British ruling as the precedent. I think that countries around the world have looked to the mother for hundreds of years, centuries probably. The baby comes out of the mother, that can’t be faked. Who the father is can be faked.

Imperial Britain had racial hierarchies, obviously with white men at the top (as long as they aren't Irish). This presents a problem in multi-racial british territories; that being the inevitable offspring who don't fit neatly into any category. Hence, Partus sequitur ventrem.

It turned out that a lot of those cultured, southern gentlemen really liked getting it on with women who couldn't say, "No" without getting whipped and raped anyway. "Our suthun' way of life", as apologists for the Confederacy like to say these days. 

But even within that system's internal logic, you start to get into idiotic territory really quickly. Sally Hemmings? The slave-born woman Thomas Jefferson fathered multiple children on? She was Martha Jefferson's half sibling and only 1/4 black. She had a grandmother who came to America on a slave ship. 

No actual portraits exist but descriptions have her as having fair skin and long (straight) hair. She would have been the same "degree of mixed" as Meghan and Harry's children.

Her children, 1/8 black, born slaves, lived on both sides of the color line after they were freed in Jefferson's will, although that history is a little murky. Some of them may have been allowed to escape north before Jefferson's death.

The earliest known photograph, probably colorized after the fact, is of a grandson of hers living in Wisconsin. The guy looks Irish as fuck. I wonder if he knew.

[LongRider]

The law back then:

Partus sequitur ventrem

Beginning in the Virginia royal colony in 1662, colonial governments incorporated the legal doctrine of partus sequitur ventrem into the laws of slavery, ruling that the children born in the colonies took the place or status of their mothers; therefore, children of enslaved mothers were born into slavery as chattel, regardless of the status of their fathers.

This law was not about citizenship, but who was and was not an enslaved person.  A child born to a free black woman, was free, and not a slave because the mother was free. 

Birthright citizenship is a little different: 

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed to most people born on U.S. territory by the first part of the Citizenship Clause introduced by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (adopted July 9, 1868), which states:

"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."

This to me this indicates that Haley is an US citizen, by birth.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

7 minutes ago, LongRider said:

The law back then:

Partus sequitur ventrem

Beginning in the Virginia royal colony in 1662, colonial governments incorporated the legal doctrine of partus sequitur ventrem into the laws of slavery, ruling that the children born in the colonies took the place or status of their mothers; therefore, children of enslaved mothers were born into slavery as chattel, regardless of the status of their fathers.

This law was not about citizenship, but who was and was not an enslaved person.  A child born to a free black woman, was free, and not a slave because the mother was free. 

Birthright citizenship is a little different: 

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed to most people born on U.S. territory by the first part of the Citizenship Clause introduced by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (adopted July 9, 1868), which states:

"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."

This to me this indicates that Haley is an US citizen, by birth.

 

Yeah. Absolutely. I was talking about the "grey areas".

Here's a link to the congressional white paper.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

[Fragile Bird]

58 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Imperial Britain had racial hierarchies, obviously with white men at the top (as long as they aren't Irish). This presents a problem in multi-racial british territories; that being the inevitable offspring who don't fit neatly into any category. Hence, Partus sequitur ventrem.

Yes yes, US history, but Haley isn’t the child of a slave and she was born after 1868. And your Wikipedia article points to the Romans being the originators of the law, not the British. And goes on to explain the law was passed because a mixed race woman with a British father was recognized by the Virginia courts as a British citizen because her father was British. The decision was overturned on appeal, but a further appeal to the general assembly restored the original decision. That’s when partus sequitur ventrem was passed, because so many children were fathered by Europeans and Brits, problematic for the slave owners.

And of course, it was the slave states that passed the law, not all US states.

As for the importance of the mother, as I mentioned, that of course changed once the child was born. They then became the property of their fathers, just like their mothers. The struggle for women’s rights was the next big fight.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Yes yes, US history, but Haley isn’t the child of a slave and she was born after 1868. And your Wikipedia article points to the Romans being the originators of the law, not the British. And goes on to explain the law was passed because a mixed race woman with a British father was recognized by the Virginia courts as a British citizen because her father was British. The decision was overturned on appeal, but a further appeal to the general assembly restored the original decision. That’s when partus sequitur ventrem was passed, because so many children were fathered by Europeans and Brits, problematic for the slave owners.

And of course, it was the slave states that passed the law, not all US states.

As for the importance of the mother, as I mentioned, that of course changed once the child was born. They then became the property of their fathers, just like their mothers. The struggle for women’s rights was the next big fight.

I know this doesn't apply to Hailey. Just an interesting bit of history.

Not for nothing, the people who will soon be pushing this line also know that it's bullshit; just like they knew it was bullshit with Obama. I mean, how many fake photoshopped Kenyan birth certificates does it take?

What they do know is that they cane get some political mileage out of it. and that the Hailey campaign may have to spend some of their limited bandwidth to quash it. And if they can appeal to the more xenophobic elements oif the base, even better. 

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I think that countries around the world have looked to the mother for hundreds of years, centuries probably.

It was the status of the father, almost always, everywhere -- with always the exception for those born of slaves. 

It was specifically charged by the English with the African slave trade and New World slavery that the status of the child was that of the mother.  Other Europeans did the same, particularly France and, to a lesser degree, Spain.  The Spanish and French slavery laws provided several ways out of slavery -- whether honored much or at all at certain times  -- that the Brit/US legal system did not, and never did in the Southern slaveocracy states.  It was only the USA that had the one drop rule.

And Rome had enormous populations of freemen -- children of slaves who were made free by a myriad of means.  These freemen were the core of the emperors' administrations for centuries.

Laws are tricksy -- in so many ways, including being on the books vs being observed.

The Haley birther bs, as I mentioned here at time -- he started it immediately it looked as though she was gaining some polling rises.

Edited January 11 by Zorral

[Zorral]

The Proud Boys are collapsing: Surprise! Legal consequences do hurt authoritarian movements
Despite fears that accountability will make MAGA more powerful, a new report shows it weakens the far-right

https://www.salon.com/2024/01/11/the-proud-boys-are-collapsing-surprise--legal-consequences-do-hurt-authoritarian-movements/

Speaking of which, as rumperfash stood outside the Wall Street address to address the press, he again called directly for insurrection and violence.  Why can't he be arrested now?

[Fragile Bird]

29 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Not so -- it was the status of the father, almost always, everywhere -- with always the exception for those born of slaves. 

It was specifically charged by the English with the African slave trade and New World slavery that the status of the child was that of the mother.  Other Europeans did the same, particularly France and, to a lesser degree, Spain.  The Spanish and French slavery laws provided several ways out of slavery -- whether honored much or at all at certain times  -- that the Brit/US legal system did not, and never did in the Southern slaveocracy states.  It was only the USA that had the one drop rule.

 

See, you guys are saying things about Britain and slavery that I don’t think are right. I double-checked the Wikipedia article on slavery and Britain never passed any laws on slavery and courts repeatedly said slaves that landed in Britain became free. Of course Brits who returned from foreign lands with slaves tried to hold on them, but slaves that ran were usually deemed to be free. I see that for a period of time the law was “unsettled” but the courts didn’t seem to think so.

What was going on in the colonies was a whole different matter. I can’t find anything that says Britain had laws about the slave trade in the colonies, but I don’t know enough about how the British ran their centuries of slave trade. They just bought slaves in Africa and took them across the ocean to the Americas? When abolition was passed in 1807 they just declared no British person could engage in the slave trade? I see the 1833 act applied to all British colonies. I don’t see any British laws of partus sequitur ventrem, just laws in colonies, particularly the US colonies.

And as for fathers or mothers, I see the British common law was that if you were born in Britain you were British, no matter who your parents were. If you were born outside of Britain, both parents had to be British, until the British Nationality Act 1772, made the provision about children being British if their fathers alone were British, so it wasn’t “always” through the father.

[Zorral]

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

how the British ran their centuries of slave trade. They just bought slaves in Africa and took them across the ocean to the Americas?

The Brits outbid everyone else to supply African slaves to the Spanish New World colonial empire -- this license is called the Asiento.  The Brits got it and opened the height of the African - Atlantic slave trade.  This is how the European Industrial Revolution was financed.

Look at those maps in the  Eltis and Richardson Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Data Base, universally accepted as the most authorative in this matter:

https://hutchinscenter.fas.harvard.edu/trans-atlantic-slave-trade-database

The Timelapse atlas is so enlightening: The late 17th century and the 18th C were the height of the trade andthe Brits dominated it all the way.

https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyage/database#timelapse

There are enormous numbers of histories, studies, institutions that speak to how all this extremely interlocking systems that were the African slave trade > new world slavery operated.  There simply isn't a way to speak to it in a sound bite or a comment on a message board.  But the resources that are reliable and verifiable are massive, including Liverpool's own museum of the slave trade.

And yes there were slave markets in the New World generally, and North American Atlantic colonies everywhere -- and recall these colonies in the Caribbean and North America were populated and ruled by Brits, who bought their first slaves here in 1619.  So ya, one way or another the Brits got the slave trade from Africa directly into slavery in North American and the Caribbean.

And even though it was legally decided that enslavement was illegal inside England itself, slavery and the trade continued its merry way everywhere else in the Empire. And indeed, got instituted in new parts of the Empire as needed as with the tea and opium plantation of India and various other Asian colonies.  Indeed, even when the Caribbean Brit sugar barons gave up slavery for massive financial compensation, slavery continued elsewhere, including a slave trade.  Though none of the slave trade was as massive as what Britain presided over in the 18th century from Africa to the New World.

 

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

11 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

At this point, I wonder if the sane thing really is to shut Trump down at the Republican primary level, at least given the candidates who remain.

All of these candidates have demonstrated that they are cowards who are beholden to Trump and MAGA extremism. They don't have Trump's particular pathologies, but at this point the problem of MAGA is well beyond Trump himself.

The GOP base is the biggest pathology of all, and that's why we have the so-called moderate candidates saying that the Civil War was about getting government out of your life, and that they would pardon Trump if he were convicted of defrauding voters. 

In order for there to be any chance of the MAGA fever to abate, the spirits of those voters need to be crushed over and over, to demonstrate to them and to their representatives that anti-democratic extremism is not a viable path forward.

Given that Christie was really taking Haley to task for her abhorrent responses, I think he understands this too. If she somehow beats Trump, she has a good chance of defeating Biden. And then she simply becomes the MAGA figurehead if elected president.

The first woman to be president at the same time as not being pure white would be quite the thing, especially if it breaks a glass ceiling that almost no progressive will unequivocally celebrate. Not unlike Margaret Thatcher becoming the first woman PM of the UK, which curiously the British Labour Party has failed to replicate while the Conservatives have given the UK 3 women PMs, the first male of colour PM and potentially the first woman of colour major party leader. The problem is, they're all pretty useless when it comes to competency as an effective PM / potential PM, with the exception of Thatcher who was a pretty canny political operator and very effective - in the eyes of most conservatives - as a conservative PM.

Maybe I'm being unfair to the Republican base, but I have a hard time seeing them get Haley over the line, however I imagine there will be a fair number of centrist women and south Asian swing voters who could make up the numbers, if they choose to ignore most of her policies. Still it looks like Trump needs to be swept from the board by forces other than primary voters for Haley to actually get the nomination. And I get the feeling most Magrats would go over to De Santis now that Trump is attacking both of them and possibly attacking Haley harder now.