Mexican-ness, at a guess.
It’s always hard to pin down what Trump actually stands for; he does seem to have some beliefs if you look back to things he said in the 80s/90s that he’s been fairly consistent on, but nothing that he’s not willing to put aside in the interest of his own narcissism.
I’ve been analyzing my conservative friends over the last few years though, trying to figure out how “community-minded” and otherwise decent people can vote in a manner that seems horrifying.
I think there’s 2 kinds of racists on the right, and it’s confusing until you look at the Jewish situation.
There’s the eugenicists who think that white people are genetically superior, and really think it’s important for the human race to purge anyone without proper white ancestry. I sincerely think that Elon Musk is in this camp, and that’s why he’s not really popular with a lot of other oligarchs. These are the Hard R racists.
The other camp genuinely doesn’t think white individuals are anything special, but they think that Western culture is. These racists know that there are dumb, worthless white people, and smart, successful brown people. A lot of the time they know this because they grew up in small towns full of ignorant burnouts and wastoids, or they saw in their own families – people who “failed to launch.” They’re not blind to global progress – anyone can see that China is crushing it, the Middle East is full of successful wealthy people, India is a nuclear power, etc. And they can compare that against, say, Appalachia or Mississippi.
They’re Western chauvinists, though – China was only able to be successful because they took away personal freedom, India is taking forever to overcome its cultural deficiencies, Africa is going to take longer still, and the Middle East is perpetually a mess. The West, though, by which they mean the White West, took off for a reason, but that reason to them is cultural, not genetic.
Why does that matter? Because to them, America must remain mostly White, Western European, and Christian in order to continue its success, because only White, Western European (by descent) Christians understand the culture they need to maintain. They will not compromise on this. They’ll allow immigration because they don’t necessarily hate people of color, they just don’t want people of color diminishing what they see as American culture. So Mexican immigrants from the 90s who are now fully assimilated are OK, really, but El Salvadorian immigrants living in a Hispanic community are bad. Haitians living in a Haitian community, or Somalis in a Somali community, those are bad, but Black business owners having a beer and watching football are fine.
And to them Jews are OK as long as they’re in Israel. Because they think it’s perfectly fine for other races to exists as long as they don’t bother Americans. China is for the Chinese, Japan for the Japanese, India for the Indians, Pakistan for the Pakistanis, and Israel for the Jews, see?
I worry that when people accuse Trump (who’s the latter type of racist here, if that wasn’t clear) of being a racist, they fall into the trap of not specifying which kind of racist. Or maybe it’s not even the right word. Because, really, how can Trump be a racist if he has people of color in his orbit? It’s because the people in his orbit are bending over backwards to prove that they’re the right kind of Americans – they’re also Western chauvinists, they’re also Christians, they’re also in love with the greatness of White culture.
Why is Hegseth getting rid of people of color in the military? It’s not because he thinks they’re genetically inferior, it’s because by and large they’re leftists, and leftists (to them) believe that there is no American culture worth defending – America is a melting pot, it’s whatever it happens to look like today, or tomorrow, based on who’s living here.
And likewise, Jews in America are fine as long as they’re not leftists.
I realized this when I suggested to a friend of mine that America in 100 years might look completely different – white people may be a minority, English may not be the dominant language, Christianity might not be the dominant religion – but the important thing would remain. That is, a system of self-governance built upon peaceful transition of power. See, I thought this was a universal American belief. But no, he recoiled and said that wouldn’t be America anymore.
That’s why we’re careening towards a second civil war, for what it’s worth. Because Americans can’t agree at the moment what our country even stands for. Some people will say that our current political climate was caused by the South not being properly punished after the civil war, which is probably true. But the civil war happened because after the constitution was ratified, the people who objected because the constitution was “took woke” never went away.
It’s because he’s a racist and the guy that’s running his policy, Stephen Miller, is a white supremacist. They don’t want non-White people in the country. The problem is not anything they’re doing, it’s who they are.
Excellent analysis. I also suspect that your second type of racism is common in every country in the world - if not predominant.
Indeed, more so. And that provides “justification” for that type of racist in America. “If Sweden, Japan, etc are all allowed to be racist ethno-states, why can’t we?”
(Of course, that doesn’t make it OK. Ethno-states are bad, ya know? Something we’ve got a long way to go towards making a universal sentiment).
Thought provoking. I’m also confounded by the adulation Trump receives from people I know who otherwise seem decent. This provides a nuance I’m going to think about.
Much of steronz’s analysis rings true for the UK. With some tiptoeing around the “culture” theme and its hazy boundaries, the rump Tories and Farage’s Reform UK are emphatically opposed to the “hard racists” of the Tommy Robinson ilk (interestingly, he seems recently to have wrapped himself up as a Christian, though I doubt it’s any of the mainstream churches).
But, equally interestingly, there are signs that the majority don’t buy the “Western/Judeo-Christian exclusivist” arguments, either from positive opposition or sheer indifference. (The Greens won a by-election over Reform, in a formerly safe Labour post-industrial seat; and opinion polls suggest more people will vote tactically to keep Reform out than would vote for them.)
Struck down. 6-3 violates 14th amendment
Kavenaugh says that the EO does not violate the 14th Amendment but does violate the federal statute that codified the 14th Amendment.
Roberts concludes that children born to parents who are in the United States unlawfully or temporarily are “born in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” “Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth.”
Brian
ETA maybe 5-4 on the constitution, with Kavanaugh saying the EO violated statute, not constitution
6-3 is shameful.
I’m curious what the basis for the dissent was, given that birthright citizenship seems so clear-cut based on the amendment.
The basis is that Thomas and Alito cannot bring themselves to disagree with Republican presidents.
Even Kavanaugh essentially said the amendment wasn’t clear cut – he said that the law was clear. So, based on the amendment alone, it was really 5-4.
from SCOTUSblog:
the disagreement among the justices appears to centre around the notion of domicile; on one hand, the majority upholds the common law rule of jus soli, whereby a person born on King’s soil is entitled to protection by and allengiance to the King; the minority - especially Thomas and Gorsuch - say the 14th Amendmt clause requires that the child parents at least make the US their permanent domicile for the child to be a US-born citizen. Interestingly, Gorsuch say the EO would have not survived other narrower challenges. Major ruling, lots of studying lie ahead
Brian
Where did Thomas and Gosuch pull that from?
ETA: Did it come from the same orifice as the “major questions doctrine”?
So, if I’m reading this right (IANAL), it seems that some of the debate was around the 1866 Civil Rights Act, to wit:
Justice Samuel Alito asked ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang a clever technical question that led her into a trap: “[W]ould you agree that the citizenship test in the Fourteenth Amendment is the same as the test in the 1866 Civil Rights Act?”
The amendment says “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but the 1866 language is different: “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,”
So the oral arguments centered around whether congress was interpreting “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” differently (I don’t know the timing of when these things were written, the 14th was passed in June and the Civil Rights Act was passed in April).
Anyway, Kavanaugh pointed out that congress, when given the choice between those two phrases, reaffirmed the language of the 14th:
By the time of the 1940 and 1952 congressional actions where Congress repeats ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ given Wong Kim Ark [the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision reaffirming birthright citizenship], one might have expected Congress to use a different phrase if it wanted to try to disagree with Wong Kim Ark on what the scope of birthright citizenship or the scope of citizenship should be. And yet Congress repeats that same language, knowing what the interpretation had been.
I’m not sure that Kavanaugh really feels that the language of the 14th was ambiguous, but rather he was pointing out that hanging one’s hat on the argument that an Act passed prior to the 14th amendment “clarified” the language didn’t hold much water given more recent laws.
True; but it’s a hell of a lot better than 5 - 4 the wrong way around. This should have been a no-brainer 9 to 0, but we live in overly interesting times.
I kept checking the news this morning with considerable trepidation. Whew.
This is the correct answer to the OP. IOW, there is none. It’s simply partisanship and corruption.
This. On my first read, I agree with points from the majority opinion and points from Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, and generally disagree with the dissents.
To the topic, Justice Kavanaugh makes an interesting point here,
And the Framers likely would not have anticipated (and presumably would not have intended) the odd result of granting asubstantial birthright citizenship benefit to (i) those foreign citizens who violate U. S. immigration law and illegally enter or overstay and then have children in the United States over (ii) those foreign citizens who follow U. S. immigration law and have children in their home countries while seeking to lawfully immigrate to the United States. Nor presumably would they have wanted to grant constitutional birthright citizenship to children of foreign citizens unlawfully in the country while simultaneously denying constitutional birthright citizenship to children of tribal American Indians.
Of course, the point only sticks if you adhere to originalism and are uncomfortable with the Constitution being a flawed document. I embrace the absurdity as mere short-sightedness.
~Max
I find the relevant clause of the 14th amendment to be vaguely worded. It is open to multiple interpretations.
What’s clearcut to me is that if Trump’s executive order was upheld, you would soon have millions more second or third class Americans. We also would have a new permanent ugly wedge issue with millions, by executive order, gaining and losing citizenship each time the presidency changed hands.
The GOP political approach from now on is going to be act like this is mostly about birth tourism, because that’s what will make no sense to swing voters. Of course, the birth tourism babies are only a tiny percentage of those affected, but you do not have to be good with numbers to vote. Democratic Party politicians should just say they are against birth tourism, if only their base lets them.