Sweden: Lessons for America?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

The Klan and Nazis are despicable criminals. The Klan especially has killed well over a thousand blacks.

The only valid report I found of whites being killed by the Klan were the two along with one black killed by the Klan
in Mississippi in 1964.

It seems Owens was using an article from a Montgomery, Alabama newspaper. I have no way of verifying this.

However Owens and Kayne West, along with other blacks are conservative, and trying to recruit other blacks to
leave the Democrats. It is a fact that Trump recieved more black and hispanic votes that Romney. It will be interesting
to see how blacks and hispanics vote this election, as well as 2020.

As I've stated before I don't like either party. I do believe in free markets, not autocratic anything. "Autocratic" is a code word
to paint a position. Nothing is autocratic in the U.S.

What is wrong with the video about Sweden? What is not factual in the program?

Sweden went socialistic briefly, the move was a mistake. They then went back to free markets but also kept the high level of benefits,
such as free education and health care. However Swedes agreed to have everyone pay 60% taxes, even lower income individuals, to pay
for this. What is wrong with everyone paying their fair amount? The economy benfits because a market economy allows greater econimic growth
and good jobs.

Lol, that blexit nonsense was too wild even for ye. https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status...82888520499201

[vt]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

The 14th amendment is not being abolished. It only applies to descendents of slaves.

No European nation has birthright citizenship.

Only one country in Asia has birthright citizenship. Pakistan.

Only two countries in Africa out of 54 have birthright citizenship.

Asia, Africa, and Europe are not racist.

Democrats call everything racist. However, allowing millions of illegals to cut in line in front of a million plus
trying to get here by legal means may be racist.

Illegal immigration from 6% of the world's population is racist to the 94% trying to get here legally.
Illegal immigration is unfair and goes completely against the concept of diversity.

By the way, how is this not racist?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo6qBq5u3qM

[dcarrigg]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

The 14th amendment is not being abolished. It only applies to descendents of slaves.

False. False as false can be. Read it for yourself.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You see what an executive order to end birthright citizenship does, don't you? By fiat, any President could now declare some person(s) or group of people to be non-citizens. Just with a stroke of one man's pen, now without any due process, they lose equal protection under the law and privileges and immunities of citizens. They lose all constitutional rights afforded to Americans. This is the only part of the constitution that subjects state governments to limitations that protect every other civil liberty you enjoy. Without it, state laws may abolish freedom of speech, the need for warrants, the right to a fair trial, etc. This is playing with fire. It is plainly unconstitutional to try this. If such an executive order were ever issued, it would be a bald violation of the oath of office, and any civil servant who obeyed it would be violating their oaths as well.

This isn't about racism. It's not about owning the libs. It's not about what they do in other countries. It's a fundamental constitutional question. It's about the fabric of the republic and the soul of America.

[vt]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

An executive order won't work. It will take Congress passing a bill to end foreigners coming to the U.S. illegally for the sole reason of providing their child U.S. citizenship, and the President signing the bill

Illegal immigrants need to be sent back. No more should be allowed.

Current illegals need to register, start paying taxes, and be granted citizenship gradually over 25 years (say 500K per year).

Legal immigration might even be increased slightly and be aimed to bring those in with skills and the ability to start businesses
that employ more Americans. This and only this will promote diversity.

And you didn't answer my question of Hillary making a racist comment.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

An executive order won't work. It will take Congress passing a bill to end foreigners coming to the U.S. illegally for the sole reason of providing their child U.S. citizenship, and the President signing the bill

Illegal immigrants need to be sent back. No more should be allowed.

Current illegals need to register, start paying taxes, and be granted citizenship gradually over 25 years (say 500K per year).

Legal immigration might even be increased slightly and be aimed to bring those in with skills and the ability to start businesses
that employ more Americans. This and only this will promote diversity.

And you didn't answer my question of Hillary making a racist comment.

I don't care about Hillary. Again, this is not about racism. It's not even about immigration. And it's not just another policy issue. Congress cannot simply abolish the 14th amendment by simple vote any more than the President can by executive order. If a president, or a legislature, or a judge, or the voters can arbitrarily decide who gets to be a citizen (or not), and constitutional rights only apply to citizens, then nobody has any guaranteed rights as Americans.

This is by far the worst thing proposed in a long time. It cuts at the very foundations of our country. It is wantonly dangerous. It's not even a partisan thing. Think about it VT, if you give a Republican Congress the power to shred the constitution and take citizenship away from natural born Americans you don't like, what the hell do you think a Democratic congress could do to people they don't like? If we aren't a nation of laws, and our President and Congress just ignores the constitution completely despite the fact they took an oath to protect and defend it to the best of their abilities, what does that say about us as a people?

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If you really want to abolish the 14th, there is a way. You amend the Constitution. You need 2/3 of each the House and Senate to vote for it and 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify. But if you just want to give power to a President or a Congress to violate the constitution willy-nilly, then what remedy have you left those of us who think the constitution and the rule of law still matter?

[vt]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

No one wants to abolish the 14th. Just prevent illegals from using it from now on to take advantage of it to cut in line in front of people trying to follow the rules.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

No one wants to abolish the 14th. Just prevent illegals from using it from now on to take advantage of it to cut in line in front of people trying to follow the rules.

Even the right-wingers at the WSJ take my side on this one. Here's the editorial coming out in tomorrow's print edition. The headline? "Rewriting the Fourteenth Amendment: Trump’s order on birthright citizenship violates the Constitution." Revoking citizenship by fiat is plainly unconstitutional. Here's an excerpt:

President Trump really, really wants to make the midterm election about immigration, and for a while it looked like he had an edge due to Democratic excess. But with this week’s pre-election vow to end birthright citizenship in America by executive order, Mr. Trump has driven into his own constitutional ditch.

***
The right to citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil is derived from the Fourteenth Amendment adopted in 1868: “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 is the common law doctrine of jus soli, or right of the soil.


Opponents of birth citizenship try to obscure this plain meaning by interpreting “subject to the jurisdiction” as applying only to those who owe allegiance to America. Because alien parents owe allegiance to a different sovereign, the argument goes, their children have no right to citizenship.


But “jurisdiction” is well understood as referring to the territory where the force of law applies, and that means it applies to nearly everyone on U.S. soil. The exceptions in 1868 were diplomats (who have sovereign immunity) and Native Americans on tribal lands. Congress later granted Native Americans birth citizenship while diminishing tribal sovereignty.


The jurisdiction of U.S. law surely applies to all immigrants, or they could not be prosecuted for breaking even immigration laws. As for owing allegiance, do we really want to set a precedent that has the government defining which American residents owe allegiance to the U.S. and which don’t? What would that mean for American citizens who are also citizens of another country?


The very purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to prevent politicians from denying citizenship to those they thought weren’t American enough. This meant former slaves, but in the debate over the amendment the question of citizenship for immigrant children was raised directly. As David Rivkin and John Yoo have recounted, Pennsylvania Sen. Edgar Cowan asked: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?” Sen. John Conness of California responded yes.


The Supreme Court reinforced that meaning in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) by upholding the citizenship of a child born in San Francisco of Chinese parents barred from citizenship by the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Court wrote that “the 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.”


Mr. Trump may imagine the current Supreme Court would rule differently. We doubt it. Justices who consider themselves loyal to the Constitution’s plain text would have a hard time reading the word “allegiance,” with all its ambiguity, into the Fourteenth Amendment. Meanwhile, lower courts are likely to rule against his executive order faster than they did Barack Obama’s lawless orders granting work permits to millions of illegal aliens.


If Mr. Trump wants to end the practice sometimes called “birth tourism,” he can always draft and campaign for a constitutional amendment. But Congress is unlikely to agree and pass a law, much less an amendment. So he is making this futile gesture of an executive order a week before Election Day.


Mr. Trump made a political mistake this year by not trading legal status to adult immigrants brought here illegally as children for more border security. Then Republicans could have run on an immigration accomplishment. Instead he wanted the political issue, and we’ll soon see how well that worked.


The President still stands on firm legal and political ground when he fights sanctuary cities or the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But he undermines his legal standing, and his political credibility, when he pulls a stunt like single-handedly trying to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment.

[FrankL]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

Even the right-wingers at the WSJ take my side on this one. Here's the editorial coming out in tomorrow's print edition. The headline? "Rewriting the Fourteenth Amendment: Trump’s order on birthright citizenship violates the Constitution." Revoking citizenship by fiat is plainly unconstitutional. Here's an excerpt:

why would you need to revoke birth rights of existing citizen? I'd imagine it changes the rules for children yet-to-be-born on US soil.

Most countries in Europe have had numerous changes over the years to their respective nationality law. To see what rules apply, one looks up the rules that applied to their birth year, which are not necessarily the same as that apply to newly born today.

btw. I'm not trying to debate whether you can re-write the constitution by executive order or congress passing something.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

...Current illegals need to...start paying taxes...

I have a personal experience that might be illuminating.
Some years ago I was VP manufacturing at a little company with about 120 people reporting to me, most of these people born in other countries.
We worried our placement firm was not being careful so we performed our own independent check. We were right, we had about three dozen illegal immigrants working in our shop, and we let them go right away.

But those people all paid their taxes. Like almost every employer in the US, we used a large payroll service like Paychex, ADP, or Gusto.
Those corps don't offer a special category for illegal aliens. They withhold taxes from everyone based on the address and W4 on file, same rules for everyone.

The 30 or 40 illegal aliens I managed for a while paid all the same taxes as you and I.

[DSpencer]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

I have a personal experience that might be illuminating.
Some years ago I was VP manufacturing at a little company with about 120 people reporting to me, most of these people born in other countries.
We worried our placement firm was not being careful so we performed our own independent check. We were right, we had about three dozen illegal immigrants working in our shop, and we let them go right away.

But those people all paid their taxes. Like almost every employer in the US, we used a large payroll service like Paychex, ADP, or Gusto.
Those corps don't offer a special category for illegal aliens. They withhold taxes from everyone based on the address and W4 on file, same rules for everyone.

The 30 or 40 illegal aliens I managed for a while paid all the same taxes as you and I.

Just to play devil's advocate, having taxes withheld from your paycheck is not the full extent of a taxpayer's obligations. "You and I" still have to actually file our taxes. If we are underpaid, we have to pay the difference. Of course, many people get a refund so it's possible they were actually overpaying their taxes as well.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

Just to play devil's advocate, having taxes withheld from your paycheck is not the full extent of a taxpayer's obligations. "You and I" still have to actually file our taxes. If we are underpaid, we have to pay the difference. Of course, many people get a refund so it's possible they were actually overpaying their taxes as well.

Too true, DSpencer.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

why would you need to revoke birth rights of existing citizen? I'd imagine it changes the rules for children yet-to-be-born on US soil.

Most countries in Europe have had numerous changes over the years to their respective nationality law. To see what rules apply, one looks up the rules that applied to their birth year, which are not necessarily the same as that apply to newly born today.

btw. I'm not trying to debate whether you can re-write the constitution by executive order or congress passing something.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But it's a real problem in the New World. That's why I think every country but Colombia in the western hemisphere does it this way. In the US, because native peoples originally were not taxed or subject to colonial law, but were first on the land, it's impossible define citizenship by any sort of ancient rights to a place. It's also very hard in the New World to do it by religion or ethnicity.

With the original colonies, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut were mostly English. New York was Dutch. Delaware was Swedish. Pennsylvania largely German. Massachusetts and Connecticut were Congregationalist, Rhode Island was Baptist but had freedom of religion, Maryland was Catholic, Virginia Episcopalian. New Hampshire was a resource colony run for profit. Georgia was a prison colony. Virginia largely a tobacco plantation run like the Caribbean. Massachusetts a radical utopian experiment.

So, if you're trying to unite all that into a functioning country, how do you define who gets to be a citizen? It can't be native peoples, so who was there first won't work. It can't be solely based on language, because the Amish who speak German or the Cajuns who speak French have just as much right to be there as anyone else. It can't be solely based on religion because the Puritans in Connecticut believe something very different from the Catholics in Maryland. It can't be based on schooling or other factors, because there was no public school in most of the colonies, the exceptions being Massachusetts and Connecticut schooling was mandatory.

Now, despite all that, there's probably some method by which one might find a way. But if the supreme law of the land is not crystal clear on this, then what do you think the odds are that one day you'll get a president or a congress that doesn't like the Swedes in Delaware and works to change the citizenship law to get rid of them despite Delawares protestations? Or maybe some Know Nothing wins who doesn't like Catholics and wants to take citizenship from them despite Maryland's protests. Americans are not now and have never been a nation bound by a common genetic history or clan or kinship bond. We're a nation bound only by an ideal. That ideal involves settler's showing up and joining the melting pot. And sure, the melting pot's not really true. There are a million examples in US history you can point to where we don't live up to the ideal. Americans are also far from perfect. The original pre-Civil War constitution did not have birthright citizenship for all persons. It had instead things like the 3/5ths compromise in an attempt to appease both northerners and southern slave owners at the convention. But it did not work, and it did lead to war.

So I'm not saying it cannot be done. I'm not saying there's no legal way to do it. I'm not saying it doesn't work great in a place like Norway. Maybe it does. Maybe monarchy works great for them too. But it's just un-American and it would break the system we have set-up to try it. That's what makes this so different and bad in my mind. It's not a healthcare system. It's not a pension system. It's even about law enforcement. It's not something you can borrow from other countries in the same way, because it involves tearing out a load-bearing piece of the foundation that holds the whole structure of law here together.

That's why I said it was playing with fire. As soon as, "Which, of the people naturally born here, get to become citizens?" is asked, it turns citizenship into a purely political question. If the republic does not immediately begin to collapse, civil unrest and maybe even war are likely to follow. Because there's only one reason I can see to do it, and that's to take fundamental rights away from people.

John Brown's body lies mouldering in its grave. But his Truth still marches on.

[vt]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

I never said to strip any citizen of their position, and I don't feel an executive order is the proper way to go.
Legislation is the only choice and their will be court challenges.

No one is against immigration. There are many independents that also feel that legal immigrants are being cheated. As
I said we need more immigrants from all over the world. The current system does not promote diversity.

There are experts who agree that "birthright citizenship" is not part of the constitution:

"Peter H. Schuck of Yale Law School and Rogers M. Smith, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, have for years been beating the drum for the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment means something radically different from its historical meaning"

From The Atlantic 7/19/18


"Mark Smith, best selling author, former law professor and founder of one of New York City’s strongest law firms has appeared as a constitutional expert on FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC and CNBC. His knowledge on US constitutional law is unquestioned.
“I think the President’s argument is actually pretty strong” says Smith.
Executive orders really depend on the subject matter they cover. If the President tries to enact gun control legislation like Barack Obama tried to do through executive order that’s not really going to fly. That is a far cry from what President Trump is trying to do.”
“The one area everyone universally agrees the President has the greatest amount of power, authority and discretion is when it comes to protecting Americans from invasions and from attacks … from the outside.”
Smith ads, “Border security, immigration, who is allowed to come here, who is not allowed to come here, these are well within the power of the President.”

Washington Times 10/31/18


Constitutional scholar also agrees on the need to change the way this is handled:

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/31/j...t-citizenship/

[vt]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

Never a supporter of Trump or Hillary but black approval of a Republican (Trump) is at record levels:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqruEHjW4AA8dDy.jpg

It's likely about jobs, which are coming back.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Sweden: Lessons for America?

Smith and Schuck are bright. And if you read their very long piece in National Affairs, they have a point. But the X Factor they do not consider is the politics of violating the Constitution and shredding the civil war amendments in the north. Folk's ancestors did not die just to let one man undo Lincoln's life work. Make no mistake, you can round up undocumented immigrants and deport them, you can build a border wall, you can expand ICE, you can do all this by law. But if you come after the Civil War Amendments in a way that looks obviously illegal to most Yankees and lawyers, it's not just going to be Hispanics and liberals that cry foul. Play with fire at your own risk. But just remember I warned you. You're firing shots across the bow of the Republic, not just playing with partisan policy. If you just want to curb immigration, there are better ways. If you want to re litigate the civil war, then continue advocating attacking the Constitution. Your choice.