Re: schedule F, from when I first heard about the concept to Inauguration Day 2025, I assumed that a second Trump term would bring cronyism and corruption in the federal government unlike anything seen in this country in over a century. You'd have to go to third world countries or the late 19th century to find points for comparison to the patronage networks, bribery, and general shittiness we'd get.
Then the term actually started and it looked more like they were just dismantling the federal government. Not co-opting it for the personal enrichment of Republicans, just getting rid of it, illegally of course, destroying the functions of it outright. This would devolve the country to more like the early 19th century. At the same time they were making ICE and other law enforcement more like a police state.
As of Friday's news, it looks more like the first thing again. Maybe their incompetence and greed got in their own way a bit? We can hope.
Re: birthright citizenship, I expect them to split the difference. Nothing anyone would call a precedent, just a hollowing out of earlier precedents.
I remember Schedule F from the end of the first administration. It was a looming threat in 2020. It made a big impression on me that they'd "solved" the major problem from T1.
Regarding birthright citizenship and the general state of US jurisprudence, I thought it was super-hopeful that SCOTUS stopped the deportations with a 7-2 vote - and that the administration seems to have obeyed.
The plain language and original intent of the Constitution, along with decades of court precedent, generally aren't barriers to SCOTUS doing whatever the fuck it wants, but the deportation ruling suggests for the first time that there is a line the court is reluctant to cross.
1.1-3 competing factions within the regime explains a lot of that kind of dysfunction.
I kinda expect we'll see some kind of ruling that ends birthright citizenship going forward for children whose mother isn't documented. But not retroactively (because the logistics are insane) and not for people here legally even if it's just a tourist visa.
The court is 2 people who are completely Fox brain-rotted and totally insane on all issues, one guy who is kinda libertarian but also partly brain-rotted, one woman who is insane but not because she watches Fox News and so isn't going to fall for dumb stuff that isn't in the Bible, and two "normal republicans" who don't watch much Fox News and instead like read the Wall Street Journal and whatever else fancy conservatives read. So anything from 2-7 to 6-3 is possible depending on the case.
I don't feel like I have a great handle on when Kavanaugh and Roberts disagree.
If you can't buy a wife by mail and have legitimate kids, lots of Republican men are going to be mad.
5: I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it would be really creative for the court to come up with a Constitutional line that divvies up people so that the ruling isn't retroactive. The executive order itself indicates no intent to enforce retroactively, but any ruling that people aren't citizens under the 14th Amendment has to be retroactive. Neither the 14th amendment nor the caselaw includes any discussion of when a person is born. And if you concede that people born in the US in 2024 are citizens, then it seems like you're giving up the whole ballgame.
You just say it isn't retroactive because that would cause chaos, and people need to be able to trust that a passport means a passport. It's a very Roberts thing to do. They'll do the same thing when they decide states don't have to issue same-sex marriages if they don't want to (but do have to recognize old ones or ones issued in other states).
That is to say, even if the constitution did not *require* the government to give citizenship to the children of people in the country extralegally, neither did it ban giving them citizenship, and so if the government did in fact give you a passport then you were and remain a citizen.
I'm expecting them to make no ruling on birthright citizenship at all, just to punt the issue to Congress. Or maybe, because of the executive's authority in foreign policy issues, to the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. Then Kristi Noem will say "no changes at the moment" and everyone at the New York Times will be thrilled by the cautious moderation.
I don't think they're going to overturn Wong Kim Ark. I don't think the architects of the policy expect it to be overturned. They just want another excuse to denounce the judiciary, and the concept of the rule of law.
The Ozturk decision from last week -- it's a 74 page opinion I can send to anyone who wants it -- is a good demonstration of judicial pushback, even in the immigration area, where there's a lot of Executive discretion.
I know people with green cards, including my spouse, and have friends and family who live abroad. I've been telling everyone that no one should be crossing the US border unless they have to. I have no ide how long this is going to last: the schedule F thing is designed to prevent any sort of corrective actions, and make it harder for the pendulum to swing back. (Look for all these political appointees to be given some kind of civil service status as the Trump admin draws to a close. [If it draws to a close.])
10: We'll get you a clerkship for Justice Alito yet! But even if people with passports get let off the hook, is there a way to draw that line for people who lack them, who have not been officially declared citizens except via their birth certificates?
We'll see. Certainly you can't rule out anything with these six justices.
CharleyCarp @ 12: yes, this is right: anybody with any sort of visa has just found out that they have no rights a white man is bound to respect. I read that nothing has happened to citizens (yet), but am pretty worried. Don't know how to track the danger we citizens might be in. That's worrying, too.
I was 10 miles from Saskatchewan a couple of weeks ago, a province I'd never visited, and thought about popping up for dinner. Then I thought who needs the stupid bullshit.
There was a citizen who'd had trouble coming back from Canada, and another arrested and then released in Miami.
Yeah, Dred Scott continues to be an accurate recounting of all too many people's understanding of how things ought to work. I don't see 5 votes for that!
9 is exactly what I'm anticipating for both same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, if it comes to a ruling.
I don't think they're going to overturn Wong Kim Ark. I don't think the architects of the policy expect it to be overturned.
Speaking as someone who has been following this issue closely for almost 20 years, I strongly disagree. The people who are leading this absolutely do expect it to be overturned, as a practical matter even if some shell remains. They are betting that their appetite for killing the law is stronger than SCOTUS' appetite for keeping it, and I would absolutely not bet against them.
(Whether they will get the case they want with the timing they want is another question, but again I wouldn't bet against it.)
There are a TON of ways to make birthright citizenship effectively dead even if Roberts-crafted byzantine language leaves it sort-of existing on paper. This isn't speculation or projection; this is just a straight-line prediction based on how borderline citizenship cases have ALREADY been addressed, repeatedly, under both administrations. Babies born at midwife-assisted births in Texas are just one example.
I would expect some trolling opinion that leans heavily on Justice Harlan, who found a way to dissent in both Wong Kim Ark and Plessy.
OT but an absolutely blinding correction from the Guardian this week, which reported on a Scottish domestic violence shelter called "Beira's Place" but unfortunately misspelled it as "Beria's Place".
12: Tim is going to France for work. He is a US citizen as of last summer. Do you think I should be worried? I would be if he was just a green-card holder. I'm going too.
For the longest time Tim was not allowed to vote in Canada unless he could say the date he planned to return. I thin' they wanted him to be paying taxes too. But he can now, and he just sent in his ballot. His Riding swings back and forth. It's currently held by a Conservative. Fingers crossed the Liberals can stay in power.
I would not worry about citizens traveling. Going to France for work would have its advantages, too.
I've been telling everyone that no one should be crossing the US border unless they have to.
Green card holders? or literally everyone?
Tim is going to France for work. He is a US citizen as of last summer.
My son just flew into JFK by himself without a hitch. I was a little nervous to send him on his own. I told him to turn off his phone before passport control.
JFK's son flew into me. It was a problem.
Should have flown into me instead. Well, onto. Depending.
I would like to agree, but there was that one time.
Why were you trying to land on a ship at sea?
Sorry about that. The runway sweepers were on strike that week.
Soyez silencieux, tous les deux ! J'essaie de reposer en paix.
I was trying to take off! Yoe wouldn't let me go! Ever heard of a FRENCH EXIT?
Why doesn't anybody ever tell me about these things?
Babies born at midwife-assisted births in Texas are just one example.
I had to look this one up, and I'd be curious to know what other examples are out there. This set of incidents was a bespoke set of circumstances handled in individual cases -- bespoke racism, not mass-produced, and entirely dependent on the idea that these people were not, in fact, born in the United States -- so legally, it doesn't speak to Wong Kim Ark at all.
Of course, the legal rationale for the El Salvador gulag also doesn't speak to Wong Kim Ark and would nonetheless render it meaningless -- but the court has at least taken a step toward halting that.
Yes, the poor and powerless will always be shit on by this country, and a lot will be overlooked.
But ...
I would absolutely not bet against them.
I would. Per 3, I think SCOTUS's action on the deportations tilts the betting odds in favor or retaining Wong Kim Ark and not undermining it -- directly or indirectly -- on a massive scale.
Is anybody making book on this? My company's net nanny won't let me visit the betting sites.
And of course, whenever one gets optimistic, one has to provide the I'm-not-an-idiot disclaimer: There is nothing so loathsome that you can rule it out with these Republicans.
Is anybody making book on this? My company's net nanny won't let me visit the betting sites.
Kalshi has "Will Trump's birthright citizenship order come into effect this year?". Currently standing at 11% odds; if you bet $100 on "no," you'll net $13.
When I'm away from the net nanny, I'll have to get a look at that. There needs to be a definition of "comes into effect" that takes away all doubt the terms of the bet.
(And of course, the Megan/Upetgi concern is broader than the question of whether this exact thing will come into effect unmodified.)
Payout Criterion: The Payout Criterion for the Contract encompasses the Expiration Values that President Trump's Executive Order "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" is no longer blocked by the U.S. judicial system and in effect for any period of time after Issuance and before <date>. This means that there are no federal courts prohibiting the order from going into effect. If the Executive Order is withdrawn, then the market immediately resolves to No. If the Supreme Court rules that the order is not constitutional, then the market immediately resolves to No (and the reverse if they rule that order is constitutional).
I suppose that definition makes no distinction between "not judicially blocked" and "being at all implemented." An EO can't force states to put parents' citizenship status on birth certificates!
I am extremely curious to know if the Texas detainees that the Supreme Court just told Trump not to deport to El Salvador are the same detainees that were rounded up locally back on April 2nd. But I can't find any reporting that would connect those dots.
Do we all assume that the Tren de Aragua part is just Trump delusion? Maybe occasionally true but generally not? Of all these round ups, more generally.
Oh no. Tren de Aragua is a fucking nightmare. The delusion is (apparently) that these particular people are Tren de Aragua. Reasonable people could disagree on wheter they're terrorists, and whter the US designating them as such is worthwhile.
https://insightcrime.org/venezuela-organized-crime-news/tren-de-aragua/
It's just Spanish for "Train of Water."
I think there are very legitimate questions as to the degree that they have established themselves in the US in any organized way, however. A friend who encounters DHS agents routinely in their work (they provide a general HR service to Feds and geographically ends up seeing a lot of border agents) says that they give reports of frequently encountering nasty tattooed Venezuelan gang members. I suspect some of that is bog standard cop braggadocio but of course I do not really know. (And whether any actual Venezuelan baddies are associated with that particular gang is unknown.)
But I do still seethe at the wishy-washy way media (and the Dems themselves) pushed back against the Aurora Colorado "takeover:" stunt during thee campaign. Just pure theatrical horseshit with the local R mayor and police claims being both-sided against the Stephen Miller inflammatory bullshit. Malpractice.
I am extremely curious to know if the Texas detainees that the Supreme Court just told Trump not to deport to El Salvador are the same detainees that were rounded up locally back on April 2nd.
Why would you think this is more than minimally likely? We're not having mass deportations in the meaning of the campaign promise, but there must be thousands of detainees across Texas at any moment.
There was a specific local roundup of about 40 people. I definitely know tons of isolated people are being detained. I can't tell how many larger round-ups are occurring.
They claimed it was a Tren de Aragua thing, and there's been zero reporting on what happened to these people. So very likely they've been dispersed across umpteen detention camps, but it's also possible they're together in Dallas and Trump was about to mail them to El Salvador. I have been wondering.
||
I went with the nicest office, which belonged to the guy that recently died. The whole thing made me feel sad to contemplate, but people were getting mad at me for dragging my feet.
|>
I gotta say, I'm kind of fine letting RFK be consumed by a war on Big Sugar. Knock yourself out. Focus on this one thing, tiger.
What about Big High Fructose Corn Syrup?
The food dye thing is fine by me too.
Yep. Eyes on the prize. No distractions.
||
NMM to musical genius David Thomas. One of a kind. A Lynchian scale loss. RIP
|>
I keep wondering, fretting even, why hasn't PhRMA squashed him like a little bug? Why even have a trade association if not to keep the foundations of the industry from being eaten by just one termite?
The White House probably has one of those positive-pressure systems.
This dude on the train is the spitting image of Jean-Claude van Damme c.1995.
I have a fretting belief that weather forecasts are already noticeably less accurate due to mass layoffs at the NOAA or National Weather Service or whoever.
Anyone who's interested in congestion pricing, last night's events in MTA v. Duffy (which should be easily googled for) were the funniest thing ever to see unfolding at around nine pm. I put myself to sleep giggling quietly at the Department of Transportation.
EAT ME IF YOU WANT TO LIVE HEALTHILY
So....about crossing the road. I know you've been quite clear about getting to the other side but surely you must have had deeper motivations?