A new chapter in American politics has begun.
Millions of Americans on the right and left have lost faith in their political parties, their government and even the economic system. Only 1 in 4 Americans are satisfied with the way things are going.
Policy experts will offer various arguments why at least some of these people are wrong to feel this way, but the discontented will not tolerate arguments that amount to "don't believe your lying eyes – or wallets." In politics, feelings are more important than hard numbers.
Consider immigration. I still believe that immigration is a net benefit for America, but those benefits aren't felt uniformly throughout society. Obviously, immigration is a huge boon to the immigrants themselves, something nobody disputes. Employers, whether in the tech sector or in agriculture, also reap disproportionate rewards. But for the typical consumer, the positive effects (cheaper food, construction, software, etc.) are hard to tie to the causes (the importation of cheaper labor).
Meanwhile, the negative effects seem all too apparent, at least for many Americans. This is true not just for people who believe, accurately or not, that their wages are lower and jobs are more scarce because of immigration (legal and illegal), but also for people who dislike the cultural disruptions that come with millions of non-English-speaking migrants pouring into the country.
Similarly, free trade has been an enormous boon to American consumers, but it doesn't feel like it, particularly to the workers who lost good jobs they'll never replace.
Add in the very understandable impression that the government is lying about – and incompetent at – taking these problems seriously, and you have the perfect preconditions for a populist backlash. And that's exactly what we are seeing.
On the left, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is unapologetic about his socialist views. He offers a searing indictment of modern capitalism and vows to "transform" the country.
On the right, Donald Trump, the GOP front-runner, is equally unapologetic about, well, everything, but in particular his nationalism. He lacks the vernacular of your standard nationalist, but the message comes through. He boasts that he is "the most militaristic person" in the world. His favorite national security idea is to build a wall – and to punitively make Mexico pay for it. His second favorite idea is to use the U.S. military to take Middle Eastern oil at gunpoint (30 years ago, he wanted to seize Iranian oil; now it's Iraq's oil where it's under the control of Islamic State).
In his just-released immigration plan, which is not the joke many of its critics claim, one of his core principles reads: "A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans."
The first part is nonsense. A great many nations do not serve their own citizens; no one would seriously argue that North Korea or Panama aren't nations. But the second part taps into a very real perception about the moment we are in. Millions of people are convinced that the system is rigged against them. We constantly hear that income inequality is our greatest problem, and yet the Democrats insist there is essentially no downside to ever more poor people coming here legally or illegally. Republicans concede that illegal immigration is a problem, but they have proven feckless at fixing it.
What is fascinating is that though Sanders and Trump couldn't be more different culturally, their programs overlap a great deal. "What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy," Sanders said recently. "Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that." Trump's immigration paper states that "real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globe-trotting donors."
Trump has said that there's little daylight between them on the issue of trade, while Sanders has praised Trump's favorable statements on single-payer health care.
The establishments of both parties have proved pitifully inept in fending off their respective nationalist and socialist insurgencies. I suspect they'll eventually succeed. But I also suspect this is not the end of the challenge, merely the beginning.
Millions of Americans on the right and left have lost faith in their political parties, their government and even the economic system. Only 1 in 4 Americans are satisfied with the way things are going.
Policy experts will offer various arguments why at least some of these people are wrong to feel this way, but the discontented will not tolerate arguments that amount to "don't believe your lying eyes – or wallets." In politics, feelings are more important than hard numbers.
Consider immigration. I still believe that immigration is a net benefit for America, but those benefits aren't felt uniformly throughout society. Obviously, immigration is a huge boon to the immigrants themselves, something nobody disputes. Employers, whether in the tech sector or in agriculture, also reap disproportionate rewards. But for the typical consumer, the positive effects (cheaper food, construction, software, etc.) are hard to tie to the causes (the importation of cheaper labor).
Meanwhile, the negative effects seem all too apparent, at least for many Americans. This is true not just for people who believe, accurately or not, that their wages are lower and jobs are more scarce because of immigration (legal and illegal), but also for people who dislike the cultural disruptions that come with millions of non-English-speaking migrants pouring into the country.
Similarly, free trade has been an enormous boon to American consumers, but it doesn't feel like it, particularly to the workers who lost good jobs they'll never replace.
Add in the very understandable impression that the government is lying about – and incompetent at – taking these problems seriously, and you have the perfect preconditions for a populist backlash. And that's exactly what we are seeing.
On the left, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is unapologetic about his socialist views. He offers a searing indictment of modern capitalism and vows to "transform" the country.
On the right, Donald Trump, the GOP front-runner, is equally unapologetic about, well, everything, but in particular his nationalism. He lacks the vernacular of your standard nationalist, but the message comes through. He boasts that he is "the most militaristic person" in the world. His favorite national security idea is to build a wall – and to punitively make Mexico pay for it. His second favorite idea is to use the U.S. military to take Middle Eastern oil at gunpoint (30 years ago, he wanted to seize Iranian oil; now it's Iraq's oil where it's under the control of Islamic State).
In his just-released immigration plan, which is not the joke many of its critics claim, one of his core principles reads: "A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans."
The first part is nonsense. A great many nations do not serve their own citizens; no one would seriously argue that North Korea or Panama aren't nations. But the second part taps into a very real perception about the moment we are in. Millions of people are convinced that the system is rigged against them. We constantly hear that income inequality is our greatest problem, and yet the Democrats insist there is essentially no downside to ever more poor people coming here legally or illegally. Republicans concede that illegal immigration is a problem, but they have proven feckless at fixing it.
What is fascinating is that though Sanders and Trump couldn't be more different culturally, their programs overlap a great deal. "What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy," Sanders said recently. "Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that." Trump's immigration paper states that "real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globe-trotting donors."
Trump has said that there's little daylight between them on the issue of trade, while Sanders has praised Trump's favorable statements on single-payer health care.
The establishments of both parties have proved pitifully inept in fending off their respective nationalist and socialist insurgencies. I suspect they'll eventually succeed. But I also suspect this is not the end of the challenge, merely the beginning.
Replies
Jonah Goldberg is no more than a bad joke....He rides the same applecart as Boehner and all the rest of the corrupt system..You know what Going Rogue? I know that you have every right to your opinion but you sure seem to have it out for Donald Trump..These folks that you keep bringing their articles on here about Trump are all part of the corrupt system that you are against..I do not understand what makes you trust these people..They all talk bad about Trump but they give no alternative....So just what is their SCAM..Jonah Goldberg ,Charles Krauthammer, Steve Hayes, Juan Williams ,These people all make their money off of being mouthpeices..And right now they are all pounding Trump because he refuses to ride the same applecart as the rest of this corrupt bunch..Sorry i forgot George Will....TRUMP ALL THE WAY...It is time for an outsider to straighten out the mess that has been made....
So, who do YOU support? You know who reminds ME of Obamabots? Cruzbots! Talk about a Trojan Horse! Sheesh! And he isn't even Constitutionally eligible!
If you don't love America as your country - then you are on the wrong web site. Posting anti-Trump here is like slitting your own throat. I think we all know here, that there are many things about Trump that we don't know about, yet.
We here are all tired of the same old crap from DC and we all know that most of the creeps there should be arrested for Treason. But we also know that it will never happen because we here are all to lazy to actually defend America.
Trump is a different breed and it seem like he may be so different that he can tell DC to take a hike and get by with it. That is what we need at this juncture in time. Something different is better than the same old Boehner- Pelosi - McConnell - Reid crap we have watched taking America down. If any of these had been doing their job, we would have seen Obama Impeached long ago but in fact they are all in collusion.
if you still want the same, keep trying to tear apart Trump. but as for me, I may end up being fooled, but I think it will end up better than Hope and Change!
You are correct Michael the 14th amendment was not meant to be an open door to anyone whop wanted to abuse it..If you read the amendment it does say that congress has the power and authority to decide what is what as far as the wording of the amendment..Congress has authority to make laws regarding naturalization.With the help of a president i believe that it could be easily done..Trump would not be afraid to pull the lever on immigration and clean it up once and for all..And i also believe he would tear Boehner a new BUTTHOLE..They could make laws that would reinforce current immigration laws...Trump knows exactly what he is doing and the establishment folks do not like it..Because he is making them look like the TRAITORS that they are..When Trump gets elected if i were a politician i would be very very careful not to CROSS him..
Tags: immigrationillegal immigrationanchor babies
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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."
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. popu
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next