![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
glass_icarusI feel like prefacing this with a content note for US news/politics is... sad and unspecific, but it covers all my bases, really. /o\
Today I have been USELESS thanks to the brain-explosion that was 45 announcing he'd like to dismantle US birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Neither his white nationalist leanings nor his complete disregard for the Constitution are a surprise, and legal scholars have been pretty clear on the utter ridiculousness that is the "argument" posed by the "subject to the jurisdiction of" phrasing; the SCOTUS ruling (United States vs. Wong Kim Ark)1 that upholds today's interpretation of birthright citizenship was made over a century ago. It's also a blatant pre-midterm attempt to drive far-right-leaning and other conservative voters to the polls. Coming on the heels of Pittsburgh2, which I have yet to find the words for? For me, at least, it's a notable grossness in a two-year string of trash fires.
It's definitely a sign of our times that the low likelihood of support is no comfort to me. A president with no respect for the law- or anything or anyone else- clearly doesn't care if the means to his ends are legitimate; his public record of No Fucks to Give is, what, 20 years old now?
So I can end on a laugh of sorts, have a link from the New Yorker (via a fb friend): Trump strips citizenship from children of immigrants, thus disqualifying himself from presidency
1. WaPo: Birthright citizenship: A Trump-inspired history lesson on the 14th Amendment
2. WaPo (guest post): Why the Pittsburgh shooter raged about immigration before attacking a synagogue
Today I have been USELESS thanks to the brain-explosion that was 45 announcing he'd like to dismantle US birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Neither his white nationalist leanings nor his complete disregard for the Constitution are a surprise, and legal scholars have been pretty clear on the utter ridiculousness that is the "argument" posed by the "subject to the jurisdiction of" phrasing; the SCOTUS ruling (United States vs. Wong Kim Ark)1 that upholds today's interpretation of birthright citizenship was made over a century ago. It's also a blatant pre-midterm attempt to drive far-right-leaning and other conservative voters to the polls. Coming on the heels of Pittsburgh2, which I have yet to find the words for? For me, at least, it's a notable grossness in a two-year string of trash fires.
It's definitely a sign of our times that the low likelihood of support is no comfort to me. A president with no respect for the law- or anything or anyone else- clearly doesn't care if the means to his ends are legitimate; his public record of No Fucks to Give is, what, 20 years old now?
So I can end on a laugh of sorts, have a link from the New Yorker (via a fb friend): Trump strips citizenship from children of immigrants, thus disqualifying himself from presidency
1. WaPo: Birthright citizenship: A Trump-inspired history lesson on the 14th Amendment
2. WaPo (guest post): Why the Pittsburgh shooter raged about immigration before attacking a synagogue
no subject
Date: 2018-10-31 03:33 am (UTC)SERIOUSLY. There are certain things the news shouldn't even report on because they are so heinous and so obviously hate-mongering..
The Borowitz piece made me laugh, though. Satire is getting closer and closer to reality. M.
no subject
Date: 2018-10-31 05:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-11-01 12:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-11-01 03:31 am (UTC)(Staying responsibly informed is such a challenge! I was paying attention to this for academic reasons also, but I have to limit or avoid my exposure to other stuff- like the border- because I can't afford the complete emotional wipeout.)