Trump's Policies Part 6

[Tidewater]

Worse, he appears to come from the Phoenix area, comes from a family of arborists and had an ambition to become a firefighter himself. (From CNN)

So a sick mind.
Terrible for the firefighters and their families.

 

[Its On A Slab]

We have never had a president with a thinner skin. "My goodness, toughen up a bit, big guy."

An adult baby.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

An adult baby.

Hence, the Toddler-in-Chief

 

[92tide]

no one could have predicted this sort of thing

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/28/civilians-impersonating-ice-officers

The arrest is one of several cases involving people allegedly impersonating immigration officials, as the nationwide crackdown on undocumented immigrants intensifies.

Experts have warned that federal agents’ increased practice of masking while carrying out immigration raids and arrests makes it easier for imposters to pose as federal officers.

 

[jthomas666]

Just 23% of Americans say that the policies of the Big Beautiful Bill help their family, compared to 49% who say that they'll hurt their family.

If only Trump or the GOP cared...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

This illustrates just how far senators have drifted from their constituents. Our senator said she was sure that Alabama wouldn't have any trouble making up the $300 million it would lose. Easy for her to say...

 

[Tidewater]

If only Trump or the GOP cared...

Like almost all legislation, I'm sure there will be things I like about this bill and things I hate about this bill.
We should be reducing federal spending and raising federal taxes. Massively.
Eventually these chickens will come home to roost and it is going to be catastrophic.

 

[81usaf92]

Our government works best with small changes back and forth every 8 years and functions like a game of table tennis. But what has happened is that in Obama’s first 4 years the Democrats were spiking the ball and it gave way to the far right. Now we have had 16 years of both sides trying to get even with each other for what the other did when it was their turn to serve. Alot of MAGA folks are celebrating Trump and executive orders going through without fail, and this that and another, but I keep telling them just wait until we elect some true believer liberal and you are going to be wishing we still had Biden or Obama because for every action there is a reaction.

 

[Tidewater]

I cannot say what the courts have done with this since 1866 (I would defer to the lawyers) but I can say what the lawgivers at the time said they were doing (which properly lies within the realm of the historian).

Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language, stated in 1866 it meant “a full and complete jurisdiction … the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2895. Sen. Howard explicitly noted this would exclude children of “foreigners, aliens” born in the U.S. (along with diplomats) precisely because they did not fall under this complete jurisdiction.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, strongly concurred, defining “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” as requiring “complete jurisdiction,” or “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2893.

I believe the issue was less one of diplomatic immunity and more about owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign. Illegal aliens, by definition, owe allegiance to a foreign sovereignty and, also by definition (since they have not gone through the legal process to immigrate and start the process of naturalization), have not renounced that loyalty and declared their intention to reside in the United States for the long term.


Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin said this about the XIV Amendment overall: “the celebrated civil rights bill, which has been passed during the present Congress, which was the forerunner of this constitutional amendment, and to give validity to which this constitutional amendment is brought forward, and which, without this constitutional amendment to enforce, it has no validity so far as this question is concerned, uses the following language: 'that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2896.
In other words, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (which guaranteed to freedmen and black people generally the right to bring suit, testify in court, sit on juries, own property but interestingly, not vote which had to wait on the XV Amendment). President Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The XIV Amendment was not intended to overturn the rest of the Constitution. It's goals were modest. It was meant to "constitutionalize" the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

 

[JDCrimson]

Do away with FEMA and that giant sucking sound you hear will be all the large manufacturers in Alabama wanting to uproot and move further inland to avoid hurricane exposure...

And the malaria and typhoid fever will move back in...

This illustrates just how far senators have drifted from their constituents. Our senator said she was sure that Alabama wouldn't have any trouble making up the $300 million it would lose. Easy for her to say...

 

[92tide]

At least 11 have died in ICE jails under Trump, on pace for deadliest year

Administration already nearing peak level of deaths set during previous administrations

www.independent.co.uk

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I cannot say what the courts have done with this since 1866 (I would defer to the lawyers) but I can say what the lawgivers at the time said they were doing (which properly lies within the realm of the historian).

Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language, stated in 1866 it meant “a full and complete jurisdiction … the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2895. Sen. Howard explicitly noted this would exclude children of “foreigners, aliens” born in the U.S. (along with diplomats) precisely because they did not fall under this complete jurisdiction.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, strongly concurred, defining “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” as requiring “complete jurisdiction,” or “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2893.

I believe the issue was less one of diplomatic immunity and more about owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign. Illegal aliens, by definition, owe allegiance to a foreign sovereignty and, also by definition (since they have not gone through the legal process to immigrate and start the process of naturalization), have not renounced that loyalty and declared their intention to reside in the United States for the long term.


Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin said this about the XIV Amendment overall: “the celebrated civil rights bill, which has been passed during the present Congress, which was the forerunner of this constitutional amendment, and to give validity to which this constitutional amendment is brought forward, and which, without this constitutional amendment to enforce, it has no validity so far as this question is concerned, uses the following language: 'that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2896.
In other words, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (which guaranteed to freedmen and black people generally the right to bring suit, testify in court, sit on juries, own property but interestingly, not vote which had to wait on the XV Amendment). President Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The XIV Amendment was not intended to overturn the rest of the Constitution. It's goals were modest. It was meant to "constitutionalize" the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

I think Wong settled it forever, or so we thought before this court...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Do away with FEMA and that giant sucking sound you hear will be all the large manufacturers in Alabama wanting to uproot and move further inland to avoid hurricane exposure...

And the malaria and typhoid fever will move back in...

It will be worse in FL...

 

[92tide]

good times.

things are going to get increasingly worse as this idiocy moves through our system. and then we'll get to enjoy hurricane season.

so much winning and we aren't even 6 months in

https://www.reuters.com/business/immigration-raids-leave-crops-unharvested-california-farms-risk-2025-06-30/

[quoote]"In the fields, I would say 70% of the workers are gone...most Americans don’t want to do this work," one farmer told Reuters as ICE has frightened off the work mostly done by immigrants, impacting business.[/quote]

 

[Tidewater]

I think Wong settled it forever, or so we thought before this court...

I realize this is just from an amicus brief (which appears to me to be the opinion of a bunch of lawyers trying to convince the court), but here is what the brief said:

The Wong Kim Ark Court explicitly described the “question presented” as concerning a child born in the United States to parents “who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653. This fact was not incidental—it was foundational to the District Court’s certified question, the stipulated record, and the Court’s entire analysis. Id. at 650–53. The terms “domicile,” “domiciled,” “permanent domicile,” and “domiciled residents” appear nearly thirty times throughout the majority and dissenting opinions, underscoring the centrality of lawful, permanent residence to the Court’s reasoning. See generally id.; Eastman, The Significance of “Domicile”, supra, at 304-05.

If that is true (and I admit I have not read Wong), just because the child of permanently domiciled parents becomes a US citizen at birth, it does not necessarily follow that the children of illegal immigrants also become US citizens at birth.

Taking a step back from the matter, a few things occur to me:
1. Automatic birthright citizenship functions like an "attractive nuisance" to people regardless of status looking to circumvent our immigration system by delivering a baby in the US.
2. I could see a court deciding, "after the EO's effective date, everyone born in the US to citizens of other sovereignties does not automatically become a US citizen. Those born before the effective date of the EO will be grandfathered."
3. This is going to keep a lot of lawyers and courts busy for a while.

 

[Huckleberry]

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1940087508240662907

Reporter: Are you saying that the 11.8 million people who could lose their health coverage is waste, fraud, and abuse?

Trump: I am saying it is a smaller number and that number will be waste, fraud, and abuse.

Reporter: What number is that? What analysis are you seeing?

Trump: I am not seeing a number but it is much less than you gave.

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1940091533841035703

Trump: "Do you have any problems with water? No, we have so much we don't know what to do with it. You know, it comes down from heaven, right?"

 

[92tide]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1940087508240662907

Reporter: Are you saying that the 11.8 million people who could lose their health coverage is waste, fraud, and abuse?

Trump: I am saying it is a smaller number and that number will be waste, fraud, and abuse.

Reporter: What number is that? What analysis are you seeing?

Trump: I am not seeing a number but it is much less than you gave.

and when the chickens all come home to roost, we will have it derpsplained why this is actually the democrats fault

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I realize this is just from an amicus brief (which appears to me to be the opinion of a bunch of lawyers trying to convince the court), but here is what the brief said:

The Wong Kim Ark Court explicitly described the “question presented” as concerning a child born in the United States to parents “who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653. This fact was not incidental—it was foundational to the District Court’s certified question, the stipulated record, and the Court’s entire analysis. Id. at 650–53. The terms “domicile,” “domiciled,” “permanent domicile,” and “domiciled residents” appear nearly thirty times throughout the majority and dissenting opinions, underscoring the centrality of lawful, permanent residence to the Court’s reasoning. See generally id.; Eastman, The Significance of “Domicile”, supra, at 304-05.

If that is true (and I admit I have not read Wong), just because the child of permanently domiciled parents becomes a US citizen at birth, it does not necessarily follow that the children of illegal immigrants also become US citizens at birth.

Taking a step back from the matter, a few things occur to me:
1. Automatic birthright citizenship functions like an "attractive nuisance" to people regardless of status looking to circumvent our immigration system by delivering a baby in the US.
2. I could see a court deciding, "after the EO's effective date, everyone born in the US to citizens of other sovereignties does not automatically become a US citizen. Those born before the effective date of the EO will be grandfathered."
3. This is going to keep a lot of lawyers and courts busy for a while.

I find the amicus unconvincing. (BTW, IIRC, no court has agreed with the EO yet, and it's headed for the SCOTUS.) I think the court will go black or white on the matter. Otherwise, it would spawn decades of litigation. If they went gray, now, if a woman drops a "tourist baby," that would be easy to decide - no citizenship. Past that, there would have to be a detailed investigation into each case as to domicile. Domicile is different from residency. Residency is where you lay your head each night. Domicile is what you consider your home. If you reside somewhere temporarily, even for years, but you have the intention to return to your domicile, then domicile never changes. This intention is, of course, frequently uncommunicated. As an afterthought, I can't see any court granting the executive the power to change citizenship with an EO...

Edit: BTW, although diplomatic immunity is not the end-all of "not subject to the jurisdiction," it's just the best example. To suggest that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US because they owe allegiance elsewhere, is totally illusory. Anyone without immunity (diplomats, some Indian tribes, etc.) and who is within the boundaries of the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the states and the federal government. Just try that as a defense in a criminal trial...