Lies, Damn Lies, And The New York Times, AP, NPR Uncritically Repeating Trump's Birthright BULLSH*T

Post-Racial America

Dammit guys, have we not already been through this? WE HAVE. Just because Donald Trump makes mouth farts about Executive Ordering some blatantly unconstitutional nonsense, or shutting down the border to keep out the dirty Fredonians, or flapping his prodigious orange jowls and flying to the moon, doesn't mean you should report it like it's true. In point of fact, the president cannot end birthright citizenship with his signature alone, so quit saying that it's "controversial," or "untested," or "the subject of debate," or any other stupid weasel words.

IT'S JUST A LIE. And reporting it like it might be true is also a lie. Looking at you, CNN! Plus NBC, AP, NPR, NYT and pretty much everyone who isn't YOUR WONKETTE.

It's not unclear. Just take it from Kellyanne Conway's husband George, who was so disgusted that he took to the pages of the Washington Post to tear his wife's boss a new one.

Sometimes the Constitution's text is plain as day and bars what politicians seek to do. That's the case with President Trump's proposal to end "birthright citizenship" through an executive order. Such a move would be unconstitutional and would certainly be challenged. And the challengers would undoubtedly win.

Why are you telling your readers that the president can somehow Executive Order the 14th Amendment out of existence? That is not a thing!

You're killing us with this BS, NYT!

Even the GOP's sacred lamb Antonin Scalia would laugh this nonsense out of court, as Conway and perennial SCOTUS lawyer Neal Katyal scoffed. Yes, yes, we know ... but Gorsuch, but Kavanaugh. And still, NO, JUST NO. The Supreme Court will never rule that the president has the power to overrule the Constitution by fiat. It's ridiculous.

You know who's flogging this hogwash? Party hacks like former Giuliani speechwriter Michael Anton, who was inexplicably appointed as NSC advisor in the Trump administration. He's not a lawyer, but he did write a book called The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men's Style, so you know you can trust him. Or not.

Let's go with not. Take it from IRL lawyers Conway and Katyal, who remind us that the president can't cancel birthright citizenship because the power to regulate immigration lies with Congress.

Beyond this, the president's proposal suffers from another infirmity — it exceeds the scope of his authority. Our Constitution could not be clearer that it is Congress, not the president, who is in the driver's seat when it comes to immigration. Congress has specific powers over immigration in Article I; the president, none whatsoever, except as Congress has given to him by statute. And Congress has already spoken. In 1952, Congress declared, "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth . . . a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Shut up, NBC! The 14th Amendment says,

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.

The fact that the nativist nutbags have scribbled pages of wild speculation in their manifesto journals that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" somehow excludes undocumented immigrants doesn't make it true. Besides which, we already know who the people not subject to jurisdiction are, because the Supreme Court laid it out for us in 1898.

In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, "not subject to any foreign power," were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the Civil Rights Act, "not subject to any foreign power," gave way, in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to the affirmative words, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Unless both parents are foreign diplomats with consular immunity or soldiers of a hostile occupying force, any child born here is a citizen. This is NOT A FACT IN DISPUTE.

Goddammit, AP! It's not a dubious claim. It's a lie! You want a cookie because this time you didn't unquestioningly repeat Trump's bullshit about us being the only country that grants birthright citizenship? Slow clap, assholes.

Et tu, NPR?

Do better!

And now we are going to take our own advice and IGNORE THIS NONSENSE. Because every day Donald Trump is going to continue to take a crap on the table and insist that it's a bowl of chocolate ice cream. But we're not debating this anymore.

A pile of shit, is a pile of shit, IS A PILE OF SHIT.

[WaPo / US v. Wong Kim Ark / Atlantic]

Follow your FDF on Twitter!

Please click here to fund Yr Wonkette, who will never try to persuade you that feces is gelato. Pinky swear!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Liz Dye

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore with her wonderful husband and a houseful of teenagers. When she isn't being mad about a thing on the internet, she's hiding in plain sight in the carpool line. She's the one wearing yoga pants glaring at her phone.


How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc