#wong kim ark

[donotdestroy]

On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order to end universal birthright citizenship and limit it at birth to people with at least one parent who is a permanent resident or citizen. A federal judge put the order on hold, but if upheld, Trump’s move could upend a 120-year Supreme Court precedent. Stephanie Sy reports on the history and legacy of that case.

[histpods]

In August of 1895, a ship called the SS Coptic approached the coast of Northern California. On that boat was a passenger from San Francisco, a young man named Wong Kim Ark. He was returning home after visiting his wife and child in China, and he'd taken similar trips before. But when the ship docked, officials told him he couldn't get off. The customs agent barred him according to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants.

Though Wong Kim Ark had been born in the U.S. and lived his whole life here, the agent said he was not a citizen. Today, the story of Wong Kim Ark, whose epic fight to be recognized as a citizen in his own country led to a Supreme Court decision affirming birthright citizenship for all.

Length: 58 mins Date: 24 Aug 2023

[nuttysaladtree]

Wong Kim Ark was born in the U.S. as this departure statement says and to oversimplify, sued for his citizenship. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where he won.

And thus the granting of U.S. citizenship on the basis of jus soli—being born on U.S. soil—was protected for all, regardless of race.

Departure Statement of Wong Kim Ark

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United StatesSeries: Admiralty Case FilesFile Unit: In the matter of Wong Kim Ark for a writ of habeas corpus

WHEREAS, Wong Kim Ark, whose photo is hereto attach-

ed, is about to depart for China, intending to return to the

United States, and is entitled to return thereto.

NOW THEREFORE for the better identifica-

tion of the said Wong Kim Ark, and in order

to facilitate his landing upon his said return-

WE THE UNDERSIGNED do hereby certify that the

said Wong Kim Ark is well known to us. That he

was born in the City and County of San Francisco, State of ["departed from San Francisco" covers text starting at County]

California. That his father Wong Si Ping was a merchant ["per steamer" covers text starting at Si Ping]

and a member of the firm of Quong Sing & Co. No. 751 ["Belcic." printed above Quong Sing]

Sacramento Street, in said City and County of San Francisco, ["NOV 15 1894" printed above City and County; WW Presbury [signature] above San Franciso]

State of California. ["INSPECTOR" printed below San Francisco; number "69" in red ink]

Dated this 2nd day of November 1894.

Signature. Occupation.

Wm. Fisher [signature] 1308 Powell St.

F. Berna 615 Gough

L. Selenger 932 Powell st

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

City and County of San Francisco.

[Embossed gold seal]

On this 5th day of November in the year One Thousand

Eight Hundred and ninety four before me, ROBERT M. EDWARDS, a Notary Public in and for the

said City and County, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared

Wm. Fisher, F. Benner and L. Selenger

known to me to be the persons described in, whose names are subscribed to

and who executed the within and annexed instrument, and they duly acknowledged to me that they

executed the same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal, the day

and year in the Certificate first above written.

R M. Edwards

Notary Public.

(In and for the City and County of San Francisco

State of California.)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Reuters, via The Guardian:

A swath of Democratic-led states and civil rights groups have filed the first lawsuits challenging executive orders Donald Trump signed after taking office, including one that seeks to roll back birthright citizenship in the US. A coalition of 22 Democratic-led states along with the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit in federal court in Boston on Tuesday arguing the Republican president’s effort to end birthright citizenship is a flagrant violation of the US constitution.

That lawsuit followed a pair of similar cases filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, immigrant organizations and an expectant mother in the hours after Trump signed the executive order, marking the first major litigation challenging parts of his agenda since he took office. “State attorneys general have been preparing for illegal actions like this one, and today’s immediate lawsuit sends a clear message to the Trump administration that we will stand up for our residents and their basic constitutional rights,” the New Jersey attorney general, Matthew Platkin, said in a statement. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The lawsuits, which were all filed in federal courts in Boston or Concord, New Hampshire, take aim at a central piece of Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown, an order directing federal agencies not to recognize US citizenship for children born in the United States to mothers who are in the country illegally or are present temporarily, such as visa holders, and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents.

More lawsuits by Democratic-led states and advocacy groups challenging other aspects of Trump’s agenda are expected, with cases already on file challenging the Elon Musk-led, ill-defined “department of government efficiency” and an order the Republican signed weakening job protections for civil servants. Any rulings from judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire would be reviewed by the Boston-based 1st US circuit court of appeals, whose five active federal judges are all appointees of Democratic presidents, a rarity nationally. The complaints cite the US supreme court’s 1898 ruling in United States v Wong Kim Ark, a decision holding that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to US citizenship. If allowed to stand, Trump’s order would mean more than 150,000 children born annually in the United States would be denied for the first time the right to citizenship, according to the office of the Massachusetts attorney general, Andrea Joy Campbell.

22 Democratic AGs, DC, and the city of San Francisco, CA sue over 47’s tyrannical and unconstitutional executive order ending birthright citizenship.

[darkmaga-returns]

If you were wondering how long it would take for Democrats to sue the Trump administration, we have an answer. With the ink barely dry, eighteen Democrat state attorneys general, four additional Democrat state AGs, and a collection of outside groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union all filed federal lawsuits over President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. Their argument, that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship for practically anyone born here, is flatly wrong as a matter of law. The courts should use this opportunity to get it right.

The 14th Amendment — ratified after the Civil War and ensuring that former slaves were U.S. citizens — provides that “[a]ll 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 plaintiffs focus on the first part, but barely glance at the second, arguing that, with few exceptions (such as the children of foreign diplomats in the United States), anyone born in the United States is “subject to its jurisdiction,” simply by virtue of being within its borders.

They do this by relying almost entirely on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that the plaintiffs get hopelessly wrong. In Wong, the court held that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. Omitting some key facts, the plaintiffs argue this means that all children born in the United States of all immigrant parents, with the aforementioned very rare exceptions, automatically are U.S. citizens. Even a cursory read of the opinion, however, shows that the Supreme Court ruled nothing of the sort.

[mswyrr]

I've seen people dismiss Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship as impossible. But this analysis has me reconsidering that:

"Many of the most vocal advocates for restricting citizenship to only those born to the children of lawful permanent residents hail from, or have some tie, there.

They make versions of the same argument: The historical record from the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment was enacted, suggests that birthright citizenship should only have been extended to the children of legal, permanent residents. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the amendment limits it to only those with allegiance to the United States, they argue — a reading that they say would exclude undocumented immigrants. Though a 1898 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, is widely understood to find that nearly all U.S.-born children of immigrants are citizens under the 14th Amendment, it in fact only dealt with the children of permanent residents, the argument goes, and has been misinterpreted for more than a century."

And this legal podcast too:

Article here with the same core info for people who prefer text:

I think Trump et al are going to come for everything and see what they can take. A Blitzkreig strategy. Whether or not people stand against them and how effectively is a major question though:

[mindfulmuse88]

Unbiased: This is what is ACTUALLY going on with birthright citizenship in the USA

Disclaimer: I am neither Democrat nor Republican. all information is facts and unbiased As you may have heard, President Trump signed an order attempting to end birthright citizenship; his order specifically states that at least one parent must be a citizen of the USA for a baby to gain citizenship. However, a judge temporarily blocked the order by calling it "unconstitutional." It is planned to take effect on February 19th unless another injunction is put in place. It is also worth noting that Trump's order does not have retroactive effect, so if it is enforced at some point, it would only apply to babies born after the effective date of the order.

Is this, therefore, unconstitutional? The crux of this whole matter is the text of the 14th Amendment:

"All people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States wherein they reside."

The question is, what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" truly mean? Trump's administration argues that someone is only subject to U.S. jurisdiction if at least one of their parents is a citizen. They claim that undocumented immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of their foreign country rather than the U.S., and therefore, their children should not be granted automatic citizenship at birth. The plaintiffs, however, argue that as long as you are present on U.S. soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

If we look back in U.S. history, one key case from 1898 is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In this case, Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were Chinese citizens but permanent residents of the U.S. At some point, his parents moved back to China, and Ark went to visit them. However, when Ark returned to the U.S., he was denied entry because he was allegedly not a U.S. citizen. So, his case to court.

Ultimately, the question was: Does a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents—who are permanent residents and not working for a foreign government—automatically become a U.S. citizen at birth?

The justices ruled that Ark was entitled to citizenship based on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which states:

"All people born in the U.S. who are not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States."

Two years later, the 14th Amendment was ratified, confirming birthright citizenship, including for children born to resident aliens. The ruling further stated that the 14th Amendment, in clear words, includes children born in the U.S. regardless of race or color, so long as the parents are domiciled within the U.S. The decision explicitly stated:

"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and protection of the United States and consequently subject to its jurisdiction."

So, the next legal question is: What does "domiciled" mean? Does "domiciled" simply mean permanent residency?

The legal definition of domicile is:

"A place where a person has been physically present and considers home, or a person’s true, fixed, principal, and permanent home to which they intend to return and remain."

Technically, permanent residency does not necessarily match this definition. This will be an important issue for the courts to examine.

The courts may also consider that the legal landscape has changed drastically since Wong Kim Ark. At the time of that ruling, illegal immigration as we know it today barely existed. In fact, it wasn’t even a crime to cross the southern border illegally until 1929. Immigration law has since dramatically shifted, and that context matters.

Also, just a reminder: Trump cannot change the Constitution via executive order. His order isn’t technically altering the 14th Amendment; instead, he is instructing his executive branch not to recognize certain people as citizens if they do not meet specific criteria.

In the end, it will be up to the courts to determine what the 14th Amendment truly means and which interpretation of the law is correct.

[romanceyourdemons]

it’s still funny that after wong kim ark won the supreme court case united states v. wong kim ark, which determined that children born in the us (such as wong) are automatically citizens regardless of their parents’ citizenship status, wong got on a ship to china and never came back to the united states. i respect that so much. way to peace out of a toxic situation

[ceevee5]

The 14th Amendment to the US constitution was ratified in June 1866, and this crucial case was decided in March of 1898. Even with the Roberts court, I’d be shocked if Trump’s attempts to cancel birthright citizenship get any traction. It would be very destabilizing if the 14th was eroded. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted under the 14’s “equal protection clause.”

[yetisidelblog]

Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a bill to codify Donald Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship.

H.R. 569 would deny citizenship to children born on US soil to the undocumented and noncitizens here legally without a green card.

It violates the plain language of the 14th Amendment. Dozens of Republicans are co-sponsoring it - and we know they won’t stop at the children of undocumented immigrants.

Birthright citizenship has been the law of the land since the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in US v. Wong Kim Ark that Chinese-Americans born on US soil were citizens without question or exception.

Now, MAGA white nationalists that spread racist Great Replacement theory want us to give up our birthright without a fight.

At AAPI Forward, we elect Asian-American Democrats and fight the MAGA surge among Asian-American voters - and we need the help of ALL Americans to defend our fundamental rights.

@upontheshelfreviews

@greenwingspino

@one-time-i-dreamt

@tenaflyviper

@akron-squirrel

@ifihadaworldofmyown

@justice-for-jacob-marley

@voicetalentbrendan

@thebigdeepcheatsy

@what-is-my-aesthetic

@ravenlynclemens

@thegreatallie

@writerofweird

@anon-lephant

@bogleech

@mentally-quiet-spycrab

[sarkos]

In 1898, at the height of anti-Chinese hysteria, a young cook won a landmark supreme court case that guaranteed citizenship to anyone born on US soil, regardless of race or ancestry. Millions of children from immigrant households have since become United States citizens as a result of his legal battle. The constitutional right that Wong Kim Ark helped cement has come under growing assault from conservatives. Mere hours after being sworn into office for a second presidential term last Monday, Donald Trump signed a slew of executive actions to fulfill his campaign promises, the chief among which was ending birthright citizenship. In a sweeping directive, Trump directed federal agencies to refuse citizenship to children born in the US if neither parent is a citizen or permanent resident.

[justadaddybear]

Birthright Citizenship

What is Birthright Citizenship?

Birthright citizenship is a legal principle under which citizenship is automatically granted to individuals upon birth. There are two forms of birthright citizenship: ancestry-based citizenship and birthplace-based citizenship. Birthplace-based citizenship, which grants citizenship based on place of birth, is formally referred to as jus soli, a Latin term meaning "right of the soil."   In the United States, birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment��to the Constitution. Specifically, it states that "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." This principle was confirmed by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which clarified that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents are citizens, regardless of their parent's immigration status. What this means is that Birthright Citizenship cannot be limited or denied by means of a Presidential Executive Order, as Trump is attempting to do; it can only be altered by means of a Constitutional Amendment

[marta-bee]

This is the so-called birthright citizenship executive order. It's actually a little narrower and broader than that term at the same time, and (much as I hate to admit it), it's actually pretty cleverly structured, which just makes it that much more dangerous.

(To be clear: I'm not a lawyer, just someone who's read a bit about these things on the internet and tries to think them through logically. If you think you might be affected, get a real one.)

Birthright citizenship is the idea that, if you're born in America, you're automatically a U.S. citizen. It doesn't matter if your parents are undocumented or if you leave the country days after being born, you're a U.S. citizen for life. It's also extremely well documented both in the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment, and in a series of SCOTUS decisions (because: racism). So what exactly is Trump going on about here?

Option #1: It's a cheap shot to make his base happy and say he kept his promise. Or option #2: he thinks the current SCOTUS is his to command and expects them to ignore their own precedent and say the Constitution doesn't mean what it clearly does. I wouldn't put it past him or them, but this EO is structured pretty peculiarly, and I'm not sure that's an accident.

The Fourteenth Amendment actually 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 in which they reside," and it's that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" bit that usually gets conservatives all hot and bothered. They argue if someone doesn't have a legal right to be here how could they possibly be under US jurisdiction?

But if you commit a crime in the US, even if you're an undocumented immigrant, they still send you to jail, and the same Constitutional protections (right to a lawyer, right against warrantless searches, etc.) still apply. What this clause is pointing to (per the analysis at congress.gov) are people who fall under another country's sovereignty. A child of another country's ambassador, say, or if his parents were "alien enemies in hostile occupation," like an invading foreign military. Members of independent Native American tries once fell in that category, too, though that changed under Elk v. Wilkins in the late 1800s. The point is they all fall under another nation's sovereignty. This is also why diplomats usually can't be prosecuted for violating American law, even compelled to pay parking tickets. Or at an international level (& here I remind you, I'm an interested student but not an actual lawyer, etc.), why a Russian soldier in Ukraine probably couldn't be prosecuted for violating Ukraine civil law (though violations of international law might be different).

So, getting back to Trump's executive order. The EO describes the 14th Amendment as a repudiation of Dred Scott (true, as far as I know), so only meant to grant citizenship to African-Americans (ehhh...; see US v. Wong Kim Ark, for instance). It claims this means people born in the US but whose parents aren't here legally, or even if their parents are on temporary visas or other temporary permissions, don't qualify for birthright citizenship (double ehhh). And importantly, it only applies to people born here in the future.

Remember that Trump's described the situation at the Mexico border as an invasion. I think that's in one of his EO's, certainly it's all over his rhetoric, and not just immigration through Mexico. And remember that invading foreign military don't qualify as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Whenever I hear this EO discussed on the news, it's always in the context of Trump either not understanding the amendment or hoping SCOTUS will abandon their own precedent. And as I said, that's not impossible. It would also be quite the legal jump and wildly unpopular, so if you think anyone on the court is concerned about their perceived legitimacy might think twice about baldly doing that. They'd probably want a justification of some sort, even if it's a fig-leaf.

But if the president is labelling the parents as part of a foreign invasion, and the child's born to them during the time they're acting as foreign invaders? That strikes me as one hell of a fig-leaf. And I don't want to panic, much less give the MAGA legal team any ideas. But if SCOTUS agrees and all Trump or the current president has to do is keep describing immigrants as an invasion? That's rather terrifying.

& I didn't even talk about how this applies not just to undocumented immigrants but people here legally, but temporarily. Just thinking about that has me all kinds of upset, so I'm not going to go there. But this EO sucks muchly on that point, too.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 13, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

NOV 13, 2023

In a speech Saturday in Claremont, New Hampshire, and then in his Veterans Day greeting yesterday on social media, former president Trump echoed German Nazis.

���In honor of our great Veterans on Veteran’s Day [sic] we pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, Racists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream…. Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”    

The use of language referring to enemies as bugs or rodents has a long history in genocide because it dehumanizes opponents, making it easier to kill them. In the U.S. this concept is most commonly associated with Hitler and the Nazis, who often spoke of Jews as “vermin” and vowed to exterminate them.  

The parallel between MAGA Republicans’ plans and the Nazis had other echoes this weekend, as Trump’s speech came the same day that Charlie Savage, Maggie Haberman, and Jonathan Swan of the New York Times reported that Trump and his people are planning to revive his travel ban, more popularly known as the “Muslim ban,” which refused entry to the U.S. by people from some majority-Muslim nations, and to reimpose the pandemic-era restrictions he used during the coronavirus pandemic to refuse asylum claims—it is not only legal to apply for asylum in the United States, but it is a guaranteed right under the Refugee Act of 1980—by claiming that immigrants bring infectious diseases like tuberculosis.

They plan mass deportations of unauthorized people in the U.S., rounding them up with specially deputized law enforcement officers and National Guard soldiers contributed by Republican-dominated states. Because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) doesn’t have the space for such numbers of people, Trump’s people plan to put them in “sprawling camps” while they wait to be expelled. Trump refers to this as “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” 

Trump’s people would screen visa applicants to eliminate those with ideas they consider undesirable, and would kick out those here temporarily for humanitarian reasons, including Afghans who came here after the 2021 Taliban takeover. Trump ally Steve Bannon and his likely attorney general, Mike Davis, expect to deport 10 million people. 

Trump’s advisors also intend to challenge birthright citizenship, the principle that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. This principle was established by the Fourteenth Amendment and acknowledged in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision during a period when native-born Americans were persecuting immigrants from Asia. That hatred resulted in Wong Kim Ark, an American-born child of Chinese immigrants, being denied reentry to the U.S. after a visit to China. Wong sued, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment established birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court agreed. The children of immigrants to the U.S.—no matter how unpopular immigration was at the time—were U.S. citizens, entitled to all the rights and immunities of citizenship, and no act of Congress could overrule a constitutional amendment.

“Any activists who doubt President Trump’s resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error: Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown,” Trump immigration hardliner Stephen Miller told the New York Times reporters. “The immigration legal activists won’t know what’s happening.”

In addition to being illegal and unconstitutional, such plans to strip the nation of millions of workers would shatter the economy, sparking sky-high prices, especially of food.

For a long time, Trump’s increasingly fascist language hasn’t drawn much attention from the press, perhaps because the frequency of his outrageous statements has normalized them. When Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016 referred to many Trump supporters as “deplorables,” a New York Times headline read: “Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers ‘Deplorables,’ and G.O.P.* Pounces.” Yet Trump’s threat to root out “vermin” at first drew a New York Times headline saying, “Trump Takes Veterans Day Speech in a Very Different Direction.” (This prompted Mark Jacobs of Stop the Presses to write his own headlines about disasters, including my favorite: “John Wilkes Booth Takes Visit to the Theater in a Very Different Direction.”)  

Finally, it seems, Trump’s explicit use of Nazi language, especially when coupled with his threats to establish camps, has woken up at least some headline writers. Forbes accurately headlined yesterday’s story: “Trump Compares Political Foes to ‘Vermin’ On Veterans Day—Echoing Nazi Propaganda.” 

Republicans have refused to disavow Trump’s language. When Kristen Welker of Meet the Press asked Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel: “Are you comfortable with this language coming from the [Republican] frontrunner,” McDaniel answered: “I am not going to comment on candidates and their campaign messaging.” Others have remained silent.

Trump’s Veterans Day “vermin” statement set up his opponents as enemies of the country by blurring them together as “Communists, Marxists, Racists, and Radical Left Thugs.” Conflating liberals with the “Left” has been a common tactic in the U.S. right-wing movement since 1954, when L. Brent Bozell and William F. Buckley Jr. tried to demonize liberals—those Americans of all parties who wanted the government to regulate business, provide Social Security and basic welfare programs, fund roads and hospitals, and protect civil rights—as wannabe socialists.

In the United States there is a big difference between liberals and the political “Left.” Liberals believe in a society based in laws designed to protect the individual, arrived at by a government elected by the people. Political parties disagree about policy and work to change the laws, but they support the system itself. Most Americans, including Democrats and traditional Republicans, are liberals. 

Both “the Left,” and the “Right” want to get rid of the system. Those on the Left believe that its creation was so warped either by wealth or by racism that it must be torn down and rebuilt. Those on the Right believe that most people don’t know what’s good for them, making democracy dangerous. They think the majority of people must be ruled by their betters, who will steer them toward productivity and religion. The political Left has never been powerful in the U.S.; the political Right has taken over the Republican Party.

The radical right pushes the idea that their opponents are “Radical Left Thugs” trying to tear down the system because they know liberal policies like Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection, reproductive rights, gun safety legislation, and so on, are actually quite popular. This weekend, for example, Trump once again took credit for signing into law the Veterans Choice health care act, which was actually sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and signed by President Barack Obama in 2014. 

The Right’s draconian immigration policies ignore the reality that presidents since Ronald Reagan have repeatedly asked Congress to rewrite the nation’s immigration laws, only to have Republicans tank such measures to keep the hot button issue alive, knowing it turns out their voters. Both President Joe Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have begged Congress to fund more immigration courts and border security and to provide a path to citizenship for those brought to the U.S. as children. They, along with Vice President Kamala Harris, have tried to slow the influx of undocumented migrants by working to stabilize the countries from which such migrants primarily come. 

Such a plan does not reflect “hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our country.” It reflects support for a system in which Congress, not a dictator, writes the laws. 

A video ABC News published tonight from Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis’s plea deal makes the distinction between liberal democracy and a far-right dictatorship clear. In it, Ellis told prosecutors that former White House deputy chief of staff and social media coordinator Dan Scavino told her in December 2020 that Trump was simply not going to leave the White House, despite losing the presidential election. 

When Ellis lamented that their election challenges had lost, Scavino allegedly answered: “‘Well, we don’t care, and we’re not going to leave.” Ellis replied: “‘What do you mean?” Scavino answered: “The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power.” When Ellis responded “Well, it doesn’t quite work that way, you realize?” he allegedly answered: “We don’t care.”

*The GOP, or Grand Old Party, is an old nickname for the Republican Party. 

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[gavinmehl]

Analyzing the Wong Kim Ark Case That Shaped U.S. Citizenship Laws - My I...