Birthright Citizenship, Again: I can't believe I have to re-state the Bates backfire. I even used color emojis to make it super-clear the 1st time. But Barnett & Wurman misunderstood Mike Ramsey and me: They misread & reversed Citizenship -> Allegiance. shugerblogcom.wordpress.com/2025/02/19/b... - ThreadSky

jedshug.bsky.social • 5 days ago

Birthright Citizenship, Again:

I can't believe I have to re-state the Bates backfire.
I even used color emojis to make it super-clear the 1st time.
But Barnett & Wurman misunderstood Mike Ramsey and me:
They misread & reversed Citizenship -> Allegiance.
https://shugerblogcom.wordpress.com/2025/02/19/birthright-citizenship-again-barnett-wurman-misread-bates-again-and-they-misread-ramsey-and-me/

Comments

ajardim1.bsky.social•4 days ago

The acknowledgement of this would require an admission of error/failure and they’re incapable of that…

jakeofnotrades.bsky.social•5 days ago

Have they gotten the Fox News interview they're so desperate for?

distantthunder.bsky.social•5 days ago

I think the problem is that you're assuming they're making a good faith argument and merely misunderstanding the facts.
More likely that they're making an argument they believe will sound plausible to the Trump faithful & keep those in the public who aren't sure what to believe uncertain & calm.

swillstroganoff.bsky.social•5 days ago

I must wonder if this “misunderstanding” at this point is intentional.

smikesme.bsky.social•5 days ago

I was thinking the same. It would probably just be a coincidence if that "misunderstanding" was made simultaneously by 5 or 6 of a panel of 9 somewhere

omrimarian.bsky.social•5 days ago

I doubt they misunderstood you or misread anything. This requires their efforts to be made in good faith, which I also doubt.

jedshug.bsky.social•5 days ago

2/ At first, I thought adding this ❌ and this ✅ in my original post might be a bit over-the-top, simple, and redundant after already explaining how they misread Bates's sentence in prose...

But people actually told me it helped get the point across.

Well, apparently not to Barnett & Wurman.

jakeofnotrades.bsky.social•5 days ago

They've known all along the essay was garbage. Barnett is just happy someone is paying attention to him. One thing shared by all self-professed libertarians is neediness.

jedshug.bsky.social•5 days ago

3/ And I thought Mike Ramsey made this same point more succinctly - and in a much more concise post!
How hard is it to read a short blog post to the last paragraph?

(And how hard is to read a short Attorney General opinion to the last few paragraphs?)
https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2025/02/birthright-citizenship-and-the-bates-opinionmichael-ramsey.html

jedshug.bsky.social•5 days ago

Cc: Birthright brigade
@evanbernick.bsky.social @ilyasomin.bsky.social @lawlawcoolj.bsky.social @nobodyinteresting.bsky.social @jamellebouie.net @jdmortenson.bsky.social @cristianfarias.com @espinsegall.bsky.social

evanbernick.bsky.social•5 days ago

These waters are so muddy that it’s not really worth the trouble to fish in them. I wish I could say something other than “this is dumb, everyone should move on,” but that is where we are. They are moving goalposts into hithero unknown dimensions and still losing.

evanbernick.bsky.social•5 days ago

Anthony Paul and I are going to say our piece about the initial op-ed and how wrong and irresponsible it was. That’s what the public saw. I appreciate the work you and Ilya are doing Jed but you’re right, it’s a waste of time. It’s not a scholarly exchange.

evanbernick.bsky.social•5 days ago

And also, millions of people. Millions. Who incontestably did nothing wrong. Stand to be rendered stateless b/c two law profs think that jus soli is anachronistically feudal. These are, almost to the letter, the arguments that the U.S. made in Wong Kim Ark and Fuller bought in dissent. They lost.

jedshug.bsky.social•5 days ago

By the way, I think the elephant in the room is that they make a background assumption that undocumented immigrants live in this country without "amity" & "allegiance"...
and that their children inherit that same "status."
This is deeply, um, fraught?
Problematic?
What's the word I'm looking for?

piattodelgatto.bsky.social•5 days ago

I am not a legal scholar, but it struck even me that the argument basically rests on the idea that the child is property of the parent and not a separate person with individual rights. Like, even if both parents were mass murderers, it does not make the child a criminal too.

gregg-apfsds.bsky.social•5 days ago

I dunno, but I’d imagine the right word is somewhere in the order to intern ethnic Japanese US citizens in 1942….

gregg-apfsds.bsky.social•5 days ago

If not, then I’m sure there’s a German word that fits…

jedshug.bsky.social•5 days ago

@maybell.bsky.social, help me out...
I just can't put my finger on it, but for some reason, they are committed to reading a sentence one way, when the evidence overwhelmingly points another way, and I wonder, are there any background assumptions they're making?

seansatori.bsky.social•5 days ago

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

jedshug.bsky.social•5 days ago

Let's assume a common law "amity" exception (see @lawlawcoolj.bsky.social, it was literally military).
And for the sake of argument, assume an "allegiance" exception.

Why assert that immigrants who had entered w/o legal status and their kids live here, as a rule, against amity and allegiance?

jedshug.bsky.social•5 days ago

@anthonymkreis.bsky.social

jedshug.bsky.social•5 days ago

@kathryn1.bsky.social

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply