The Wurman/Barnett op/ed is the next step in normalizing the frivilous birthright citizenship argument. In a few months, conservatives will contend that the only reason liberals didn't take the argument seriously is because of their blindspots. By then, judges will feel comfortable endorsing it. - ThreadSky

coreyryung.bsky.social • 7 days ago

The Wurman/Barnett op/ed is the next step in normalizing the frivilous birthright citizenship argument. In a few months, conservatives will contend that the only reason liberals didn't take the argument seriously is because of their blindspots. By then, judges will feel comfortable endorsing it.

Reposted from Corey Rayburn Yung

This is how the non-originalist Commerce Clause argument against Obamacare based on the activity/inactivity distinction, invented from whole cloth, started. It won before SCOTUS. This will give judges and Justices cover to adopt the absurd Trump administration view of birthright citizenship.

Comments

jakeofnotrades.bsky.social•7 days ago

Not good judges. It will be endorsed by Federalist Society judges who take pleasure in poking everyone in the eye.

staidwinnow.cultofsundries.com•6 days ago

“judges will feel comfortable endorsing it.”

That is the goal. Repeat it till it becomes normalized.

asidleymackie.bsky.social•6 days ago

That people pretend Barnett is a good-faith academic is a good encapsulation of the rot in the system.

victork1862.bsky.social•6 days ago

It does seem kind of strange that the op-ed never comes back to Dred Scott. How could the child of a slave, whose ancestors were brought into the country against their will and who had no protection from the sovereign, be considered to have given allegiance?

victork1862.bsky.social•6 days ago

Yet everyone agrees the whole point of the 14th amendment citizenship clause was to overturn Dred Scott! And it's not as if immigrants who come outside the immigration system are outside of the sovereign's protection, you can't commit crimes against them!

coreyryung.bsky.social•7 days ago

Conservatives, in general, and Barnett, in particular, have been extremely successful in laundering ridiculous constitutional claims into the mainstream by using op/ed pages and other media outlets. They are using an established formula in promoting the anti-birthright-citizenship argument.

melancholyjaques.bsky.social•7 days ago

And because there are no opposing arguments being made other than "that's now what it says" they will probably win.

krafte.bsky.social•7 days ago

I cancelled my NYT subscription over this.

muunrakur.bsky.social•7 days ago

They did the same thing under Bush 43. Using opinion pieces to spread false stories about Iraq and WMDs and then citing the newspapers they were published in during official briefings.

billystu.bsky.social•6 days ago

It wasn’t just through op-ed pieces - their half baked intel was laundered through anonymously sourced Judith Miller authored pieces that appeared on the front page. Which they would then cite.

muunrakur.bsky.social•6 days ago

Remember “Curveball”?

billystu.bsky.social•6 days ago

Oh man, he was the BEST. And by that, I mean we built an entire Iraqi democratization policy around the guidance of a guy that OUR OWN SPIES code named “curveball”, which was apparently too subtle of a hint that he might not, you know, be a straight shooter.

paolosandro.bsky.social•7 days ago

but this one is completely bonkers, come on

jandcochran.bsky.social•7 days ago

But by professor, the FedSoc is just a club for the exchange of ideas on campus between inquisitive peers with no ulterior motive

audrelawdamercy.bsky.social•7 days ago

* clears throat *

https://bsky.app/profile/audrelawdamercy.bsky.social/post/3lf666k2nkk2b

ellevonhee.bsky.social•6 days ago

Liberals need strategic comms like yesterday, but today--even tomorrow--would be better than never.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth

jaredmcclain.bsky.social•7 days ago

That's why people's initial defense of Wurman--that we should presume his good faith because he's an academic--was so frustrating.

Using the trappings of academia to create an air of legitimate debate behind their illiberal project is a well-worn technique by now.

mitchellignatius.bsky.social•7 days ago

If you know him, Whitman has never been a good faith academic - he’s always been a political operative with an agenda.

haveyouanywool.bsky.social•6 days ago

An academic blocked me here today after I commented on his “frustration” that anti-birthright academics don’t “engage,” they just assert, by observing it is counterproductive to seek engagement with bad-faith actors, that only gives “debate me” antics what they seek, which is a veneer of legitimacy.

hammbear2024.bsky.social•7 days ago

The only thing surprising here is that they got in the NYT instead of scraping the bottom of the WSJ Ed-Page barrel.

hammbear2024.bsky.social•7 days ago

*tbc, not because the NYT opinion desk is all that exacting with outside contributors. But instead because the WSJ usually goes out of its way to mainstream garbage on a plate.

septimushodge.bsky.social•7 days ago

And the mainstream press has been eager to help launder monstrosities into 'differences of opinion'.

bayless59.bsky.social•7 days ago

This op-ed is simply someone’s opinion…it doesn’t make it fact or necessary to opine about it to get it in the public square. MAGA wants this narrative…stop taking the bait! Born in the US you are a citizen. Periodt‼️

gklipster.bsky.social•1 day ago

https://www.justsecurity.org/108070/fundamental-flaws-barnett-wurman-birthright-citizenship/

Real lawyers taking Wurman/Barnett to the woodshed.

Also, won't someone please refer Wurman and Barnett to their respective ethics committees and bars for their patently bad faith arguments?

martinned.bsky.social•7 days ago

… and then they will move on to arguing that the 22nd Amendment clearly only forbids more than two *successive* terms.

chickpea7.bsky.social•6 days ago

Court reform is a must. The very next time Democrats have the House, Senate, and White House. No long discussion--just do it.

popeawesomexiii.bsky.social•7 days ago

Another large problem is America has seen stability for so long that we don’t know how to deal with this at first— they will keep inching that way until there is some kind of consequence

mitchellignatius.bsky.social•7 days ago

Wurman has always been a hack. I remember he was my Con. Day speaker when I was a freshmen. I was so exited to talk with him during dinner, then I realized all he does is ignore scholarship, engage in bad faith arguments, and cries when actually confronted with evidence.

annmlipton.bsky.social•7 days ago

anyone working on a counter oped? @evanbernick.bsky.social ?

evanbernick.bsky.social•7 days ago

Yeah unfortunately, with coauthors

coreyryung.bsky.social•7 days ago

Good for you (and your coauthors)!

evanbernick.bsky.social•7 days ago

(The coauthors are not unfortunate)

jessemerle.bsky.social•6 days ago

Wurman writes “one cannot give allegiance and promise to be bound by the laws through an act of defiance of those laws.”

I’m no 14th Amendment scholar but isn’t this what fighting against slavery was all about—People defying slave laws yet still giving allegiance to the nation that enslaved them??

piattodelgatto.bsky.social•6 days ago

Wait, babies are now breaking laws?

fblockx.bsky.social•7 days ago

Next up: 22nd Amendment

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply