Latest news with #Bourbons
Chicago Tribune
04-04-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Owner of shuttered Bourbon's Smokehouse to run new Firewater BBQ in New Lenox
After Joe Regiro was forced to close his smokehouse in New Lenox after two years of operating, he and his wife, Tonya, began searching for investors. But instead of finding financial backing, they found Firewater BBQ & Brew. Firewater owners Matthew Weil and Roger Dunn were interested in taking over the space once occupied by Bourbons, but not the brand, Regiro said. They had their own brand and wanted him to help bring it to New Lenox. 'I wanted to save Bourbons, but they were like, look, 'We don't need Bourbons. We don't want your recipes. We don't want the brand. We just need you,'' Regiro recalled. He will now be general manager at Firewater's New Lenox location. 'They were like, without you, 'I ain't doing it,'' Regiro said. Dunn said they had looked at New Lenox, but shied away from bringing their brand to the village due to the proximity of their Crest Hill location, just 12 miles away. After meeting Regiro, Dunn said it was 'the perfect storm' — but not in the negative sense the phrase is often associated with. 'It just kind of made the opportunity easier and we got to help Joe out at the same time,' Dunn said. 'And it's a pretty good location. The people there seem pretty nice and it seems like a pretty good demographic for our type of food.' Regiro said Firewater took over the lease and some of the equipment at the former Bourbons, 280 E. Lincoln Hwy., offering him a lifeline and helping him recover from some financial struggles. Dunn said they aim for a soft opening within the next two weeks to train staff and gear up for a grand opening in mid-May. This approach will allow them to open the doors while ensuring the staff is fully prepared before advertising the opening. Since opening in 2012 in Crest Hill, Firewater has since expanded with locations in Geneva, Elmhurst and Alsip, Dunn said. The barbecue chain is renowned for its award-winning Southern-style barbecue, featuring natural, Midwestern farm-raised pork, chicken and beef, slow-smoked over hickory and applewoods, according to Firewater's website. Its menu also includes a variety of sides and desserts, complemented by a selection of local and regional craft beers. With the soft opening quickly approaching, Regiro said he has been busy preparing the space and hiring staff. Unlike Bourbon's, Firewater operates with a more self-service model, which Regiro describes as 'fast-casual.' Customers can place their order at the counter either through a staff member or at a self-service kiosk, then take a number and find a seat, Regiro said. Once their order is ready, they'll pick it up from the counter. Extra toppings, such as pickles and jalapeños, are available for customers to help themselves, along with utensils, cups and lids for those ordering soft drinks. The biggest difference between the New Lenox location and other Firewater stores is the kitchen isn't open, facing to the dining area, Regiro said. However, he said the owners plan to make the change in the coming months so guests can see how the food is made. Connected to the main dining area is a long hallway leading to the bar. Due to the separation of the space, Regiro said they plan to call the bar 'Sully's Speakeasy,' which will have its own hours and stay open later for patrons. The bar will also feature several TVs for customers to catch a game. While Regiro is extremely grateful for the opportunity to run Firewater, he still misses Bourbons and is heartbroken he couldn't make it work. Before Firewater stepped in, he said he considered filing for bankruptcy. The slow-smoked barbecue business opened in New Lenox in March 2022, transitioning from a catering only operation based in Tinley Park. Bourbons closed Nov. 4, 204. Regiro attributed the closure to a combination of factors, including poor foot traffic, low daily orders and rising operational costs such as inflation, expensive meats and labor. Despite efforts to boost sales through promotions, Regiro was stretched thin managing roles of pitmaster, cook and manager. Shortly after the closure, Regiro and his wife started looking for investors who would not only offer financial support, but also share their vision and bring industry expertise to help get the business back on track. He hoped to reopen in December, but Regiro said they never found an investor that met their financial needs. In December, after reading online coverage of Regiro's plight, he said the Firewater owners approached him and were impressed with his passion. Most of the responsibility for Running Bourbons fell on their shoulders as they tried to manage the business while sinking deeper into financial debt. Now, Regiro is excited to work with a company that has more resources and support. 'They have a much more streamlined menu than I did, like I had too much,' Regiro said. 'That's what I've been learning with them, is I did too much. I had too much. I made it too complicated. And theirs is just simple to the point, this is what it is.' Though the outcome wasn't what he hoped for, Regiro said he's glad he pursued his dream. After being laid off in 2019, he saw an opportunity to turn his passion for barbecue into a reality, even if the venture didn't last long. 'I felt like if I was on my deathbed, I would resent my the fact that I never tried,' Regiro said. He said he's excited to revive the space and transform it into a vibrant spot where customers can once again enjoy a great meal.
Yahoo
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Trump's limit on birthright citizenship is a return to the law as intended
Less than two weeks into this second Trump presidency, the fearmongering has already reached fever pitch. 'He can't do it!' the critics have invariably howled in decrying President Trump's landmark Day 1 executive order upending the status quo on birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are neither permanent residents nor citizens. The usual suspects in the punditocracy say Trump's order is blatantly unconstitutional and that it violates settled law. Perhaps it's even 'nativist' or 'racist,' to boot! Like the Bourbons of old, pearl-clutching American elites have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Because when it comes to birthright citizenship, the virtue-signaling and armchair excoriation is not just silly; it's dead wrong on the law. Trump's Jan. 20 executive order on birthright citizenship is legally sound and fundamentally just. He deserves credit, not condemnation, for implementing such a bold order as one of his first second-term acts. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, reads: '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 clause's purpose was to overturn the infamous 1857 Supreme Court case, Dred Scott, and thereby ensure that Black Americans were, and would forever be, full-fledged citizens. The clause was understood to apply to Black Americans because, even before emancipation, they had long been universally viewed as 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States — unlike, for example, Native Americans. (Congress did not pass the Indian Citizenship Act, which finally extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans, until 1924.) Our debate today thus depends on whether, in 1868, foreign citizens or subjects — whether here legally or illegally — were considered 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. They weren't. In the post-Civil War Republican-dominated Congress, the 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Rep. James Wilson (R-Iowa), who was then House Judiciary Committee chairman and a leading drafter of the 14th Amendment, emphasized that the amendment was 'establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.' Similarly, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Mich.), the principal author of the Citizenship Clause, described it as 'simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.' The relevant part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 reads: '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.' In other words, 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' necessarily excludes those 'subject to any foreign power.' As then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull (R-Ill.) said during the ratification debate, 'subject to the jurisdiction' means subject to the United States' 'complete' jurisdiction — that is, 'not owing allegiance to anybody else.' And so the 14th Amendment, properly understood, does not constitutionally require that a child born in the U.S. to noncitizens be granted citizenship. (Whether Congress passes additional rights-bestowing laws is a separate matter.) This understanding was unchallenged for decades. In the 'slaughterhouse cases' of 1873, Justice Samuel Miller interpreted the Citizenship Clause as 'intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.' And in the 1884 case of Elk vs. Wilkins, Justice Horace Gray held that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.' It's true that Gray inexplicably reversed course in an oft-cited 1898 case, United States vs. Wong Kim Ark. Over a powerful and compelling dissenting opinion, Gray held that there is some level of birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of lawfully present noncitizens. But even in that wrongfully decided case, the court emphasized that its holding was limited to children of 'resident aliens' who were under 'the allegiance' of the United States. The court repeatedly emphasized that its holding applied only to children of those legitimately 'domiciled' here. In no world whatsoever does Gray's pro-birthright citizenship opinion in Wong Kim Ark apply to children of people in the U.S. illegally. Eighty-four years later, in Plyler vs. Doe, the court dropped in a superfluous footnote indicating that Wong Kim Ark also applies to the children of people in the U.S. illegally. But this nonbinding footnote from Justice William J. Brennan Jr., a leading liberal, does not the 'law of the land' make. Extending birthright citizenship that far is, at best, a live and unsettled legal debate. But the original meaning of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Its authors would have been aghast at the notion that people who broke our laws could then be afforded birthright citizenship for their children. The drafters likely foresaw, as so many today do not, the tremendous perverse incentives induced by such an ill-conceived policy. The legal eagles so eager to call out President Trump are wrong. And he, yet again, is right. Josh Hammer is a senior editor-at-large for Newsweek. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Opinion: Trump's limit on birthright citizenship is a return to the law as intended
Less than two weeks into this second Trump presidency, the fearmongering has already reached fever pitch. 'He can't do it!' the critics have invariably howled in decrying President Trump's landmark Day 1 executive order upending the status quo on birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are neither permanent residents nor citizens. The usual suspects in the punditocracy say Trump's order is blatantly unconstitutional and that it violates settled law. Perhaps it's even 'nativist' or 'racist,' to boot! Like the Bourbons of old, pearl-clutching American elites have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Because when it comes to birthright citizenship, the virtue-signaling and armchair excoriation is not just silly; it's dead wrong on the law. Trump's Jan. 20 executive order on birthright citizenship is legally sound and fundamentally just. He deserves credit, not condemnation, for implementing such a bold order as one of his first second-term acts. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, reads: '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 clause's purpose was to overturn the infamous 1857 Supreme Court case, Dred Scott, and thereby ensure that Black Americans were, and would forever be, full-fledged citizens. The clause was understood to apply to Black Americans because, even before emancipation, they had long been universally viewed as 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States — unlike, for example, Native Americans. (Congress did not pass the Indian Citizenship Act, which finally extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans, until 1924.) Our debate today thus depends on whether, in 1868, foreign citizens or subjects — whether here legally or illegally — were considered 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. They weren't. In the post-Civil War Republican-dominated Congress, the 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Rep. James Wilson (R-Iowa), who was then House Judiciary Committee chairman and a leading drafter of the 14th Amendment, emphasized that the amendment was 'establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.' Similarly, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Mich.), the principal author of the Citizenship Clause, described it as 'simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.' The relevant part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 reads: '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.' In other words, 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' necessarily excludes those 'subject to any foreign power.' As then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull (R-Ill.) said during the ratification debate, 'subject to the jurisdiction' means subject to the United States' 'complete' jurisdiction — that is, 'not owing allegiance to anybody else.' And so the 14th Amendment, properly understood, does not constitutionally require that a child born in the U.S. to noncitizens be granted citizenship. (Whether Congress passes additional rights-bestowing laws is a separate matter.) This understanding was unchallenged for decades. In the 'slaughterhouse cases' of 1873, Justice Samuel Miller interpreted the Citizenship Clause as 'intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.' And in the 1884 case of Elk vs. Wilkins, Justice Horace Gray held that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.' It's true that Gray inexplicably reversed course in an oft-cited 1898 case, United States vs. Wong Kim Ark. Over a powerful and compelling dissenting opinion, Gray held that there is some level of birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of lawfully present noncitizens. But even in that wrongfully decided case, the court emphasized that its holding was limited to children of 'resident aliens' who were under 'the allegiance' of the United States. The court repeatedly emphasized that its holding applied only to children of those legitimately 'domiciled' here. In no world whatsoever does Gray's pro-birthright citizenship opinion in Wong Kim Ark apply to children of people in the U.S. illegally. Eighty-four years later, in Plyler vs. Doe, the court dropped in a superfluous footnote indicating that Wong Kim Ark also applies to the children of people in the U.S. illegally. But this nonbinding footnote from Justice William J. Brennan Jr., a leading liberal, does not the 'law of the land' make. Extending birthright citizenship that far is, at best, a live and unsettled legal debate. But the original meaning of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Its authors would have been aghast at the notion that people who broke our laws could then be afforded birthright citizenship for their children. The drafters likely foresaw, as so many today do not, the tremendous perverse incentives induced by such an ill-conceived policy. The legal eagles so eager to call out President Trump are wrong. And he, yet again, is right. @josh_hammer
