Latest news with #BrianJones
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Does birthright citizenship require 'allegiance' to the U.S.?
'Why are you ignoring the intent of the 14th Amendment, which was to give citizenship to freed slaves and their progeny? Jurisdiction means allegiance to a country, which illegal aliens do not have.' — Brian Jones Hi Brian, It's true that the 14th Amendment repudiated the infamous Dred Scott ruling, which had denied citizenship to people of African descent. But it doesn't follow from that premise to say that U.S.-born babies today aren't citizens because their parents were here unlawfully. To the contrary, the amendment has long been understood to grant citizenship based on the geographical fact of being born here, not based on any extra allegiance factor or parentage. Basing birthright citizenship on allegiance would have weird implications for the very thing you highlight: addressing the sin of slavery. For what allegiance did people owe the country that forced them into bondage — the country that didn't even treat them as people? Taking another example from the era that sparked the 14th Amendment, what about the Confederates who rebelled against the United States — did they demonstrate allegiance? It's not only historical examples but modern ones, too, that make the untenable allegiance theory even less workable. What about dual citizens? What about lawful permanent residents? These and other problems would abound under an allegiance regime. Such issues will only come to pass if the Supreme Court ultimately decides to go against the weight of history. As a brief from constitutional and immigration scholars put it in the pending high court appeal, the 14th Amendment's backers at the time embraced the long-standing principle that 'birth created allegiance,' regardless of parental status. If you're born here, you're a citizen. Yet, it's important to understand the argument behind your statement — 'Jurisdiction means allegiance to a country which illegal aliens do not have' — because that's basically what the administration and its supporters argue in defense of President Donald Trump's executive order. (I should note that Trump's order also seeks to exclude babies whose mothers are lawfully but only temporarily present, like on a visa, which further weakens, or at least further complicates, the allegiance argument.) We're still awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling following the May 15 hearing, at which the government focused not on the argument you raise but on a procedural complaint: that the judges who blocked Trump's order shouldn't have been allowed to do so on a nationwide basis. The government didn't ask the justices to say that those judges were incorrect in rejecting Trump's order. This piecemeal strategy suggests the administration thinks the justices would reject its underlying argument on the merits of the order. But it's still important to understand the merits argument, so let's get into it. As a refresher, the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause 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.' It's that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' language through which Trump seeks to smuggle an allegiance requirement. But that language only serves to make limited exceptions to birthright citizenship — today, it basically serves as an exception for children of foreign diplomats, so not much of an exception for practical purposes. Being 'subject' to U.S. jurisdiction means being subject to U.S. law. The clause doesn't mention allegiance. That didn't stop the administration from trying to upend the settled view. 'The original meaning of the Citizenship Clause extended citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to people who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States,' is how Solicitor General John Sauer began his rebuttal at the end of the hearing, putting in a last-ditch fighting word for the order that several justices had effectively deemed legally unserious. 'If I were in your shoes, there is no way I'd approach the Supreme Court with this case,' Justice Elena Kagan, a former solicitor general herself, had told Sauer earlier. That's probably because the Supreme Court seemingly settled the matter more than a century ago. In its 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark, the court rejected the notion that a person born here could be denied citizenship because his parents owed allegiance to China. In doing so, the court noted that the 14th Amendment 'affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory[.]' There are other ways that the Trump administration tries to distinguish the Wong Kim Ark precedent, but the bottom line is that the court has reaffirmed this understanding of birthright citizenship over the years. That's how lower court judges around the country quickly and easily rejected Trump's order, and that's likely why his administration didn't directly challenge the substance of those judges' rulings at the high court. By focusing on the nationwide injunction issue in the pending appeal, the administration stands a chance at winning a procedural battle, without requiring the court to answer the underlying merits of the citizenship question; that litigation strategy carries the added benefit of potentially curbing all sorts of injunctions against the government in Trump's second term, which has been dominated by executive actions that judges have speedily smacked down. We're still waiting for the justices to rule in the appeal, and they might not address the merits of the underlying order at all and might only answer the procedural injunction question (which, to be sure, carries important consequences in all manner of cases going forward, if the justices make it harder for people to challenge illegal executive actions). The government admits that its new view on the merits of the issue goes against the executive branch's previously established understanding. 'During the 20th century,' it said in its Supreme Court application ahead of the hearing, 'the Executive Branch adopted the incorrect position that the Citizenship Clause extended birthright citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States — even children of illegal aliens or temporarily present aliens.' The policy of 'near-universal birthright citizenship,' it went on, 'has created strong incentives for illegal immigration,' leading to 'birth tourism' in which 'expecting mothers travel to the United States to give birth and secure U.S. citizenship for their children.' That's an understandable political explanation for why the Trump administration wants to end birthright citizenship. But that policy preference doesn't double as a legal argument, nor does it strengthen the actual legal argument put forth by the administration. The legal issue is the meaning of the 14th Amendment as written, and the century-plus precedent reaffirming broad birthright citizenship, not some imagined version of the amendment concocted to match the administration's policy view. Of course, we know this court is willing to reverse precedent. But on top of the serious problems with Trump's merits argument, I again note that if the government were confident in that argument, it might have been eager to make it to the justices as soon as possible. Instead, it appears to be attempting to delay a final decision on the issue. The administration has been aggressive in making its arguments across a series of other cases — and yet, for some reason, it's not eager to hear what the high court thinks about birthright citizenship. Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them on this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter. This article was originally published on
Fox News
27-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Illegal immigrant healthcare costs in blue state triggers intense budget debate
The Republican minority leaders in California are responding to potential next steps for the highly scrutinized Medi-Cal program, which is insolvent, as some believe the ability for people to enroll "regardless of their immigration status" is a leading cause. The state faces a $12 billion budget shortfall as budget talks continue in Sacramento. The Medi-Cal program went insolvent earlier this year after it went billions over budget, resulting in $3.44 billion in loan requests to salvage the program, which covers low-income Golden State residents. Republicans said it was in large part due to illegal immigrants being allowed to enroll in the program, and Newsom also said that it was part of the spending issue, but not the whole picture, according to KCRA. "That's going to continue to be a big debate here in California as we're wrestling with a $12 billion dollar deficit and the cost of providing free healthcare to illegal immigrants is $11.4 billion dollars, so if we just didn't do that, that would eliminate our budget deficit," California State Senate Minority Leader Brain Jones said. "Now, there's lots of other ways we can find $12 billion dollars to eliminate the deficit as well." Newsom's May budget revision proposes a pause for adults 19 and older from enrolling in "full-scope coverage" and to start charging a $100 premium each month "for individuals with certain statuses," Fox News Digital reported earlier this month. "To be very clear, these proposals are the results of a $16 billion Trump Slump and higher-than-expected health care utilization. Because of these outside factors, the state must take difficult but necessary steps to ensure fiscal stability and preserve the long-term viability of Medi-Cal for all Californians," Elana Ross, deputy communications director for Newsom's office, told Fox News Digital in a statement. "Governor Newsom refuses to turn his back on hardworking Californians, especially when it comes to their basic health care needs," she added. The proposal from the Newsom administration sparked criticism among some in the legislature, as the Democratic California Legislative Latino Caucus is suggesting a tax hike to pay for the program's coverage for illegal immigrants, according to KCRA. The question remains whether a $100 premium would be enough to get people to leave the program. However, Jones said that Medi-Cal being offered to illegal immigrants might not be quite what Democrats present it as. "It's just a messaging point for the governor and the Democratic leadership. It's not an actual thing. Meaning the governor and the Democrat leadership are promising illegal immigrants coverage, and they are on the rolls, but there's very little access," he said. "A lot of doctors in California that used to provide Medicare and Medicaid have closed up shop, moved to other states. A lot of other doctors that are still here have stopped taking those kinds of patients, even if they're here legally or illegally, because the reimbursement rates are so low, the doctors actually lose money when they take a Medicare or Medicaid patient," Jones continued. Meanwhile, Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher told Fox News Digital in an interview that the budget shortfall is "a total disaster" that "was completely predictable." "You know, two years ago, Gavin Newsom and the supermajority Democrats decided to fund illegal immigrant healthcare through our Medi-Cal program. And everybody said it's gonna be billions of dollars. It's not sustainable. And at the time, Biden was president, and people were coming across the border, millions of people. We had no idea. And I think a lot of them came to California and signed up. And so now we have a completely unsustainable, bankrupted Medi-Cal system that's required $3.4 billion worth of loans to prop up." On a federal level, the pending reconciliation bill that recently passed the House of Representatives could also create issues for the state's Medi-Cal offerings, as it would change the federal "match" from 90% to 80% for care that is not an emergency, which the Newsom administration says could cost the state billions, The Center Square reported. "If Republicans move this extreme MAGA proposal forward, millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight," Newsom stated last week.
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Tenby Golf Club's 80th VE Day Anniversary Competition
Tenby Golf Club has raised £290 for Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion. The club commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE Day with its Allied Fours golf competition. 42 members took to the links for a day of remembrance and friendly competition. The course itself carries echoes of wartime history. During the First World War, the War Department took over parts of the land for firing ranges, and in the Second World War, the nearby South Beach dunes became minefields surrounded by barbed wire. One club legend recalls a member's fox terrier retrieving golf balls through the wire, as it was small enough not to trigger the mines. Vice captain Brian Jones said: "There was a real sense of reflection and remembrance throughout the day. "We thought of those former members who served in Flanders and at sea." The competition was close with Veronica Davies, Alan Sayers, and Chris Topliss in the top spot with 86 points, four points ahead of Ann Topliss, Andrew Bray, and Will Jordan, who celebrated his birthday. Many participants wore in 1940s-style outfits. The "Land Girls" of Tenby were joined by flat caps, plus fours, and plenty of camaraderie. The club's ties to the military go back to 1888, when it asked the War Department for permission to use the land. Mick Seal, chair of the competitions and handicaps committee, said: "Today was about honouring our club's history and supporting those who serve. "The money raised will help provide vital support for veterans and their families."
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Tenby Golf Club's 80th VE Day Anniversary Competition
Tenby Golf Club has raised £290 for Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion. The club commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE Day with its Allied Fours golf competition. 42 members took to the links for a day of remembrance and friendly competition. The course itself carries echoes of wartime history. During the First World War, the War Department took over parts of the land for firing ranges, and in the Second World War, the nearby South Beach dunes became minefields surrounded by barbed wire. One club legend recalls a member's fox terrier retrieving golf balls through the wire, as it was small enough not to trigger the mines. Vice captain Brian Jones said: "There was a real sense of reflection and remembrance throughout the day. "We thought of those former members who served in Flanders and at sea." The competition was close with Veronica Davies, Alan Sayers, and Chris Topliss in the top spot with 86 points, four points ahead of Ann Topliss, Andrew Bray, and Will Jordan, who celebrated his birthday. Many participants wore in 1940s-style outfits. The "Land Girls" of Tenby were joined by flat caps, plus fours, and plenty of camaraderie. The club's ties to the military go back to 1888, when it asked the War Department for permission to use the land. Mick Seal, chair of the competitions and handicaps committee, said: "Today was about honouring our club's history and supporting those who serve. "The money raised will help provide vital support for veterans and their families."
Wales Online
01-05-2025
- Business
- Wales Online
Denbighshire Leisure toilets takeover plan sparks 'losses' concern
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info A concerned Rhyl councillor questioned the council's plans to transfer public toilets to the management of Denbighshire Leisure Ltd. At a meeting this week, cabinet members voted in favour of closing public conveniences at St Asaph, Rhuddlan, and Dyserth in a cost-cutting exercise that will also see six other public toilets upgraded. But before the vote was taken in favour of the move, backbench Rhyl councillor Brian Jones raised concerns that the council was planning to transfer some facilities over to the council-owned Denbighshire Leisure Ltd (DLL). As part of the local toilet strategy, Denbighshire Council is looking to introduce cashless payment systems on upgraded toilets at Rhyl, Prestatyn, Denbigh, Ruthin, Llangollen, and Corwen. After a failed grant bid to Welsh Government, the council is now looking to apply for Lottery funds to pay for the upgrades. Sign up for the North Wales Live newslettersent twice daily to your inbox. But Denbighshire is also looking at other ways of managing its public toilets, including asking businesses to allow the public to use toilets for a £500-a-year payment and transferring facilities to town and community councils – as well as other third-parties. Cllr Brian Jones said at Tuesday's meeting he was concerned DLL were also in the mix for taking over toilets in Rhyl, with concerns about the company's financial situation, citing council papers detailing the plans not made public. 'We had briefing papers sent out last week or a paper about today separate to the papers, and in there, there was reference to the Events Arena toilets (in Rhyl) and that DLL might be taking them on,' he said. 'I think it is £37,000 per annum for the upkeep of the running of those toilets, so how can a company who has posted three years of losses at Companies House be taking on another burden of £37,000 a year? I couldn't get my head around that.' Council officer Paul Jackson responded: 'I won't comment on the DLL finances. It is not really an area I have any knowledge of, so apologies for that. All I will say is, yes, discussions have been taking place with third parties. DLL are one of them, about some of the facilities and their appetite to take them over. 'It's part of the proposal today that - where we can, if it's right to do so, and (if) it's financially viable to do so - we will transfer those facilities to third parties.' The cabinet voted in favour of the strategy to close three public toilets and upgrade six, with discussions ongoing involving third-party transfers of other facilities. Public notices in your area
