President Donald Trump is thinking about signing an Executive Order that would end the birthright citizenship that many say is encoded in the 14th Amendment of our Constitution. Whether Trump has the authority for such an EO is an open debate, but the more important debate is another one such a move has triggered: whether we should have birthright citizenship, in particular for the children of illegal aliens.
Nor is this question as cut and dried as many would like it to be. Josh Blackman, South Texas College of Law Houston, has argued
At least in Europe. The European Court of Human Rights ruled last Thursday that it’s impermissible to make crude remarks about Islam’s Muhammed if those remarks fall outside what Government deems acceptable. It seems that, in the course of a 2009 seminar, a woman commented on Muhammed’s marriage to his child bride:
[Muhammed] liked to do it with children…. A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?
The ECHR ruled that remark unobjective, lacking historical background, and intended to disparage Islam.
This is a Progressive-Democrat dream, but Andy Kessler centered it on Silicon Valley in his op-ed in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal. He’s not far wrong, but aside from limiting the idea’s core constituency, he also only described part of the reason why a Universal Basic Income is a bad idea.
He did a good job of laying out the costs of paying for a UBI—the charges to those with earned income or profit—and how those costs cap what the earners and producers can do, but there’s the outcome of the demand side, too, that must be factored in.
In the wake of a series of explosive devices being sent to or received by Progressive-Democrats and others of the Left like George Soros, ex-President Barack Obama (D), ex-Progressive-Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D, CA), Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, FL), CNN offices, and others we get this:
Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a joint statement…”Time and time again, the President has condoned physical violence and divided Americans with his words and his actions….”
Poland enacted a law at the start of the year that lowered the mandatory retirement age of all of its judges from 70 to 65. This resulted, among other things, in the required retirement for 27 of the nation’s 72 Supreme Court judges (a too-big Court, anyway IMNSHO, and they ought not be replaced, but that’s a separate story).
The ruling Law and Justice (PiS [Prawo i Sprawiedliwość]) party says the changes are necessary to a justice system they say is controlled by an untouchable “caste” of judges steeped in communist-era mentality.
In a Wall Street Journalarticle Monday, Google’s MFWIC, Sundar Pichai, defended his decision to support the People’s Republic of China with a Google “search” engine that’s carefully compliant with PRC censorship requirements.
What interests me this time, though, is this bit:
Mr Pichai…played down the idea that the Project Maven decision was made only based on employee feedback. He said Google has also listened to experts in ethics and artificial intelligence.
Project Maven is a DoD program intended to develop artificial intelligence for American national defense purposes—including, yes, an improved ability to kill our enemies when they attack us.
The discrimination suit against Harvard is underway, and the first day produced some interesting claims.
William Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s admissions dean since 1986, defended the policy [of favoring some applicants over others on the basis of race] by saying the letters to white students in more rural states help the school recruit from areas where students may be less aware of Harvard.
This is nonsense. If student awareness were the goal, instead of sending letters to favored individuals, Harvard would advertise, would communicate with the junior high schools and high schools of those rural areas.