We Hear You: Coming to America, Birthright Citizenship, and Climate Alarmism
Ken McIntyre /
Editor’s note: The Daily’s Signal’s audience was touched by foreign correspondent Nolan
Peterson’s account of his wife’s introduction to America. The issue of birthright citizenship also drew many a comment to lead off this week’s mailbag. Remember to write us at [email protected]—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal: Nolan Peterson’s words and his military service, along with his lovely wife’s awe from the kindness of strangers, demonstrate simply and forcefully just what this country is built upon (“‘I’ll Never Be the Same’: My Ukrainian Wife’s First Trip to the United States”).
Greatness. It is something aspired to, and achieved by few. It is marveled at, dreamed about, and diligently strived toward. America has had countless young men and women die to defend the greatness that it was founded upon, but none ever in vain. Greatness cannot continue to exist with complacency among our people.
Citizens must fight alongside our servicemen and women by voting in those who truly honor this great country in upholding the sacred Constitution. They must fight against the invading forces of mind and body who seek to destroy our democratic republic.
Thank you for Nolan Peterson. His steadfast pride and love of country is appreciated by all he has touched.—Claudine Beaumont
The article by Nolan Peterson was just fantastic.—Anastasia Wilhelm, Wichita, Kan.
Thanks for posting this article. I love our country, and I’m so happy Nolan Peterson’s bride, Lilya, does too. His grandmother is beautiful (so is his wife). And, yes, thank you, Nolan, for your service.—N. Drew
This liberal Democrat says: “Great article!” I hope we can all see this wonderful country with the same appreciation as Nolan’s lovely wife. Thank you.—Doug Dougherty
What a fantastic article. Heartwarming really. We certainly could use more introspective reflections like that. Thank you.—Joseph Guilbert
I haven’t read anything this good, or felt this good reading anything, in years.—Cynthia Campbell
Moving and lovely. I am almost Nolan Peterson’s grandmother’s age, so I can truly relate: The Great Depression through all the wars, the ’60s and now this vileness. But we will survive it, with God’s help, and Americans like Nolan and Lilya.—Bettye Speed
I love the U.S., but I can’t live in America anymore due to the health costs. Indeed, the U.S. has slipped from the clear leader in quality to something that can be questioned. What has happened to U.S. health care in the past 10 years is a disgrace.—Joey Smith
We may all be blessed to be Americans, but too many of us are so self-centered that we do not believe it.
Those misguided persons are too filled with greed, mis-education, and absorbed lies. Greed and arrogance are deadly companions to lust and power.
Perhaps we will somehow survive, not as an invaded socialist hell hole, but as America made great again.—Ted Duke
Outstanding article. And yes, America is the most generous country in the world. Born or live in America? You’ve already hit life’s lottery.
Respect it, don’t blow it. America: It’s where the rest of the world wants to be.—Allan Hewitt
Thank you for your service, Nolan, though the Air Force is not really the military! Go, Army!
Thanks to your wife for understanding how great this country is.—D.W. Williams
Why Trump can end birthright citizenship by executive order https://t.co/rXSYV7PUlN via @HvonSpakovsky @DailySignal
— Chris Mundy (@mundyspeaks) November 6, 2018
The President and Birthright Citizenship
Dear Daily Signal: It definitely is well past time for the Supreme Court to weigh in on birthright citizenship, the subject of Hans von Spakovsky’s commentary (“Why Trump Can End Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order”). If it takes President Trump to issue an executive order mandating federal agencies to abide by the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment resulting in the government being sued, so be it.
Until the issue is resolved our borders are going to be inundated by illegal immigrants demanding rights and benefits they are not entitled to, and forcing us to pay out of our taxes. As I said previously, if we take away the lollipops, they’ll stop coming.
I am all for legal immigration; after all, we are a country of immigrants. If you want to come to this country, welcome. Just do it legally.—Marion E. Daniels-Price
The law never has said that children born to illegal aliens (who are criminals themselves simply by virtue of their being here without following legal protocols) are citizens. There doesn’t need to be an executive order.
All we need to do is enforce the existing law, and make it retroactive. Automatic birthright citizenship should be only for children born to American citizens, not to children of those who are just on American soil.—Maud St. James
Hans von Spakovsky writes: “The fact that any alien in the U.S. is subject to our territorial jurisdiction, and can therefore be prosecuted for breaking our laws, does not make them subject to the complete, political jurisdiction of the U.S. They owe no allegiance to the U.S. government.”
The conflict between those who think the president can change the 14th Amendment and those who disagree resolves around the statement above.
If one thinks that a partial subjection equates to full citizenship, then one most likely thinks the president does not have the capability to change the amendment by fiat. If you think a partial subjection does not equate to full citizenship, then one most likely thinks the president does have the capability to change the amendment by fiat.—Bill Lommey
Would this also apply to the Second Amendment? You know, the first part of the amendment—”A well regulated Militia being necessary”—which is separated only by a comma from “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”?
Perhaps Obama missed his opportunity to “take away our guns” if it were really this simple.—Rich Woodward
This brilliantly articulates why Trump is 100% right.
.@realDonaldTrump is right. Ending birthright citizenship is constitutional. https://t.co/fmS60RzY1p via @HvonSpakovsky @DailySignal
— ? Carlo Valvassori (@CarloValvassori) November 2, 2018
Why It’s Constitutional to End Birthright Citizenship
Dear Daily Signal: I’ve been waiting for a reasoned discussion regarding the actual language of the 14th Amendment and original intent, and The Daily Signal and Hans von Spakovsky came through in flying colors (“Trump Is Right. Ending Birthright Citizenship Is Constitutional“).
I’m sure the president is pushing this issue in order to get a definitive Supreme Court opinion on birthright citizenship once and for all. Now that there is a center-right-leaning court in place. Only time will tell.—Derek Dubasik
Here’s another example of political spin that subverts the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law. It was formulated after the Civil War and freeing of American slaves. The intent was to counter the three-fifths humanity of millions of residents called “slaves” in the Deep South.
There are specific ways to amend this document, and President Trump’s writing an executive order isn’t one of them. And no majority of conservatives on the Supreme Court could ever agree that presidential fiat would supersede the written and clear Constitution.
The Daily Signal is simply another propaganda arm for Trump when it publishes a piece that subverts our governing document. Let’s do better.—Bill Lemoine
President Trump’s view of the 14th Amendment may be consistent with the view of the framers, but unfortunately the view of the framers was poorly expressed in the words they wrote in creating Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Nowhere in the wording of the 14th Amendment does it say this amendment was applicable only to freed slaves and their children.
I don’t like the idea that people can come into the U.S. (legally or illegally) for the purpose of having their children become American citizens, and thus be entitled to all rights and privileges and benefits of citizens. But it doesn’t matter what I like, or what I want.
We can argue about what the words “under the jurisdiction thereof” means, or what it ought to mean, forever. Either the Supreme Court will have to decide what that provision means, or they will refer it back to the legislature to make the intent clear in a new constitutional amendment that would have to be approved by three-fourths of the states.—Drew Page
Hans von Spakovsky makes a pretty convincing case, and us liberals are going to have to work like hell to refute it. This could cost us votes big time.—Charles Roy, Columbia, S.C.
Eliminating birthright from all except those born to citizens and green card holders will go a long way toward putting up a “virtual wall.” Also, 150 years ago the government wasn’t in the business of giving handouts.
The nation was severely underpopulated and the draft was in place and overlooking the letter of the 14th Amendment was in the interest of the nation. But today things are different. There’s a welfare system that’s been extended to illegals, no draft forcing allegiance to the U.S,. and we have way more people than we need.—Joe Boma
By the numbers: 4 key points about #birthrightcitizenship https://t.co/9ZQqBW8oIQ via @FredLucasWH @DailySignal
— Mark Krikorian (@MarkSKrikorian) November 1, 2018
Dear Daily Signal: Should the end to birthright citizenship indeed go through, as Fred Lucas reports, this would be a big favor to “accidental” Americans (“By the Numbers: 4 Key Points About Birthright Citizenship“). That is, citizens of a country other than the United States who also may be considered U.S. citizens or eligible for U.S. citizenship under U.S. nationality law.
Such persons are born in their own countries but to one U.S. citizen parent who emigrated from the United States, or they may be born in the U.S. to parents residing in the country temporarily for work or study and then return to their own country in their early childhood. I know quite a few such cases (from Austria all the way to Australia).
The crunch: The U.S. imposes income tax obligations on worldwide income on anyone who holds U.S. citizenship, regardless of where the person resides or where the income is earned. This means, “accidental” Americans are burdened with double taxation: paying taxes in the country they reside and work as well as to the IRS.
Should this practice come to an end, these people no longer will have pay U.S. taxes without any real link to the U.S. (i.e. no passport, no residence, no vote, no representation). Needless to say, the IRS would not be too pleased about that.—Martin Schwarzer
Fred Lucas writes: “The CBO estimates that 60,000 more citizen children will be born to illegal immigrant parents over the next decade.”
But if nearly 300,000 babies were born to illegal immigrant mothers in 2017 alone, according to the Center for Immigration Studies cited in the same article, how can that Congressional Budget Office number be accurate?—Anna Clare
Almost all of the numbers used in this article are pure hogwash. If there were 300,000 illegal births five years ago, and 50,000-plus new illegals arriving monthly since then, plus additional births to illegals already here, common sense says the number must be much greater.
Several months ago, I read an article estimating illegal births at 400,000 annually, but, again, with the tens of thousands arriving monthly and anchor babies being the quickest route to welfare services, the number simply has to be constantly increasing.
Anyway, how can anyone be sure? Think. The only records that possibly could be used are hospital records of births. Now, in today’s liberal climate with every facet of government, local to federal, working on behalf of foreigners instead of citizens, how many of these hospitals designate legal or citizen status on their patient records? Somehow I doubt many, if any, do.—Marilyn Griffin
Although the thought of ending birthright citizenship is attractive, an executive order would be disastrous. Yes, the numbers would be stopped now; however, the next administration could just as easily begin the process with a reversal of that order.
Also, and more importantly, it would set a precedent for changing the interpretation of the Constitution by executive order. Next in line, guns. How clear does it need to be? There are better, albeit slower and more cumbersome, solutions.—Susan Borresen, Sula, Mont.
I really appreciate The Daily Signal. I recently learned a great deal about birthright citizens, and wondered why the U.S. would be abused by the 14th Amendment. The history behind the 14th Amendment was a real eye-opener for me, and confirms my suspicions that current practice was not based on any common sense. What value could this practice bring to the USA?
Now that we have more knowledge of the true intention of the 14th Amendment, we should stop the abuse. The president should immediately stop issuing passports to any new requests from parents of foreign children born in the USA until Congress and/or the Supreme Court fully clarifies this issue.
If the final conclusion is in favor of anchor babies, passports could then be applied for. Until then, we should not complicate the issue by continuing to assume that citizenship is granted simply by being born in America.—Gerald Yankie, Simi Valley, Calif.
When I was young, most countries had birthright citizenship for people born in that country—most have now changed that—and children of Americans born in another country had dual citizenship.—Michael Schmidt
Student cancels petition seeking removal of Clarence Thomas’ name from campus building https://t.co/yNseJphdMa @DailySignal
— FawnMacMT~??????? (@AltFawn) October 31, 2018
The Ongoing Assault Against Clarence Thomas
Dear Daily Signal: Thank you to Troy Worden for an interesting, timely, and important piece (“Student Cancels Petition Seeking Removal of Clarence Thomas’ Name From Campus Building”).
I was unaware of some of the information presented in his news story. I am most happy that Justice Clarence Thomas’ name will remain on the historic preservation building at Savannah College of Art and Design.—Joseph B. Stewart
I didn’t believe Anita Hill when I watched those Senate hearings in 1991. Justice Clarence Thomas has been a bedrock conservative, and I am very thankful the smear campaign against him didn’t work any better than the one against Brett Kavanaugh did. Though I must say the campaign against Kavanaugh was far more blatantly bogus and despicable.—Randy Reeves
How about men who spent 10, 20, 30 years in prison for a sexual assault charge, then years later it is found out they were innocent due to DNA progress and/or the female accuser said they had made it up?
We have a process in law that should curtail this, but so many men are so afraid of being excoriated by the likes of some that they rush to judgment.—Karin Callaway, Florida
Women in America always have had the right to speak out. There is no law that one must suffer the indignity of sexual harassment or rape in silence. It has been the woman’s choice to speak or not to speak.
However, it is also equally true that an accusation is not proof, and credible proof in the form of corroborating testimony or physical proof is necessary. A man is innocent until proven guilty under American law, and an accusation without proof is nothing but a smear campaign.—Maud St. James
When Clarence Thomas changed jobs, Anita Hill followed him. That should tell you something about her “fear” and “victimhood.”
Any male who has gone through a divorce knows that the opposing female can have a very vivid imagination in her favor.—Larry Martin
Leftists don’t hate Clarence Thomas because he’s black, they hate him because he’s a Christian.—Millie Tyler
Climate alarmists admit they want to dismantle our free-enterprise system https://t.co/MdXrSFSOjq via @NiconomistLoris @DailySignal
— Kimberly Rose (@mskimrose) October 13, 2018
The Motives of Climate Alarmists
Dear Daily Signal: Eric Holthaus and the “world’s top climate scientists” can go back to living in caves if they like, is my reply to the commentary on climate activists by Nicolas Loris (“Climate Alarmists Admit They Want to Dismantle Our Free Enterprise System”). They can form communes, plant crops on national park property, treat one another’s illnesses, hold hands, and sing “Kumbaya.”
Perhaps they should settle in Yellowstone Park, where they could use the hot springs to keep warm in the winter and coexist with the animals found there. No capitalism, only pure communism, where “to each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities” would be the law of the land.
Of course, someone would have to be in charge of such a system, determining what people’s needs really are and what people’s abilities really are. Of course, the people themselves wouldn’t be the ones determining their needs or abilities, and so a higher authority would need to make those decisions and enforce them.—Drew Page
If it were not for “global warming,” we would not be here. Climate has yo-yoed up and down over the millennia, even—gasp—before humans were present. One volcano eruption spews a year’s worth of pollution.
And don’t get me started on the activity of the sun, which is affecting climate on all the planets.—Peter Raymond
According to Karl Marx, “the only identities that mattered were class identities—the working class and the ruling class.”
“Equality” is for the working class. In other words: feudalism, but on a national/global scale—like Venezuela or Cuba. Are there any socialist dictators living the same impoverished lives as their subjects?—Francisco Machado
Do I hear “Animal Farm,” “Hunger Games,” “In Time,” etc.? The masses enslaved by the elites, all to protect civilization from ourselves. What egoists and narcissists, and, yes, hypocrites.—Brian Orner
Do you think American kids have learned that we have been in a warming cycle since the end of the last ice age 11,700 years ago, when what is now New York City was buried in a few hundred feet of ice?
In a warming cycle, the Earth warms. This is not theoretical physics. In about 1990, a well-known socialist suggested using the threat of an environment catastrophe as an excuse to take totalitarian control of business and industry.—Anthony Alafero
Legal Watchdog, Citing Secret Material in Clinton Emails, Presses State Department in Court. “It is frankly unbelievable that the State Department is still protecting @HillaryClinton and her aides,” @TomFitton says. https://t.co/mIT0hmYJ6A via @KevinMooneyDC @DailySignal
— Ken Snyder (@KenSnyder4) October 12, 2018
The Courts and Hillary Clinton’s Email
Dear Daily Signal: It is amazing that we have spent millions investigating the Trump campaign’s supposed contacts with Russia while we have ample documentation, as Kevin Mooney’s report suggests, that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton camp did that very thing (“Legal Watchdog, Citing Secret Material in Clinton Emails, Presses State Department in Court”).
The email issue is just one more brick in the wall of deceit that the Clintons and their minions have built around themselves.
We just went through a series of nasty Senate hearings where pompous and self-righteous Democrats demanded investigation of very shaky charges lacking any hard evidence, let alone the fact that the “victim’s” story kept changing.
But they refuse to investigate those in their own party who have substantial evidence of very significant criminal activity against women, including but not limited to Bill Clinton. It’s hard to reconcile and get your head around that fact.—Timothy Dayton
The Obama-Clinton cabal is a group of globalists. Its members are not subject to U.S. laws.
Becoming multimillionaires is merely a byproduct of their march toward a universal utopia where the whole world is controlled absolutely by the elite who will create the perfect society where everyone (at least everyone in the “working class”) is equal. It’s already well on its way to success in Venezuela.—Francisco Machado
It is easy for me to understand why politicians support the Clintons; they spread their ill-gotten money around. Bill Clinton, way back in Arkansas, gave away more illegal money than he kept. This served him well over the years.
Politicians are so greedy, it is easy to buy them off. What amazes me is that the average American Democrat does not gain $1 by supporting these monsters. Why do they do it? The evidence of their guilt is overwhelming. They are protected by career (deep state) bureaucrats.
Why do Americans still defend and support Hillary and Bill? And Democrats call Republicans idiots. Pretty ironic—Joseph Sarnak
Hillary Clinton understands the rule of law, but decides if it is to her advantage to obey a particular law. She has never been held accountable for breaking laws, so she continues to do just that.—Robert Earl
Please, God, send her off to Mars. I’ll pay her fare.—Dan Stewart
Media should examine itself before blaming Trump for ‘climate of hate’ https://t.co/jyb5tH2R7S via @JarrettStepman @DailySignal
— Russ Tafarian ?? (@Rustafa555) November 4, 2018
What the Media Calls Hate
Dear Daily Signal: Jarrett Stepman is correct in his commentary (“Media Should Examine Itself Before Blaming Trump for ‘Climate of Hate’”). It is the media that is spreading the hate, and redefining what is correct and moral as hate. Then they direct hate accusations at those who do not agree.—William Geyer
The only inherent virtue of progressivism is the equal sharing of misery.—Wayne Harmon
Trump didn’t create the hate, he just revealed the hate.—Redigo Gubernatio
All of the hate is coming from the left. It’s coming from Hollyweird, Maxine Waters and her ilk, and Antifa. It’s being pushed by the media as the fault of conservatives.
The only thing coming from the conservative side of things is disgust at the left’s childish behavior, and the lack of impartiality in the media.—Charles Williams
Podcast: What exit polling data shows voters really cared about https://t.co/ie9khjGTIm via @JDaniel_Davis @DailySignal
— CSM (@usacsmret) November 8, 2018
About Our Podcasts
Dear Daily Signal: Your podcast No. 335 was the first one I’ve heard, and I have to tell you that I’m now a fan (“Podcast: What Exit Polling Data Shows Voters Really Cared About”).
I understood before listening that the show’s perspective would tend to reflect the conservative viewpoint on most issues—which is fine with me, since that viewpoint aligns with mine. However, I was struck by the absence of hyperpartisanship and polemics throughout.
When Katrina Trinko and Daniel Davis addressed the midterm election and talked about the things that mattered to different groups of voters, they were fair, objective, and dispassionate. It was terrific coverage, with 100 percent less bias than I’ve heard in a long time from the “objective” mainstream media. It reminded me of how interesting and informative well-presented straight news coverage can be.
I’m now going through many of your other recent podcasts and deciding which ones to listen to first, and I will also be a regular listener going forward. Keep up the good work.—David Leffingwell, Salina, Kan.
When your podcast commentators were mentioning good Halloween movies (“The History of Birthright Citizenship in the US“), I was surprised they left out “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown” with Snoopy and the rest of the “Peanuts” gang.—Brad Stubitsch
Please publish all podcasts in writing as well as in audio.—Rich Staley, Clermont, Fla.
I do not enjoy podcasts. Hearing impaired. Prefer text to read.—Tuiray Lockwood
This and That
Dear Daily Signal: The Democrats tried a health care scare tactic to win votes because they had nothing else to run on.
Why doesn’t someone hire actuaries to see what the real chances would be for the Democrats to have won most of the “last minute” votes that magically appeared?
If conservatives let them get away with it, the leftists will be emboldened to stuff the ballot boxes in all districts in the 2020 elections.—Robert Albanese
Terrible damage to society arises from the manifold consequences of the world’s neglect of children who are uncared for and unwanted.
These concerns should create much greater moral outrage among those who oppose abortion. But some people of a religious persuasion do not quantify the harm to society caused by those many who, uncared for as children, display the consequences as adults.—James Hawley
I encourage Daily Signal readers, if they haven’t already, to read David Horowitz and Richard Poe’s book, “The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party.”
The reason this is so amazing and prophetic is that it was written in 2006, before anyone had heard of Barack Obama and Donald Trump (at least as a politician). It is describing exactly what’s going on today. You’ll be stunned.—R.C. Anderson, Las Vegas
As a “Native American,” where does Sen. Elizabeth (“Fauxcahontas”) Warren stand on illegal immigration? And does she have a stake in Indian casinos?—Henry Hahn
How Are We Doing?
Dear Daily Signal: I am so very impressed with your articles, the depth of your knowledge, and your concern for our country. I learn so much from reading your articles and appreciate each and every one of them.
I especially enjoyed the podcast with Sebastian Gorka and Genevieve Wood’s commentary on the difference between conservatives and progressives.
Your reporting is excellent. Thanks for all your hard work in keeping us informed.—Sharon Kempfer, Fort Wayne, Ind.
I often find news at The Daily Signal that is never reported elsewhere. Insights and events that are ignored, except maybe at Brietbart News. I appreciate the knowledge shared, which allows all citizens the ability to make good choices and understand what is going on in our country.
Keep putting out the truth. It seems our very republic is under attack on so many levels. Florida and Arizona come to mind.—Peter Forella, Rochester, N.Y.
First, may I say The Daily Signal is my No. 1 read daily. I plan to make a contribution soon, as I suspect this is the time you need help.
The biggest problem of inner cities and African-American families (as well as other racial groups) is the lack of fathers at home. You have mentioned deleting the marriage penalty from the tax code, but I have not seen anything more about it.
Demographics favor Democrats, but helping to get more fathers in the home might help the Republicans a lot.—Robert Petersen, Provo, Utah
I enjoy your articles, which I find accurate and honest.—Tom Ward
Proven fact: Control of media can sway public opinion. Vietnam ring any bells? The Spanish-American War?—Leo Jablonski
Kudos. Excellent job.—John Hazeltine, San Clemente, Calif.
Sarah Sleem and Troy Worden helped to compile this edition of “We Hear You.”