Tuesday, August 18, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/army-ranger-school-first-female-graduates-names-announced-thursday/

First female Army Rangers' trailblazing achievement
CBS NEWS
August 18, 2015


Photograph -- Two female soldiers are making history as the first women to graduate from the Army's Ranger School, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

The Army has not yet released their names, in part to protect them from harassment by die-hards who cannot stomach the idea of females wearing the coveted Ranger tab.

The two women, both West Point graduates, are expected to appear before the media Thursday ahead of their graduation Friday.

Nineteen women started the Army Ranger course -- 62 days of nearly constant physical and mental stress on little food and even less sleep.

Along with 94 men, they made it through a week of physical testing at Fort Benning, Georgia, then went through mountain training in north Georgia and swamp training in Florida.

Men and women were all held to the same standards, and it was frequently hard to tell them apart in the scenes the Army allowed cameras to record.

At the graduation ceremony, the men and women will each be awarded the Ranger tab to wear on their uniform but, unlike the men, the women will not be allowed to serve in the elite Ranger units.

"One of the key things that the students learn is that the limit that they believe exists probably doesn't, and that they're capable of doing much more under very difficult circumstances," U.S. Army Ranger Association president Travis West said.

ranger-course-4.jpg
U.S. Army Soldiers conduct Airborne and Air Assault Operations during the Ranger Course at Camp Rudder on Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, August 06, 2015. U.S. ARMY PHOTO BY PFC. EBONY BANKS/ RELEASED
Accepting women into Ranger School was part of the Army's experiment to determine if women could withstand the grinding life of the infantry, carrying heavy packs and operating in harsh terrain day after day.

"For those women who are able to complete the course, it will probably help them in some ways in their careers," West said.

The armed services are under orders to open up all combat jobs to women by the end of this year.

One of the commanders of the Ranger course compared the graduation of the first women to breaking the four-minute mile. Once the barrier is broken, others will quickly follow.

The fact that two have now completed the course does not guarantee that women will be allowed to serve in the infantry, but it is a major step in that direction.




“The Army has not yet released their names, in part to protect them from harassment by die-hards who cannot stomach the idea of females wearing the coveted Ranger tab. The two women, both West Point graduates, are expected to appear before the media Thursday ahead of their graduation Friday. Nineteen women started the Army Ranger course -- 62 days of nearly constant physical and mental stress on little food and even less sleep. 0Along with 94 men, they made it through a week of physical testing at Fort Benning, Georgia, then went through mountain training in north Georgia and swamp training in Florida. Men and women were all held to the same standards, and it was frequently hard to tell them apart in the scenes the Army allowed cameras to record. …. but, unlike the men, the women will not be allowed to serve in the elite Ranger units. "One of the key things that the students learn is that the limit that they believe exists probably doesn't, and that they're capable of doing much more under very difficult circumstances," U.S. Army Ranger Association president Travis West said. …. "For those women who are able to complete the course, it will probably help them in some ways in their careers," West said. The armed services are under orders to open up all combat jobs to women by the end of this year.”

The Army is still not promising that these particular women who have passed the grueling course among the best men, keeping up in all ways, “will be allowed to serve in the infantry, but it is a major step in that direction.” What is about “all combat jobs” that this man’s Army doesn’t understand? Personally I would never want to fight in a war, and would never be able to cut the physical requirements, but since the 1970s when I was in Women’s Liberation groups, some women were talking about doing this. I am 70 years old, and I’m good and tired of these problems continuing. The State of Israel opened up their combat forces to women years ago. What is so different about our women – or our men?






http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ending-birthright-citizenship/

Is it possible to end birthright citizenship?
By REBECCA KAPLAN CBS NEWS
August 18, 2015

Photograph -- Seven-year-old April Palazios, whose parents came from Guatemala, waves Guatemalan and U.S. flags as protesters march to decry pending federal legislation aimed at reducing illegal immigration on April 1, 2006 in Costa Mesa, California. GETTY IMAGES
Play VIDEO -- Trump releases specifics on his immigration policy
Play VIDEO -- John Boehner: Immigration reform is “almost impossible”
Play VIDEO -- Obama signs controversial executive action on immigration




A policy paper released by 2016 Republican frontrunner Donald Trump this weekend has reopened a question in the immigration debate that some of Trump's fellow GOP candidates may want to avoid: Is it time to end birthright citizenship?

According to Trump, it is - and his plan promises to do so. "This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration," Trump says in the policy paper. He cites a 2011 survey by the right-leaning Rasmussen polling organization, which found that 65 percent of likely U.S. voters do not support birthright citizenship, which is automatic citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil. A 2010 CBS News poll found that 47 percent of Americans are in favor changing the law so that the children of immigrants in the U.S. illegally cannot become citizens, whereas 49 percent say it should stay the same.

Trump also noted that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid once backed the idea of ending birthright citizenship, a position Reid abandoned and one that is almost universally rejected by Democrats today.

Although Republicans are eager to toughen up U.S. immigration enforcement and border patrol, many candidates have stopped short of calling for an end to birthright citizenship. That could change as they are asked to respond to Trump's proposal. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker got the question Monday, to which he said "absolutely, going forward" the U.S. should end birthright citizenship. He was less specific when asked about it again, saying, "What we should do is enforce the law."

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham last week that immigration policies including birthright citizenship need to be "reexamined in light of the current circumstances." Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who says immigration reform must include a pathway to citizenship, called birthright citizenship a "mistake" in 2010 and said he would amend the 14th Amendment to discourage future illegal migration. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, cosponsored a bill with Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, in 2011 that would only extend citizenship to babies born in the U.S. if one or more of their parents was a citizen, immigrant with legal status, or member of the armed forces.

It's common for at least one lawmaker to introduce legislation each year that would deny automatic citizenship to a baby born to immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. But aside from stirring up public debate, those bills rarely go anywhere.

Is it possible to end birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship comes from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868. It states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." It gave citizenship to former slaves and overruled the Supreme Court, which said in Dred Scott v. Sandford that slaves were not U.S. citizens.

Multiple immigration law professors interviewed by CBS News said ending birthright citizenship would involve passing an amendment to change the Constitution.

"It would require a vote of two thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratification by three fourths of the state legislatures so politically, I think that's almost impossible," Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell University Law School professor, told CBS News. "Some people believe that they could simply pass a statue to end birthright citizenship without having to amend the Constitution, but I think that most legal scholars believe that a constitutional amendment is required."

Hiroshi Motomura, who teaches immigration law and citizenship at the University of California-Los Angeles, told CBS News that ending birthright citizenship is "an overly simple solution for a really complex problem...with consequences that are going to be seriously negative consequences for this country. It would be much better to fix the immigration system."

The small group of scholars who say the 14th Amendment is open to further clarification by Congress focus on the words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They point to the fact that Congress did not consider Native Americans to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and offered citizenship on a tribe-by-tribe basis until it was it was made available to all tribes in 1923.

Yale Law Professor Peter Schuck explained it this way in a 2010 New York Times op-ed: "The argument against any birthright citizenship is that these children are here as a result of an illegal act and thus have no claim to membership in a country built on the ideal of mutual consent."

The most applicable Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship came in 1898 when the court ruled that Wong Kim Ark became a U.S. citizen at birth even though his parents - who lived in the U.S. when he was born - were of Chinese descent. His parents resided in the U.S. legally.

What would happen if the U.S. were to change the 14th Amendment?
If Congress were to end birthright citizenship but not make an effort to remove immigrants in the U.S. illegally, their numbers would actually increase.

A 2010 study by the Migration Policy Institute found that the undocumented population would rise from its current level of about 11 million to 16 million by 2050 as families continued to expand, but with children not becoming American citizens. That number would be even higher if the government only allowed children who had two legal-status parents to become citizens.

Michael Fix, the president of the Migration Policy Instiute and one of the study's co-authors, said it would also result in "an underachieving, unintegrated subpopulation" as more generations of children are born but unable to advance in society because of their legal status.

"We know that children who were raised in families with one or more undocumented parents have worse developmental and education outcomes than children raised in families with similar but legal parents," Fix told CBS News.

Children whose parents were born outside of the U.S. would, in most cases, inherit citizenship from their parents' countries. But many would probably choose to stay in the U.S., especially if it was the only country they had ever known.

"Somebody will be able to survive in the United States, but it will be rather difficult for them to be able to advance in the United States," Demetrios Papademetriou, the president of Migration Policy Institute Europe, told CBS News. "You will have a significant number of people who would be second-class and third-class citizens."

Motomura, the UCLA professor, also argued that removing the possibility of citizenship for children born to undocumented parents will make it much less likely that they will assimilate because there will be less of an attachment to the country where they live.

"One of the biggest things that this country does to assimilate immigrants is that we offer them citizenship," he said. "The real consequences of this will be seen in 5 to 30 years when people grow up without a sense of belonging."




“A policy paper released by 2016 Republican frontrunner Donald Trump this weekend has reopened a question in the immigration debate that some of Trump's fellow GOP candidates may want to avoid: Is it time to end birthright citizenship? …. Birthright citizenship comes from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868. It states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." It gave citizenship to former slaves and overruled the Supreme Court, which said in Dred Scott v. Sandford that slaves were not U.S. citizens. …. LEGAL ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH IN THIS ARTICLE: "It would require a vote of two thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratification by three fourths of the state legislatures so politically, I think that's almost impossible," Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell University Law School professor, told CBS News. "Some people believe that they could simply pass a statue [sic] to end birthright citizenship without having to amend the Constitution, but I think that most legal scholars believe that a constitutional amendment is required.” …. “…The small group of scholars who say the 14th Amendment is open to further clarification by Congress focus on the words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." … "The argument against any birthright citizenship is that these children are here as a result of an illegal act and thus have no claim to membership in a country built on the ideal of mutual consent." … most applicable Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship came in 1898 when the court ruled that Wong Kim Ark became a U.S. citizen at birth even though his parents - who lived in the U.S. when he was born - were of Chinese descent. His parents resided in the U.S. legally.”

ASSIMILATION ISSUES -- “A 2010 study by the Migration Policy Institute found that the undocumented population would rise from its current level of about 11 million to 16 million by 2050 as families continued to expand, but with children not becoming American citizens. That number would be even higher if the government only allowed children who had two legal-status parents to become citizens. Michael Fix, the president of the Migration Policy Instiute and one of the study's co-authors, said it would also result in "an underachieving, unintegrated subpopulation" as more generations of children are born but unable to advance in society because of their legal status. …. "One of the biggest things that this country does to assimilate immigrants is that we offer them citizenship," he said. "The real consequences of this will be seen in 5 to 30 years when people grow up without a sense of belonging."

“Hiroshi Motomura, who teaches immigration law and citizenship at the University of California-Los Angeles, told CBS News that ending birthright citizenship is "an overly simple solution for a really complex problem...with consequences that are going to be seriously negative consequences for this country. It would be much better to fix the immigration system." This is one of the most interesting news articles I’ve read so far since beginning this blog, with lots of information and varied opinion given. Please look at the Wikipedia rundown on Birthright Citizenship below. I picked up this comment by Motomura because I agree with him. It’s an “overly simple solution for a complex problem,” and as long as so many people around the world are starving this problem won’t go away. It isn’t just about citizenship, which I believe is secondary with most of those people, but about a better economic environment here, though we also have our problems. Greece, France, Spain and other European countries are talking about their own immigrant problems with people from Africa and the East coming to their shores in anything that will float.

I do understand that birthright citizenship presents a problem as long as thousands of people come into the US illegally and manage to stay long enough to propagate the species. Putting up a wall on the Rio Grande sounds plausible, but I remember a news video of Latinos clambering energetically across one section that does have a wall, though it looked to be at least 20 feet tall and had no handholds to aid in the climb. What about a fortified structure like the Great Wall of China along the border, with forts and soldiers permanently ensconced on top to shoot and kill anyone who comes into a purposely bare landscape ten miles or more wide like North Korea’s DMZ. That wouldn’t keep people from coming up in boats around the eastern and western borders, though, and would require great inconvenience for Americans who own land right up to the border and have houses there. They would have to go somewhere else to live. There are US/Mexican cities along the border which share the same space, but have different governments. It also would do nothing about the cargo ships full of people from places like China crammed into metal containers made to look like trade goods. World poverty is the real basis of the problem, and politically insecure lives back home in Guatemala, etc. Perhaps we should remove the Statue of Liberty and dismantle it for scrap metal. That would stop our false advertising to the “huddled masses” around the world.

The very fine Wikipedia article below carries the principle of Birthright Citizenship some thousand years and more back, beyond the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In summary, it quotes Attorney General Edward Bates in his 1862 statement on whether or not black people who had been slaves could be US citizens in this statement worthy of a US President, or at least a US Supreme Court justice –
“‘... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.’

If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in a country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the natural born right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.[28][italics in original].’”



THE LAW ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PAST AND PRESENT


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

Birthright citizenship in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For laws regarding U.S. citizenship, see United States nationality law. For U.S. citizenship (birthright and naturalized), see Citizenship in the United States.


Birthright citizenship in the United States refers to a person's acquisition of United States citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth. It contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization later in life. Birthright citizenship may be conferred by jus soli or jus sanguinis. Under United States law, U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to any person born within and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. This includes the territories of Puerto Rico, the Marianas (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and also applies to children born elsewhere in the world to U.S. citizens (with certain exceptions).[1][2]

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "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."

Current U.S. law[edit]

Citizenship in the United States is a matter of federal law, governed by the United States constitution.

Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states:


"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."[3]

Statute, by birth within U.S.[edit]

As of 2011, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or
"a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
"a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
"a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"

U.S. territories[edit]

The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.[4]

There are special provisions governing children born in some current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth".[5]

Outlying possessions[edit]

According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. (which is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions explains the complexities of this topic.[6]

Statute, by parentage[edit]

Under certain circumstances, children may acquire U.S. citizenship from their parents. From 1940 until 1978, a child born abroad who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth but had only one U.S. citizen parent had to fulfill a "retention requirement" of residing, or being physically present, in the United States or its outlying possessions for a certain number of years before reaching a specified age. Otherwise the child would not retain the U.S. citizenship (hence the name "retention requirement"). The retention requirement was changed several times, eliminated in 1978, and subsequently eliminated with retroactive effect in 1994.[7]

Children born overseas to married parents[edit]

The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):[8]
If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever had a residence in the U.S. prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[9] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday.[10]


Children born overseas out of wedlock[edit]

There is an asymmetry in the way citizenship status of children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, is handled.

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (c) provides that children born abroad after December 24, 1952 to unmarried American mothers are U.S. citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year at any time prior to the birth.

8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (a) provides that children born to American fathers unmarried to the children's non-American mothers are considered U.S. citizens only if the father meets the "physical presence" conditions described above, and the father takes several actions:
Unless deceased, has agreed to provide financial support to the child until he reaches 18,
Establish paternity by clear and convincing evidence and, while the person is under the age of 18 years the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,
the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court. 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (a) provides that acknowledgment of paternity can be shown by acknowledging paternity under oath and in writing; having the issue adjudicated by a court; or having the child otherwise "legitimated" by law.


Because of this rule, unusual cases have arisen whereby children have been fathered by American men overseas from non-American women, brought back to the United States as babies without the mother, raised by the American father in the United States, and later held to be deportable as non-citizens in their 20s.[11][12] The final element has taken an especially significant importance in these circumstances, as once the child has reached 18, the father is forever unable to establish paternity to deem his child a citizen.[13]

This distinction between unwed American fathers and American mothers was constructed and reaffirmed by Congress out of concern that a flood of illegitimate Korean and Vietnamese children would later claim American citizenship as a result of their parentage by American servicemen overseas fighting wars in their countries.[14] In many cases, American servicemen passing through in wartime may not have even learned they had fathered a child.[14] In 2001, the Supreme Court, by 5–4 majority in Nguyen v. INS, first established the constitutionality of this gender distinction.[11][12]

Eligibility for office of President[edit]

Main article: Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution

According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as President of the United States or as Vice President. The text of the Constitution does not define what is meant by natural born: in particular it does not specify whether there is any distinction to be made between persons whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis (parentage) and those whose citizenship is based on jus soli (birthplace). As a result, controversies have arisen over the eligibility of a number of candidates for the office.

Legal history[edit]

Throughout much of the history of the United States, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship, although slaves and the children of slave mothers, under the principle of partus sequitur ventrem, were excluded.[15] The United States did not grant citizenship after the American Civil War to all former slaves until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was subsequently confirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment. American Indian tribal members are not covered specifically by the constitutional guarantee. Those living in tribes on reservations were generally not considered citizens until passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, although by that time nearly two-thirds of American Indians were already citizens.

English common law[edit]

Many claim that birthright citizenship, as with much United States law, has its roots in English common law.[16] Calvin’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608),[18] was particularly important as it established that, under English common law, “a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth—a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection."[19] This same principle was adopted by the newly formed United States, as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England...since as before the Revolution.[20]" United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866). However, Calvin's Case is distinguishable, as a Scotsman was granted title to English land as his King and England's King (James) were one and the same.[21] Calvin was not born in England.[21] Moreover, in Calvin's Case, Lord Coke cited examples in which the native-born children of parents, either invading the country or who were enemies of the country, were not natural-born subjects because the birth lacked allegiance and obedience to the sovereign.[22]

Federal law[edit]

The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. Since that time, laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States have undergone a number of revisions.[23]

Dred Scott v. Sanford[edit]

Justice Roger B. Taney in the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (How. 19) 393 (1857) held that African Americans, whether slave or free, had never been and could never become citizens of the United States, as they were excluded by the Constitution. The political scientist Stuart Streichler writes that Taney's decision was based on "a skewed reading of history.".[24] Justice Benjamin R. Curtis in his dissent showed that under the Articles of Confederation, free blacks had already been considered citizens in five states and carried that citizenship forward when the Constitution was ratified.[25]

He wrote:


The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States ... The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States...[26]

1862 opinion of the Attorney General of the United States[edit]

In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a question to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Attorney General Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ...[27][italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,

‘... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.’

If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in a country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the natural born right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.[28][italics in original]”





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-arrested-for-bringing-bomb-to-kansas-abortion-clinic/

Man arrested for bringing bomb to Kansas abortion clinic
CBS/AP
August 18, 2015

Photograph -- The South Wind Women's Clinic in Wichita, Kan. KWCH


WICHITA, Kan. - Police say a man is in custody after he brought a small improvised explosive device into a women's health care clinic that provides abortions in south-central Kansas.

Wichita Police Department spokesman Doug Nolte says officers responded to the South Wind Women's Center around 3:30 p.m. Monday. He says on-site security inspected a backpack the man brought in and found knives and the explosive device.

Officials told CBS affiliate KWCH in Wichita that the suspect was also carrying a small box wrapped in tape.

Clinic staff evacuated the building, and a bomb squad was called to remove the backpack. No injuries were reported.

Nolte says police are investigating whether the man intended to harm the clinic. The FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are also investigating.

The clinic is one of three in Kansas that provide abortions. It opened in 2013 in the same building where Dr. George Tiller provided abortions before he was gunned down in 2009. Tiller's killer, Scott Roeder, said that he had chosen to obey "God's law" to save babies, after shooting Tiller while the doctor was serving as an usher in church.

In a statement, the clinic said: "Today, our staff and local law enforcement handled a threat to the safety of our patients and staff promptly and effectively. The systems that we have in place to protect our patients and staff worked."




“Wichita Police Department spokesman Doug Nolte says officers responded to the South Wind Women's Center around 3:30 p.m. Monday. He says on-site security inspected a backpack the man brought in and found knives and the explosive device. Officials told CBS affiliate KWCH in Wichita that the suspect was also carrying a small box wrapped in tape. Clinic staff evacuated the building, and a bomb squad was called to remove the backpack. No injuries were reported. …. Tiller's killer, Scott Roeder, said that he had chosen to obey "God's law" to save babies, after shooting Tiller while the doctor was serving as an usher in church.”

If Jesus commanded people to kill in his name, it has not survived the millennia since his life. Some scholars have viewed him as part of a radical group of Jews involved in fighting the Romans. Personally, I don’t believe it. There were other people named Jesus at the time. It was also rendered as “Jeshua,” which is a form of our modern “Joshua.” The Jews have always been fairly radical about their beliefs, but Jesus himself, as I see his words, was outrightly pacifist rather than a warrior. He did command Peter to stop when he cut a Roman soldier’s ear off in the Garden of Gethsemane. Thank goodness the law does still protect the people of abortion clinics.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-drought-central-valley-sinking-land-becoming-as-unstable-as-water-supply/

California's Central Valley is sinking -- here's why
CBS NEWS
August 18, 2015

20 PHOTOS -- Surprising consequences of the California drought

California's drought emergency is creating a crisis in one of the world's most important farming regions, the San Joaquin Valley -- the land is becoming as unstable as its water supply.

Every six weeks, Michelle Sneed visits a white shed, checking the pulley system and recording a measurement. The numbers show that the ground beneath her feet is sinking, reports CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy.

"We're measuring the highest rates we've ever measured here, among the highest rates ever measured in the entire world," said Sneed, a hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey.

Sneed said parts of California's Central Valley are dropping by one foot each year. Some areas are ten feet lower than they used to be.

This is why the ground is collapsing: California's farmers are pumping groundwater as fast as they can in order to keep their crops alive during a drought that has left them high and very dry. But when this much water is pumped out of the aquifer below ground, the clay between the pockets of water collapses and the ground starts to deflate like a leaky air mattress.

The sinking is buckling the walls of irrigation canals, damaging pipes, creating giant sink holes and cracking homes. One bridge has dropped so much, the water will soon flow over it instead of under it. Fixing the damage could cost more than $100 million in tax dollars.

"You just have to keep going deeper and deeper," Arthur & Orum Well Drilling Vice President Steve Arthur said.

Some wells are now 2,500 feet deep -- that's two Empire State buildings underground. Water that deep is thousands of years old. But it's desperately needed because more than half the country's fruits, vegetables and nuts are grown in California.

"You tell the farmer he can't drill anymore wells ... he can't farm as many acres. You're gonna go into the store buy a gallon of a milk for $10 , loaf of bread for $5. Then the public is gonna say, 'Hey, what happened?"' Arthur said.

NASA's senior water scientist, Jay Famiglietti, uses satellite data to show the depletion of California's water resources. The state has lost 16 trillion gallons in the past four years, enough to fill Lake Mead -- the largest reservoir in the country -- twice.

So what happens when the water is simply gone?

"That's a question that all of us first of all have a difficult time really fathoming. ... If we still want to have agriculture, we'll have to come up with the water from some other place," Famiglietti said.

But for now, the drilling continues even with the ground all around it caving in.




“Every six weeks, Michelle Sneed visits a white shed, checking the pulley system and recording a measurement. The numbers show that the ground beneath her feet is sinking, reports CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy. "We're measuring the highest rates we've ever measured here, among the highest rates ever measured in the entire world," said Sneed, a hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey. Sneed said parts of California's Central Valley are dropping by one foot each year. Some areas are ten feet lower than they used to be. This is why the ground is collapsing: California's farmers are pumping groundwater as fast as they can in order to keep their crops alive during a drought that has left them high and very dry. But when this much water is pumped out of the aquifer below ground, the clay between the pockets of water collapses and the ground starts to deflate like a leaky air mattress. …. . Fixing the damage could cost more than $100 million in tax dollars. "You just have to keep going deeper and deeper," Arthur & Orum Well Drilling Vice President Steve Arthur said. Some wells are now 2,500 feet deep -- that's two Empire State buildings underground. Water that deep is thousands of years old. But it's desperately needed because more than half the country's fruits, vegetables and nuts are grown in California. "You tell the farmer he can't drill anymore wells ... he can't farm as many acres. You're gonna go into the store buy a gallon of a milk for $10 , loaf of bread for $5. Then the public is gonna say, 'Hey, what happened?"' Arthur said.” …. The state has lost 16 trillion gallons in the past four years, enough to fill Lake Mead -- the largest reservoir in the country -- twice. So what happens when the water is simply gone? "That's a question that all of us first of all have a difficult time really fathoming. ... If we still want to have agriculture, we'll have to come up with the water from some other place," Famiglietti said.”

Let’s face it, the drought appears to me to be endemic to the region. All the old Western shows are about a very, very dry landscape. This is not new. It is just getting worse. Nobody wants the citizens of the US to be forced to do things a different way because of it, but I believe that is what’s coming. There are places in the more central parts of the US with good soil for farming, but it might mean that we have fewer summer oranges, avocados, etc., and more water is available there. When I was young oranges only came in the winter, and avocados simply were not available in the stores. So we have to do without some of these things. If farming is no longer centered in California, but back to the Southeast as when I was young, we can use the available water for human needs such as drinking and washing.

There is also the exploration of new technologies ASAP, rather than at the whim of the “natural” laws of “The Marketplace,” which is in my opinion the true God of the Republican party. We need many desalination plants on the Pacific whether business wants to build them there or not, and maybe on the Atlantic coast as well, and other new things. Water saving technologies looks like the way to go. Purifying waste water is already being done. The following article on Israeli advances in the field would be instructive. Go to the website: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-knows-water-technology-and-it-wants-to-cash-in/2013/10/25/7bb1dd36-3cc5-11e3-b0e7-716179a2c2c7_story.html. The Republicans love Israel so much, they should look into this. Whether we believe in “Climate Change/Global Warming” or not, things are clearly “achangin” all across this country. A couple of years back it was the panic when the city of Atlanta, GA wanted to tap into Florida’s water supply when their reservoir source was all but dried up. Finally, it rained breaking a very long drought. (This really looks like “warming” to me, even though the winter still brings snowstorms and ice.)

Something similar is happening here in Florida, including Jacksonville where I live. The bedrock for the state of Florida is limestone, and underneath it is a large cavern-like system of waterways. Rainwater slowly erodes the limestone, since it is now acidic, and we have spontaneously forming sinkholes. There is a huge and spectacular one in the woodlands near Gainesville called “The Devil’s Millhopper.” It is one of Florida’s scenic tourist traps, but without any cheap little trinkets being sold in shops there. It’s off in the woods and profoundly beautiful and quiet there, with strong wooden steps built so we can walk down in it. It is said to be over a thousand years old. There is a small stream that runs down through the bottom of it, which is probably some of the original groundwater of the aquifer.